I don’t know why some people have found it so difficult to understand that it’s a bad idea, but I keep seeing people trying to promote Christianity as a solution to European problems over and over again, so I’ve decided to make a quick Q&A style article which should serve to explain why it is a really bad idea. This article covers some of the most commonly asked questions, and may expand later if I notice other questions trending.

So without further ado, let’s get to it.

Q: Europeans need Christianity as a cultural glue to hold them together, don’t they?

A: Can anyone name any Christian institution in the present day, that is actually against inviting those Arabs and Africans into Europe at the slightest excuse, if they were labelled as ‘refugees’?

There literally are none. 100% of mainstream Christian institutions in Europe right now are in favour of ‘refugees welcome’, and are actively lobbying in favour of open door policies while collecting grant money to provide services to ‘refugees’ and ‘economic migrants’ alike.

Q: Tricky Neo-Marxists have taken over the churches, it’s not the fault of the churches!

A: If the village church is controlled by the ideological enemy, then the thing which you absolutely should not do is encourage young people to join that same institution. Especially if they weren’t much involved in it in the first place. Instead, you should conduct non-stop Information Operations against those institutions, right up to and including black propaganda and grey propaganda.

You should not funnel people toward organisations that are completely controlled by the enemy.

Any attempt to funnel young Europeans into church institutions is:

• a.) A lot of ridiculously hard work, which would hilariously help our enemies, given that the enemy controls those institutions, and
• b.) Demoralising for everyone, because it is literally manufacturing a division where it did not need to exist, and allowing the enemy to have preferential access to the ears of the people we are trying to talk to. Why on earth should anyone want to willingly afford the church clergy the opportunity to compete with us for the ears of young people? No one should want to ever afford them that opportunity.

You should instead attack them and discredit them whenever and wherever you can. There are no pretty political words that can make it anything other than what it is. Church institutions are enemy institutions which must be opposed.

Also, the fact that Christianity is demonstrably a massive pack of lies, makes the task of opposing Christian institutions really easy. It’s pretty easy to do.

Q: I heard that the Russian Orthodox Church was okay with racial advocacy, isn’t that good?

A: The Russian Orthodox Church is a church which:

• a.) has a doctrine of ‘anti-phyletism’, which is basically anti-racism, and
• b.) is an ideological state apparatus (ISA) of the Russian Federation, a state which is openly hostile to Western Europe.

So, no, they are not okay with racial advocacy, they are just like all the others.

Q: Surely all the churches are not like this?

A: They certainly are.

Adrean Arlott wrote an article back in May 2013 in which he touched on this issue:

Compulsory Diversity News / Adrean Arlott, ‘Save us Jebus!’, 18 May 2013:

I have been debating Christianity’s lack of virtues today. I ask you this: Does Christianity do more to help or hurt White people? If we consider anti-racist to be code word for anti-White, then I vote it hurts White people.

Orthodox Church: (Source)
...we reject phyletism, that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness.

Catholic Church: (Source)
We begin with three facts. First, racism exists here; it is part of the American landscape. Second, racism is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Third, all baptized Catholics have a moral obligation to work toward the elimination of racism.

Episcopal Church: (Source)
Racism is totally inconsistent with the Gospel, therefore, must be confronted and eradicated. Basing its message on the baptismal covenant, the Bishops invited all baptized Christians to enter into a new covenant to fight racism and, “proclaim the vision of God’s new creation in which the dignity of every human being is honored.”

Baptist Church: (Source)
“We are all saddened when any sin, including the sin of racism, rears its head,” said Southern Baptist Convention spokesman Sing Oldham. “Part of our gospel is that we are being redeemed. We are flawed, failed creatures and redemption is a process.”

Westboro Baptist Church (Source)
...the Scripture doesn’t support racism. God never says “thou shalt not be black.” However, He does say, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22).

Mormon Church: (Source)
“The church’s position is clear,” LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy said. “We believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. For a time in the church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent,” Purdy said. “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Lutheran Church: (Source)
Racism is one of the most destructive sins in today’s world. It refuses to honor God’s mighty acts in creation, redemption, and sanctification. Racism simply does not trust the gospel. It builds on human pride and prejudice, abusing power for selfish advantage. Racism dishonors God, neighbor, and self. It rejects the meaning in God’s becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ, because in rejecting another person one rejects Jesus Christ.

Presbyterian Church: (Source)
The Dismantling Racism and Privilege Ministry Team assists the presbytery in its commitment to dismantle racism and privilege. Its purpose is to increase awareness and work toward the eradication of intentional and unintentional racism and privilege at critical decision points in the life of the presbytery, and to assist sessions and congregations in dismantling racism and privilege among our church constituency.

Methodist Church: (Source)
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United Methodist Church is focusing on racism and promoting diversity with more vigor than ever. It is actively promoting more inclusiveness and diversity in its institutions and leadership. One of its 14 churchwide agencies, the Commission on Religion and Race, focuses on those issues, and caucuses such as Black Methodists for Church Renewal and Methodists Associated Representing the Cause of Hispanic Americans also keep them in front of the church. Through programs such as Strengthening the Black Church for the 21st Century, the National Plan for Hispanic Ministries, the Council on Korean-American Ministries and the Native American Comprehensive Plan, the denomination is building up racial-ethnic congregations.

Pretty interesting, Adrean Arlott had done a good service to his readers when he pointed that out to them.

The fact that Arlott has drawn attention to this in the past, should provide even more of a context to how well-known and well-understood it is to ethno-nationalists, that Christian churches are not capable of being allies of ethno-nationalists and never will be. Even the most cynical political calculations could not bring anyone to the conclusion that organised Christianity could be utilised in the defence of anyone’s ethnic genetic interests (EGI).

It’s so bad in fact, that the Christian churches promote not only white genocide—not even metaphorically but literally—but also for the rest of the planet they offer nothing other than genocide either.

For example, plenty of church bodies espouse the position of mass mestizaje for Central Americans, thus advocating the continuation of the genocide against the native peoples of the Americas.

Here’s one example of that:

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, ‘Ethnic Specific and Multicultural Ministries - Latino’: (emphasis added)
We are a community that confesses its origin and identity in the creative, redemptive and sanctifying work of God. The great diversity that characterizes us is a process of continual biological and cultural “mestizaje,” and our unity is in Jesus Christ, who gathers us around word and water, wine and bread.

They are actually serious.

So really, in what world would anyone think that ethnic advocacy from ‘a Christian perspective’ could ever be possible? In what retarded world is ‘cultural Christianity’—which is to say, the idea of a political alliance between Christianity and ethno-nationalism—even a thing that could be worth considering for more than five seconds? It’s just completely ridiculous.

The real and actually-existing physical manifestation of Christianity is one which is intrinsically opposed to the existence of pretty much everyone’s ethnic groups. It’s not that Christianity somehow acquired an ethnicity-destroying agenda after the year 1968. It was already doing that from the start, it’s just that the ‘anti-racist’ cultural phenomenon that manifested in the west after 1968 offered Christianity the ability to express its full ‘anti-racist’ potential while uninhibited by secular interference.

Q: What if we don’t encourage people to join the institutions, but instead propagate the idea that people should just pretend to be a Christian and then never attend church?

A: If you go around plastering images of churches up everywhere and begin praising the supposed ‘2000 year civilisation’ that these institutions created and exhorting people to identify themselves and their prosperity with those ideas, isn’t it only to be expected that people might take it seriously?

If you stand on a stage and play the violin jauntily, do you not expect that the people will either: (a.) dance or (b.) leave the dance floor?

If you put out non-stop praise for Christianity, do you not expect that new people might either: (a.) join Christian institutions or (b.) depart from the scene?

Neither of those two responses would be conducive to our interests, so why should anyone put out that kind of messaging?

We should be promoting ethno-nationalism, not promoting Christianity, because Christianity is an ideology of the enemy, and on top of that it is an ideology held by very few of the target audience which are Europeans aged 16 to 35.

There is no reason why anyone should point new people in the direction of an ideology which is opposed to everything we stand for, and whose institutions are controlled by our enemies. It’s unreasonable to expect that if you are successful at getting people to accept Christian ideology, that they wouldn’t end up attending Christian churches and looking for Christian teachings from contemporary Christian teachers. That’s what religious converts do.

Q: But the evidence of 2000 years of civilisation and architecture is all around, how can people just ignore it? What are they supposed to have pride in? How else can a community be built? Christianity is a noble lie, and Europeans need to be lied to, don’t they?

A: Nobody cares. That narrative is basically devised as an attempt to get people to increase their respect for an ideology which pushes (a) operationally useless ideas, and also (b) ideas that blatantly contradict our agenda, all so that the people will support Christians in defending an abstract historiography about the supposed ‘pride’ of ‘2000 years’, a historiography which most young people don’t identify with or care about. The whole ‘pride of 2000 years’ narrative has no real connection with the people’s short-term concerns.

The best propaganda is that which is based on truth and which addresses the immediate concerns of the people. But the ‘noble’ liars are calling for pro-Christianity propaganda to be put out all over the place, even though they at the same time openly acknowledge in that same propaganda that they believe the core of that pro-Christianity propaganda to be based on total lies, because they acknowledge that Christianity is a lie. And it is indeed a lie.

So how does this even work? The ‘noble’ liars expect the target audience to believe propaganda which they themselves are openly admitting has no truth in it? They expect the average random person in the street to have the sophistication and capacity for psychological self-distancing to identify outwardly with Christian revival memes while cynically and consciously repudiating all of the content of Christian doctrine, and shunning all its institutions and authorities? They expect the flower girl at the florist’s shop to do something mentally sophisticated like that? They expect the cashier in the newsagents shop to do that? They expect someone who works the production line at a factory to wrap their heads around that?

That is completely impractical. If the noble ‘liars’ were to ever attempt some real activism they’d realise immediately how ridiculous it would be to go out and say:

‘Cultural Christians’ may as well be saying:

“I want you to convert to Christianity in order to save the European peoples by fostering a sense of ‘community’ on this basis, but I want you to also remember that it is all a lie which could be severely damaging to European peoples if you were to start actually believing it. We’re asking you to play 57-dimensional chess, where you will spend your whole life outwardly professing to believe something that we all know is a lie, while you are contradicting that supposed belief with every policy preference, and you also need to pass this subtle game onto your children, making sure that they fall neither into belief, nor into renunciation. We also need to make sure that no one ever points out that this is all a lie, even though we all know it is a lie. Also, don’t ever go to Church, just pretend to go. Can you do all that?”

Imagine the look on someone’s face if you asked them to do that, and portrayed it as a pre-requisite for ‘saving Europe’. It’s a really ridiculous idea which has no mass appeal whatsoever, and is completely infeasible. It’s not even edgy. It’s just ridiculous.

Q: You anti-Christians are really divisive! Aren’t you just complaining and causing division among ethno-nationalists?

A: No. Using the United Kingdom as an example, the anti-Christian narrative appeals to the fastest growing element of the landscape, people whose religion is listed as “None”, and this section comprises a majority of the people under the age of 54.

The pro-Christians on the other hand are appealing to a shrinking demography of people who will be dead within the next decade and a half. And then they get upset when they are told that what they are doing is mentally retarded. People who are placing all of their bets on the red section of the religious affiliation by age group table depicted above, are people who simply do not understand politics.

Q: People shouldn’t just lazily follow trends, you should stand athwart history and yell “Stop!”, shouldn’t you?

A: There is no good reason for why any ethno-nationalist should want to reverse the trend depicted in the tables shown in the previous section. Christianity is a liability, and Christianity’s fall into irrelevance is just one less liability that you’ll have to deal with. Well, it would be one less liability if you would just let it go.

As I said about Abrahamic monotheists, such as the Christians, in September 2015:

Majorityrights.com / Kumiko Oumae, ‘Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.’, 10 Sep 2015:

[...] [Abrahamic monotheists] set human beings against their own senses and against their own intuition by emphasising a false distinction between mind and body. They created a separation between the people and the land that they evolved on. They were not the only ones to attempt this, but particularly in Europe and the Near East, it is impossible to talk about this issue without actually pointing out that Abrahamic religion is a central factor to the process of the alienation of people from themselves and their dispossession from their own land.

The Christian church twisted the minds of the European peoples, turning the mechanisms of their own survival instincts against themselves. Islam also did the same from without, it attacked people for the sake of accomplishing the same purposes, and these are essentially the same phenomenon, all branching from Judaism. All the expressions of Middle Eastern monotheism spring up in the physical world [as a product of] the after-effects of a desertification event that occurred in the Middle East and North Africa about 4000 years ago, an event which a priestly class seized upon so as to cement their control. Those population groups then tried by every means possible, to impose their warped social institutions and practices onto the neighbouring populations.

Europeans struggled, for centuries, to succeed at living fulfilling lives not because of Christianity, but rather, despite Christianity. [...]

What should be done, then?

Well, as I concluded in that same article:

Majorityrights.com / Kumiko Oumae, ‘Dear monotheists: We will attack your semitic god. By what method? By all methods.’, 10 Sep 2015: (emphasis added)

[...]

People should also be encouraged to show the viability and vitality of a new Europe, through their support for parallel civic organisations that strengthen national bonds of blood and proximity. These social organisations would be like a great constellation of stars shining like a thousand points of light over the continent, engaged in world service. By doing so, it would show that it is possible to run Europe without Christianity, without Islam, and without Judaism.

Through that kind of approach, we would be fighting the war domestically, fighting the war overseas, and also fighting the war in the world we cannot see. If we are successful at creating that environment—and we will be—I think there will be a definite chance for a new Europe to emerge.

Click the image for a video of Bill Clinton presenting his usual stump on behalf of Hillary to a synagogue audience in Illinois.

The “inclusive, inclusive, inclusive” bit was frightening in the 1990s, when he was running for President, because “inclusive” can be a good concept when applied within a legitimate classification; and at the time there was more chance that it could have been honestly mistaken as if that’s what he meant; and not heard as what he actually means, which is the Jewish “inclusive” - a hyper-liberal inclusiveness that would include everybody [and he does emphasize everybody] - people formerly from without of a racial classification and formerly outside of the nation. This paradoxical “inclusiveness” would ultimately dissolve the classification, the nation, the people, the tribe altogether - viz., it would dissolve the very thing to be included-in.

It would dissolved to a vague catch-all category of undifferentiated gentile others; while one tribe would maintain its distinction, of course.

In 2016 it sounds less frightening than totally absurd given the floods of immigration into The U.S. and Europe. This audience in the synagogue reacts only with applause either because they are completely blind to the fact that they are being herded, thinking that they can maintain their Jewish sanctioned activist distinctions indefinitely, or because they are in on the joke.

Their biggest applause are reserved for when Bill says that what he is most proud of is that Hillary distinguishes herself from the other candidates by more fervently denouncing prejudice against Muslim Americans (following the Noachide laws apparently being good enough to qualify people for inclusion as Americans). Bill concludes by rubbing his hands together with the audience over the prospect (given Scalia’s death) of Hillary putting through another “Justice” just as good as the one that he put on the Court -

Bill literally wept before America, so moved as he was when his nominee had ascended to The Supreme Court.

     
(Doug Mills/Associated Press)

Among Chief Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first statements was to maintain her long standing conviction as a “civil rights” advocate that nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of immutable characteristics.

European peoples, the time for being alarmed or despairing over this has long since passed. The neo-liberal complicity with the Jewish notion of “including ‘marginals” is, as I have said in several places, a paradoxical notion of “inclusion” that they have put together with an inverted notion of “marginals” - a notion of “marginals” by which they mean not marginals, as that would imply those who are just within our boundaries but being pushed to the side and ultimately outside - they mean rather taking in those from without.

With the flooding incursion of migrants and the chutzpah of this inclusion rhetoric absurdly unabated, it is time to see all of this for what it is and to organize as Whites/Native Europeans - maintaining our important distinctions and bounds as they provide accountability and serve our human ecologies, sure; but recognizing that we must coordinate our defense with overall organization as European peoples.

We are under attack for that reason in essence, no matter where or what we might take recourse to in lieu of defending ourselves on that basis. Wherever we are, we are in need of a union, unions and coordination of defense based on our most precious and essential bond - that is our DNA.

Europeans can no longer afford to tarry uncritically with those who would proceed with the modernist bastard child that is universal principles and rights, nor cater to those who would attempt to “save us” with neo-traditional re-organizations under the anachronistic rubric and poison rule structures of “Christendom.”

These aren’t surrogates for our DNA and biology - in lieu of that rather, they are midwives to the birthing of pan-mixia and our genocide.

Picture a cartoon illustration here that I had to take down due to EU law. Its title reads “Jews, Musilims, Christians.” Beneath that title it shows the identical happy self hand clasping merchant three times - their only being dressed differently and having slightly different skin tone - the obvious implication being that there is no important difference. There is a sarcastic sub-title: “know the difference, it could save your nation” and a conclusive line, “Semitic Religion, not even once.” Which is the same as saying, Abrahamic religion, not even once.

The time has also passed to be surprised or despair at how the all too kosher Merkel will act quite similarly with regard to our borders on the European end, and how the Noachide sheep will react to those who would oppose her - marking little difference between Europeans in America or here in Europe, as they continue to operate under the same neo-liberal rule structures and Noachide law. The time is now to wrest and forge our rule structure anew in organization and activism of the White Class.

 
It was this bartender’s first year at McSorley’s the first time that I went there some years ago when I was 18. It was perhaps the first time that I drank so many beers. I suppose he could have thrown me out when I started running around the place euphoric on hops as I was, but he merely told me to calm down. He was also there again my last time there (2007, I guess it was). On that occasion a TV talk show crew came in with a lesbian couple (black woman and White woman) who were asking men’s opinion as to whether the White girl should get breast implants since she thought that would please her black girlfriend. I was asked my opinion by the production crew. I answered that in particular, “I rather like flat chested women, so my opinion is particularly biased against breast implants for that reason for starters; but there were more reasons to be against it than that; including as part of a more general stance against bodily alteration - I stated that I believe that given that our bodies have evolved over tens of thousands of years, that they are bound to be wiser, smarter if you will, than our conscious decision making and should be given the benefit of the doubt against our anxieties and against popular consensus; rather, we should try to learn what our bodies have to teach us about our interface with the social ecology and bring our corporeality to bear in social critique if necessary, rather than the other way around - bending to what may well be a popular fad against the better wisdom of our evolution.” I was told by the couple that my answer was good and they asked me to sign a release; but the bartender, yes that one, asked, “what was that ‘stuff’ you were saying?  ...I don’t think that was what the TV producers were looking for.” I suppose that he was right and that my opinion was not aired.

     
Interracial lesbians wanting to air-out the matter of breast implants at McSorley’s? Heck, women were not even allowed in the pub until it was forced to allow them in 1970 when the NOW attorneys Faith Seidenberg and Karen DeCrow won a discrimination suit against them.

That is among the benchmarks of what is, by American standards, a historical bar, patronized also by the famous: well circulated writers drank there; famous athletes drank there - e.g. in the movie, “Pride of The Yankees”, the legendary Babe Ruth announced to all of the Yankees that he was buying rounds for the team at McSorley’s after the game - many things can be said about the demographic that has gotten sloshed while noshing onions, mustard and cheese by the potbelly stove and saw-dust strewn floor; but aside from a few infamous luminaries - U.S. Presidents have drunk there as well, ranging from racial rogues the likes of Lincoln to Kennedy - the rank and file attendees have not been the kind of demographic responsible for crime in NYC.

The folks down at McSorley’s aren’t committing the crime in N.Y.C.

But was “The New York Times” going to tell you that?..

READ MORE...

Jesus said, “I give to you this cracker, so that future generations will remember that I looked Hu-white to you.”

The rollercoaster won’t stop

No matter how much you might want to get off of this rollercoaster, by some twist of fate it just never seems to end. Here’s the latest development that Christians are bringing from (((Jesus of Nazareth’s))) mouth to your ears.

Jim Wallis, the founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners, thinks that Christianity has not done enough yet to destroy Europeans physically and psychologically, and so he has some advice which is sure to make you want to kill yourself:

The Oregonian, ‘White Christians need to repent for systemic racism, author says’, 17 Feb 2016:

Wallis is president and founder of the Christian magazine Sojourners and has served President Barack Obama as a spiritual advisor. He has authored 12 books as well as columns for The New York Times and The Washington Post.

His newest book, “America’s Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America,” is an indictment of white Christian apathy and inaction towards systemic racism.

“The political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem,” he writes.

Modern white Christians might not own slaves or even all walk to the other side of the street to avoid passing a young black man, but they do benefit from white privilege, he said, whether they’re aware of it or not.

“To benefit from oppression is to be responsible for changing it,” he writes.

Wallis will be in Portland early next week as part of his book tour, which he’s turned into a series of town halls by inviting faith leaders in each city to join him for a public conversation about racism. Wallis and local pastor Leroy Barber will speak at Powell’s City of Books at 7:30 p.m. Feb. 22.

Ahead of his visit, we talked to Wallis about a few major issues raised in the book. His responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Q: You argue that racism – not just personal feelings of hate, but allowance of systematic injustice – results from problematic theology. What theological misconception do you identify at the core of modern white churches that are apathetic or inactive with regards to race?

A: In Galatians, 3:28, it says there is no Jew or gentile, slave or free, male or female – we’re all one in Christ Jesus. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it we’re supposed to do. Martin Luther King Jr. called people of God the “beloved community.” We’re supposed to be the ones who are demonstrating a diverse “beloved community.” Our theology is supposed to trump our sociology.

If you don’t want to do that, you’d better go somewhere else. This community is all about braking down those barriers. If churches are just silos of people like each other, we’re really not doing what it was supposed to do.

[...]

Q: You call on white Christians to “die to whiteness,” saying that “whiteness” is an idol that separates white Christians from God. What does “dying to whiteness” mean?

A: Whiteness is a myth. Race was created as a social construct to justify oppression. How do we get our souls back? It’s an idolatry, really. Idols separate us from God.

Dying to whiteness means to be aware of white privilege. For example, I tell a story in the book about being a little league coach. Parents of my black players had to have “the talk” with their kids, and my white parents were clueless. It’s unacceptable that my kids’ classmates and teammates had to be told they couldn’t trust their law enforcement officers. That’s a problem for me and white parents, not just black parents.

[...]

Yes, you read that correctly, it says ‘dying to whiteness’. Really. This is a thing now.

‘Dying to whiteness’ is when white people decide not to recognise the existence of their own ethnic group, and as such become ontologically incapable of enunciating ideas about the defence of that ethnic group.

You can’t defend a thing that you don’t recognise as existing.

If this isn’t ‘white genocide’ then I don’t know what is. Given the present situation, how anyone anywhere could even be considering calling for more Europeans to join these institutions is something that is simply baffling to consider.

The rollercoaster continues rolling for its own sake

A lot of pro-Christians who like to fancy themselves as ethno-nationalists, tend to respond to this sort of article by trying desperately to trace out the history of a supposedly militant Christianity that once-upon-a-time defended the integrity of European ethnic groups. They seem to believe these legends are a suitable rebuttal to the reality which is playing out right in front of them today.

But history will not let them retreat into legends from the classical age. All of this must be understood as a process. Understanding the dialectic of structure and history will enable people to understand how the position of Christian institutions only seemed to move, but in fact they maintained an ‘immobile motion’ which kept them firmly in their place.

What do I mean by this?

The first priority of any expansionist ideological institution that operates on a subscription basis, is to fund itself and expand the number of people who are subscribing to its memes where possible. The second priority of such an institution is to manoeuvre itself in the market, so that it can comfortably keep ahead of global demographic trends.

The rollercoaster doesn’t care about you

In the past era, Christianity appeared to care about the fate of European societies and the cohesiveness of European population groups, because Europeans were the only societies that were furnishing soldiers which were willing to fight to perpetuate the existence of the church institutions, or to give such institutions access to more territories to recruit followers from, or to take populations away from doctrinal rivals, and so on.

As a testament to the success of that strategy, the main church institutions were able to survive into the modern era, and Christianity grew as a religion by following Europeans wherever they went on the planet.

In the present era, Christianity no longer has to care about the fate of European societies or the cohesiveness of European population groups, because the Christian institutions don’t actually need to parasitically extract wealth from European societies in order to exist anymore. They now have the prospect of taking advantage of the single fastest-growing demographic in the entire world, Africa. Africans are more willing to accept the Christian memes than anyone else is, and as such and an almost guaranteed revenue source for Christian institutions.

The fact that Christianity has within these last 100 years freed itself from the shackles of having to care about Europeans at all in any sense, is not a distortion of Christianity, but rather, the logical end result that it had always striven for. If the past era could be understood as a ‘Northern and Central European compromise’ which occurred after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and the loss of the food-basket territories of Egypt and Syria, the present era could be recognised as the fulfilment of the success of that compromise, since Christianity can now ‘go global’ once again and break that compromise, and it is doing so with gusto.

The accumulation of capital from land ownership, financial holdings, relationships with prosperous Northern and Central European states, and so on, is now being reinvested by Christian institutions into a full drive toward carrying out the actions necessary to position themselves to take advantage of the growing populations in Africa and other areas in the periphery.

Their number one priority did not change. It only seemed to change in the eyes of some people, and the only people who are perceiving a ‘change’, are those Europeans who in some kind of fatal conceit started to think that Christianity was somehow about them.

In fact, back then, Christianity was about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions. Now in the present day, Christianity is about the survival of Christianity and maintaining or expanding the wealth of its institutions.

See? No change.

Newsflash, Europeans: Christianity is not about you. It was never about you. Christianity is about perpetuating its own existence. It doesn’t care about you, and it never did. It is a religion that (((originated))) in the Middle East and Africa, and it is there to which it will demographically return. That Christian institutions are now pushing anti-racialist memes more fervently than they ever have before, is something which is simply inherent in the logic of events.

It ought to be like this, but unfortunately liberals refused to let it be.

The word no longer has a meaning

One of the most remarkable aspects of the migration wave that is presently sweeping over Europe, is how organised liberal-feminism has basically acted as an extension of the government, advocating precisely what the wealthiest male stakeholders in the liberal-capitalist state would like them to advocate. The demography of the migrant flow is 70% male between ages 18 and 35, and the percentage of males rises to 90% when the age range of 16 to 17 years old alone is considered.

With liberal-feminist theorists and commentators in Europe now devoting themselves almost exclusively to the defence of Arab and African men, some people are beginning to ask how it could have ever been possible for things to have reached this point.

If we start with the consideration that incidents of violent crime, homicide, and sexual assault are statistically being committed overwhelmingly by men, and if we consider that feminism has been highlighting and talking about these statistics for as long as it has existed as a movement, why has this been completely forgotten now? Why is it that talking about the violent and anti-social tendencies of men has now been condemned as ‘prejudice’, where it was never condemned as such before?

It stands to reason that if men in general are a hazardous demographic, that the last thing any reasonable feminist would want to do is to set about inviting more men into a region that they are living in. What makes it even more of an absurd trend, is that the particular men who are being invited into Europe subscribe to social views which are magnitudes worse than the views held by European men. If young European men are a problem demographic, and they indeed are, then wait until you see young Arab and African men!

Some have advanced the absolutely bewildering argument that since there are already trouble-causing men in Europe, there should be no problem inviting millions more men into the continent. This makes no sense. Why would anyone want to increase the amount of a problem that already exists?

There seems to be no rationale until you realise that big business, specifically manufacturing, always wants more migration of ‘strong’ workers. And manufacturing essentially controls the German state, which forms the centre of this trend. European feminism has found itself acting as the cheerleaders for the most retrograde liberal economic policy preferences of German manufacturers and their Jewish-German financiers.

Given that feminism is a movement that originated not as a liberal movement, but rather, as a socialistic movement—which is to say, a movement which correctly perceived the liberal state as being a male-dominated capitalist assault vehicle against women and as such was opposed to the liberal state—it is quite a distance that has been travelled since the mid-1970s to get to the destructive pro-liberal capitalist position it is in now. There are important lessons to be learned on why this deformation happened and how to prevent such a deformation from happening again in the future.

READ MORE...

“The Poznan Institute” - A Middle Eastern Attempt to Defraud European Identity and Birthright of Genetic Capital
        ...by Promoting R Selection Tactics for Foreign Interlopers Under the Banner of European Identity.

As follow up to Kumiko’s and my own articles prompted by disputes in regard to Roosh V’s interloping on Ethno-national turf, I was compelled to look a bit more carefully upon “The Gamers/ P.U.A.” infiltration of the Alternative Right Tentosphere. But I only had to look a small bit more carefully to be confronted very close to home by its facilitation of R selection strategies in these K selection habitats.

The reason I had not become immediately aware of the attack on this front, so close to home, is that I am not particularly interested in “Game” and “P.U.A.” I have learned about myself and my nature through my dating experience and reflection thereupon that there are important differences in my motives as opposed to what is being promoted in what might be called popular philosophy - such as P.U.A. My point in “dating around” wasn’t at all to screw as many women as possible - quite the opposite. What did I know about them? I cared whether they cared about themselves, their people and I, of course. Thus, while I might have been “intellectually promiscuous” in order to get and give feedback surrounding the well-being of our people and culture, it was not remotely my goal to merely go through women’s defenses in order to discard them and cultural differences. Again, quite the opposite, it was more my motive to help them build-up defenses for their sake and ours as Europeans. I was intellectually promiscuous but otherwise careful because where I sought a partner, it was to be - a - partner who was appropriate to me and thought very much like me - as an ethnonationalist. In regard to the other women that I dated along the way, the primary objective was talking - that is, achieving political alignment to what would now commonly be called ethno-nationalist terms. And with that, I was acting in accordance with my European evolution as a K Selector. That is in marked contrast to Roosh V. and the R selection strategies that he is promoting.

So far removed from European mentality is Roosh V. that he was honestly surprised when a BBC interviewer responded that he “had not”, when Roosh asked, “haven’t you ever had sex with a woman who was drunk and asleep”? Roosh honestly presumed that the answer of his interlocutor would have been “yes, of course”, he’d done that.

By way of contrast, not only am I capable of sleeping - just sleeping - with a woman; but especially if I do not know her well, of course I’d prefer that, and to part ways as we might, on friendly terms rather than to screw around with someone whom I do not know.

 
In further distinction of a caring European mentality: Not only would I not even try to sleep with this woman - let alone take advantage - but I went so far as to defy her psychiatrist’s advice that she not have children and encouraged her to have this child with her husband.

Some object as Roosh himself objects to ask why people are making such a big deal about him, when there are these invaders and rapists all over Europe. Well, we do make a big deal about that as ethno-nationalists. However, as a common topic, he provides not only a ready illustration of their mentality, but also occasion to “make common” (etymology of communication) the understanding of it and the insidious means by which it would infiltrate. Witness now “The Poznan Institute.” Having moved on from the P.U.A. / Game angle of infiltrating White genetic pools, he presents himself as only more completely one of a universal “We” - “neo-masculinity and patriarchy” camouflaged under the rubric of an ancient European city.

Poznań was founded by Polanie, the tribe from whom Poland has its name. The word “Poznań” comes from the Polish phrase “to make acquaintance” - because legend had it that the original Polish man, “Lech”, the original Russian man, “Rus” and the original Czech man “Czech” met here, came to accord and then the latter two went on to establish their kingdoms in what are now their respective territories; while “Lech” nested in Gniezno (Polish for “nest”) next to Poznań - which was in fact, the first capital of Poland. A percentage of Germans eventually settled in Poznań as well, largely encouraged to help build the city. For reasons similar as The U.S., Poland was weakened by incorporating Enlightenment principles in its (second ever, after The U.S.) Constitution. This left it susceptible to the territorial aggrandizement of Friedrich The Great and the Partition which erased Polish existence from the map for 123 years - from the 1790’s to 1919 - when Józef Piłsudski led the Wielkopolska uprising to re-take Poznań on behalf of the Poles and the newly reforming Poland. It was audacious, it was brave, it was heroic, it was historically justified.

What fraction the man is Roosh V compared to Józef Piłsudski? How dare Roosh claim the name and the straight forward imagery of Poznań to drape himself - Roosh V - and his foreign agenda?

Roosh V. and his agenda are so alien and superficial to Native European interests that he was not on my radar. I was not interested.

Perhaps I should have noticed this long ago, but the truth is that until recently I had not paid much attention to Roosh. One commentator in a prior thread mentioned that he has presumed to situate himself in Poznań, Poland. Though I’d never seen him around, I had no reason to doubt it. When looking into the matter, not only did I find that he is in Poznań, but I was surprised to find just how comfortable Roosh intends to make himself in Poznań.

Middle Easterners apparently share with blacks a brazen presumptuousness to make themselves at home among other peoples and in other people’s homelands.

With that, he has this new “neo-masculinity” venue which he calls “The Poznan Institute”:

Of “The Poznan Institute”, he says:

Poznan Institute will serve as a reference archive for the neomasculinity platform, providing a central resource that explains the ideology in depth. Since neomasculine articles and videos are appearing in different locations across the internet, creating Poznan Institute ensures that none of those materials get lost with time.

First, a little background about some of the stuff that he intends to bring to Poznań and encourage among visitors here.

  These are some scenes that Roosh looks upon approvingly from bars in Virginia, USA.
       

Here is the kind of European gene pool that he hopes to seize upon. This one in Iceland.
       
  Pink dots signify targets.

Roosh V. has written several sex tourism and P.U.A. strategy guides. Bang Poland is one of them -

...she kept saying, “No, no.” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen. She tried to go down on me but her mouth was too small. [...] I put on a condom, lubed up, and finally got her consent to put it in. The best way to visualize our lovemaking is an elephant mounting a kitten. My dick was half the thickness of her neck. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

Moving on to The BBC story that finds him in Poznań -

In December, The BBC aired a feature about Roosh: “Men at War.” It starts by covering a Roosh seminar in England.

Mouth-big-enough talking to BBC interviewer prior to lecturing “a room full of men who are excited about what they are about to hear”.. [so too is The BBC excited and waiting with a big enough mouth].

 
BBC reporter taking interest from the genetic interest of BBC

One of the attendees describes the meeting as having “a broad spectrum in terms of race and background.”
......“look here” he says, “people are mixing together, and very few of them have met one another before.”

Next, in order to keep up with Roosh, the BBC have to track him down for an interview in Poznań, Poland:

The BBC flies there to find out what Roosh is up to…

On the basis of the BBC interview, here is what is discernible about Roosh’s living circumstances in Poznań.

“Roosh moved to Poznań a year ago”...

“..a small university town full of female students.”

He had scurried back from Canada after having been met with popular protest and official denunciation there. “I’ve been back for only about 5 days. I’m still recovering from the drama,” Roosh will go on to say in The BBC interview - which would place it in August, 2015..

 
BBC is in Hotel Puro, located at corner ul. Stawna, Żydowska, Wroniecka

ul. Żydowska is outside of the BBC’s hotel window

Before the BBC meets with Roosh,
“it’s time for a refresher course.”
 

“It took at least 30 repetitions of no, Roosh, no,
until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina….
no meas no until it means yes.”

A clip of Roosh’s is spliced in, as he narrates,
“I go to the supermarket to be a pervert,
to film that girl’s ass and another girl’s ass”..

Here the BBC is making his way from the hotel and down ul. Wroniecka

He moves through to the other side of the Old Market, directly across, at the end of ul. Wrocławska,
just a few minutes away..

Here the BBC is on ul Strzelecka, another few blocks beyond,
making his way to meet Roosh in his apartment nearby.

The very last moment of the BBC clip shows this scene,
which they apparently propose as the location of his apartment - ul. Kopernika

Here is what the BBC proposes to be a close-up location shot of his apartment

Google Maps confirmation of that place

 
Google image confirmation of the proposed location

What they propose to be his apartment street entrance should be that brown entranceway with the semi-circle top at the end of the street

READ MORE...

Straight at the target.

Greetings, pick-up artists, liberals, Islamic ragheads, and other ne’er-do-wells! This is your number one enemy, your favourite playmate, Kumiko Oumae at Majorityrights—the little sunbeam whose throat you’d like to cut! Get ready for another vicious assault on your morale, this is yet another article addressing the trials and travails of our friends—I mean, our enemies!—at Return of Kings dot com.

What happened?

For those who have been living under a rock or who have been too busy to keep up with everything that has been happening over the past few weeks, the tantrum over at Return of Kings began with a single flashpoint that occurred on the night of 03 Feb 2016:

Roosh.com, ‘ANNOUNCEMENT: The Meetup On February 6 Is Cancelled’, 03 Feb 2016:

I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time. While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologize to all the supporters who are let down by my decision.

This should be forever known as the Night of the Plastic Sporks, because it’s funny, and because no one even needed a knife to bring Roosh’s ridiculous plans grinding to a halt. Whatever the threat was, remains unknown, but the Roosh camp seized on the opportunity to cancel everything and present themselves as the most forlorn and victimised people in the whole world.

The world loves a good victim, and so it was on 03 Feb 2016 that the pick-up artists at Return of Kings began their pathetic ‘lose to win’ strategy in the hopes that they could reconcile themselves to an ethno-nationalist movement that had been growing tired of them and had always despised them behind closed doors. They assumed that if they could find some SJWs and western liberal-feminists, trip dramtically over them, and then throw themselves down on the floor like a footballer who is faking having been foul-tackled, that ethno-nationalists would say, “Look, SJWs are abusing Roosh, let’s defend Roosh!”

No. Instead, we all said, “Good. Let them finally fall there and perish. They deserve each other.”

The cavalry is not coming, and it will never come, because ethno-nationalists are not Roosh’s cavalry. There are structural reasons for why we are all driving our rhetorical knives, or sporks, or whatever into the backs of pick-up artists right now. Many of us were simply waiting for Roosh to stumble so that we could push him right off the stage and be rid of him. I have talked to a number of old hands among European and American ethno-nationalism, and whenever I asked about what people thought of Roosh V, I could find hardly anyone who liked him.

As such, I was absolutely not surprised when the whole of the ethno-nationalist circle on the internet came out to begin condemning Roosh for his pro-rape comments and for his attempts to sneak an Islamic values system into European ethno-nationalism via the back door.

One of the most notable websites which sided against Roosh was Counter-Currents, and I’ll quote some portions of Greg Johnson’s article there:

Counter-Currents / Greg Johnson, ‘Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth)’, 11 Feb 2016:

[...]

Roosh faces a dilemma here, and the reporterette knows it. If he is telling the truth, he raped the girl. (It is rape in Iceland too.) And if “macho sex writing” just means Penthouse Letters-style fiction, then it casts doubt on the veracity of all of his sex travelogues, which function as testimonials to his pickup artistry. In short, Roosh is either a rapist or a fraud.

But even if Roosh is a fraud, he is no mere fraud. He is a fraud with a large audience that regards him as a role model. Even if he never raped anyone, one day one of his followers will. Does anyone seriously doubt that somewhere in the world, a woman has been (or will be) raped because of what some pussy nerd read in a book by Roosh V? I’d bet money on it. And not even Roosh’s most ardent supporters would take that bet. So it is not just feminist hysteria to describe Roosh as a rape advocate.

Roosh also argues that since no woman has accused him of rape, he has never raped anyone. But how do we even know that no charges have been filed against him? How would Roosh even know? Roosh was just a sex-tourist; he was just passing through; he could have used a false name or no name at all. There are probably quite a lot of Middle Eastern-looking John Does in open rape cases all over Europe, and it is only getting worse.

[...]

I cheered Roosh when he asked reporters why they are going after him while covering up mass rapes by Muslims in Europe. All Roosh would have to do is convert to Islam and show up in a track suit, and feminists would shut their mouths and spread their legs.

But the hypocrisy charge cuts both ways: how can White Nationalists decry the mass rape and sexual exploitation of white women by Middle-Eastern men but stand in solidarity with Roosh V?

How can White Nationalists extol Eastern Europe as the most racially and culturally healthy part of the white world and condone the kind of man who treats it as a cheap brothel?

How can we stand in solidarity with Polish nationalists against Middle Eastern rapefugees and defend the author of Bang Poland?

[...]

Greg Johnson should be applauded for this article, he just wins and keeps on winning.

What Greg Johnson has done there is that he has found the fault-line, the glaring fault-line which has been there all along and he’s translated it into the clearest words imaginable.

There is an inherent contradiction between:

• [1]ethno-nationalists advocating for the defence of discrete geographical breeding groups and their dominance over a civic space on the one hand, and
• [2]on the other hand, neo-masculinists calling for a kind of world-wide brotherhood of greasy men who yearn for mass mestizaje and the exploitation of women.

These two things are indeed irreconcilable. Universal solidarity among men without preconditions or limits is impossible for ethno-nationalists who care about the ties of blood and ethnicity for the same exact reason that universal solidarity among women without preconditions or limits is also impossible in an ethno-nationalist context.

There was one line that Greg Johnson included that I thought was pretty funny though:

Counter-Currents / Greg Johnson, ‘Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth)’, 11 Feb 2016:

[...] The manosphere is part of the larger reactosphere. It performs an important red-pilling function on human biodiversity. And it shares a border with White Nationalism that is as long and porous and the US border with Mexico. [...]

I think he’s being a bit too charitable to Roosh in that instance. At risk of sounding like Donald J. Trump, I have to partially agree in that yes, Return of Kings dot com is like Juarez, Mexico. And yes, the border is porous.

That’s precisely why they have to go. And it’s also precisely why there needs to be a wall. And not just between them and white nationalism, but between them and any kind of ethno-nationalism.

I’m sure that Greg Johnson would agree with me on that, especially in light of how Roosh has chosen to respond to his article.

The Reality is Confirmed

Eventually Roosh was sure to make a response, and that response has come. I’ll cut his respose up into parts and give some commentary of my own along with it. Now, we at Majorityrights are not part of the Alt-Right, but we are ethno-nationalists.

When Roosh refers to ‘Alt-Right’ he seems to actually mean ethno-nationalists as a whole, and not just the Alt-Right, so I will treat his comments as though he is discussing all of ethno-nationalism, and not just that one segment of it:

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, ‘The Alt Right Is Worse Than Feminism In Attempting To Control Male Sexual Behavior’, 22 Feb 2016:

For a flash of 2015, they offered new ideas that could serve as a counterweight to liberalism and social justice, [...]

Actually, the beast reawakened in the early 1960s. It’s not going away.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

[...] but unfortunately a large section of it has degenerated into a collection of fearful beta males [...]

Yes, this is the all-consuming question, the question which is also being asked by Roosh’s friend Matt Forney. Matt Forney alleges that the Alternative Right got cucked, and that somehow women are to blame. But who are the beta-cucks in this situation, really? Who are the sad, whimpering little boys who are prepping the bull’s dick and giving the bull money and encouraging the bull to fuck its way across their countries? And who is the bull?

Let’s check with Roosh himself to find out:

Man, it must INFURIATE the alt right that me and my followers are sexing the same white women they're trying to save. ??

— Roosh (@rooshv) January 17, 2016

Roosh and his non-white supporters are actually the bulls who are being prepped. All of Roosh’s white supporters are in fact the very definition of beta-cucks.

Roosh’s white supporters aren’t able to succeed at basic sex-friend relationships with the women that they meet on a Friday night, and so they are compelled to buy Roosh’s books so that he can teach them how to finally get a woman to actually have sex with them or, alternately, how to become a rapist.

Meanwhile, Roosh takes their money and uses it to go around advocating mass mestizaje and pick-up artistry, so that sex tourists can take advantage of the women in various European countries. Roosh then gloats about this state of affairs on twitter in the middle of the Rapefugee crisis and Roosh’s cucked followers then angrily demand that everyone should stand with Roosh.

It’s pretty simple, once you take into account what the definition of the term ‘beta-cuck’ is.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

What went wrong?

Plenty of things went wrong, but opposing Roosh Valizadeh was not one of them.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right has begun doing what they wanted to do all along: control the sexual choices of men.

Le gasp. Imagine, a world where societies impose some kind of guidelines or limits on sexual behaviour, limits which actually apply to men as well as to women. What kind of society would want to limit the number of instances of mestizaje where possible, can anyone think of what the word for that society might be? Oh, ethno-nationalist, that’s right.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

If you’re a white male, you’re forbidden to sleep with a non-white girl, because that is “race mixing” and goes against their race platform, even though the white race was certainly produced as a result of pre-historic race mixing.

Amazing. It’s almost like Roosh got lost on his way to an anti-racism convention.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right has gone from a possible political alternative to a frustrated mob that wants to control the sexual choices of all men. With whom have we encountered that before?

Feminism.

We’ve also encountered it with ethno-nationalism. Because, you know, in order for an ethnic group to survive, it has to exalt its own existence and not go around openly promoting mass mestizaje as a meritorious ‘accomplishment’.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

Johnson was applauded by the alt right for taking such a brave stand against an ex-player, while his adventures in AIDS-causing anal sex are hushed up and ignored in what is supposed to be a traditional movement. It turns out that homosexuals have some sort of perverse immunity in the alt right.

A person doesn’t have to be a traditionalist in order to be an ethno-nationalist, but a person does have to advocate ethno-nationalism in order to be an ethno-nationalist. That’s the key difference between Roosh Valizadeh and Greg Johnson.

Greg Johnson is an ethno-nationalist. Roosh Valizadeh is not.

This controversy was never about ‘traditional values’. Nor should it have been.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

They’ll go on and on about the Jewish question—and attack you if you don’t—but ignore discussion of the “homosexual question” and its role in wrecking societies. Now you know why.

Roosh asks ‘why?’ Could it be because on one hand Jewish interests are diametrically opposed to the maintenance of all ethnic groups other than their own, whereas homosexuality on the other hand is a side issue of no negative consequence which Roosh is trying to distract people with?

The demagoguery of the centre-right ‘neo-masculinists’ cannot conceal their traitorous countenance. Centre-right liberals have been playing a honky-tonk piano with two well-worn keys labelled ‘homosexuals!’ and ‘abortions!’, for the past three decades in a frantic effort to distract everyone from the central issue of racial advocacy, and when Roosh does this it only further satisfies the heuristics of treachery.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

I didn’t write a dozen books and hundreds of articles preaching on the sanctity of masculinity to help a movement that attempts to redefine consensual sex along the dystopian standard of the left while crushing the choices that men want to make, especially since race is not even close to being a defining factor for men looking for a suitable partner.

Retarded and wrong. A twitter poll is not even scientific, and Roosh’s poll is based on a small cross-section of his own centre-right mass-mestizaje-promoting followers, who in the absence of a racial preference would of course ‘make up for it’ by becoming interested in more carefully scrutinising the personality of their partner.

Roosh’s followers are not typical of human behaviour as a whole, and they are in fact in the minority.

See here:

J. Philippe Rushton, ‘Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory’, Nations and Nationalism 11 (4), 2005, 489–507: (emphasis added)

Genetic Similarity Theory

In 1984, the current author, along with Robin Russell and Pamela Wells, began to apply the Hamiltonian perspective to human dyads, small groups and even larger national and international entities (Rushton et al. 1984; Rushton 1986, 1989a, 2004; Rushton and Bons 2005). We dubbed our approach ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ and reasoned that if genes produced effects that allowed bearers to recognise and favour each other, then altruistic behaviour could evolve well beyond ‘kin selection’. By matching across the entire genome, people can maximise their inclusive fitness by marrying others similar to themselves, and like, make friends with and help the most similar of their neighbours, as well as engage in ethnic nepotism. As the English language makes clear, ‘likeness goes with liking’.

Social-assortment studies

Of all the decisions people make that affect their environment, choosing friends and spouses are among the most important. Genetic Similarity Theory was first applied to assortative mating, which kin-selection theory sensu stricto does not readily explain since individuals seldom mate with ‘kin’. Yet, the evidence for assortative mating is pervasive in other animals as well as in
humans. For humans, both spouses and best friends are most similar on socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity and educational level (r = 0.60), next most on opinions and attitudes (r = 0.50), then on cognitive ability (r = 0.40), and least, but still significantly, on personality (r = 0.20) and physical traits (r = 0.20).

Even marrying across ethnic lines ‘proves the rule’. In Hawaii, men and women who married cross-ethnically were more similar in personality than those marrying within their group, suggesting that couples ‘make up’ for ethnic dissimilarity by choosing spouses more similar to themselves in other respects (Ahern et al. 1981).

[...]

Several twin and adoption studies show that the preference for genetic similarity is heritable, that is, people are genetically inclined to prefer similar partners. In one of these studies, Rowe and Osgood (1984) analysed data on delinquency from several hundred adolescent monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs, who share one hundred per cent of their genes, and dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs, who share fifty per cent of their genes. They found that adolescents genetically inclined to delinquency were also genetically inclined to seek out similar others as friends. Dovetailing with these results, Daniels and Plomin (1985) examined friendships in several hundred pairs of siblings from both adoptive and non-adoptive homes, and found that whereas biological siblings (who share genes as well as environments) had friends who resembled each other, adoptive siblings (who share only their environment) had friends who were not at all similar to each other. These results show that shared genes lead to similar friends.

[...]

Women prefer the bodily scents of men with genes similar to their own more than they do those of men with nearly identical genes or genes totally dissimilar to their own (Jacob et al. 2002). Each woman’s choice was based upon the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene sequence – the basis for personal odours and olfactory preferences – inherited from her father but not her mother. Another study found that both men and women rated versions of their own face as the most attractive after they had been computer-morphed into faces of the opposite-sex, even though they did not recognise the photos as images of themselves (Penton-Voak et al. 1999). Similarly, people whose faces were morphed with strange faces trusted others most when they looked like themselves (DeBruine 2002). Familiarity was ruled out by using morphs of celebrities; only self-resemblance mattered.

[...]

Even very young children typically show a clear preference for others of their own ethnic heritage (Aboud 1988). In fact, the process of making racial groupings has been shown to result from a natural tendency to classify people into ‘kinds’. Children quickly begin to sort people into ‘basic kinds’ by sex, age, size and occupation. Experiments show that at an early age children clearly expect race to run in families (Hirschfield 1996). Very early in life, a child knows which race it belongs to, and which ones it doesn’t.

[...]

People can be predicted to adopt ideologies that work in their genetic self-interest. Examples of ideologies that have been shown, on analysis, to increase genetic fitness are religious beliefs that regulate dietary habits, sexual practices, marital customs, infant care and child rearing (Lumsden and Wilson 1981). Amerindian tribes that cooked maize with alkali had higher population densities and more complex social organisations than tribes that did not, partly because alkali releases the most nutritious parts of the cereal, enabling more people to grow to reproductive maturity. The Amerindians did not know the biochemical reasons for the benefits of alkali cooking but their cultural beliefs had evolved for good reason, enabling them to replicate their genes more effectively than would otherwise have been the case.

[...]

The hypothesis presented here is that because fellow ethnics carry copies of the same genes, ethnic consciousness is rooted in the biology of altruism and mutual reciprocity. Thus ethnic nationalism, xenophobia and genocide can become the ‘dark side’ of altruism. Moreover, shared genes can govern the degree to which an ideology is adopted (e.g. Rushton 1986 and 1989a). Some genes will replicate better in some cultures than in others. Religious, political and class conflicts become heated because they affect genetic fitness. Karl Marx did not take his analysis far enough: ideology may be the servant of economic interest, but genes influence both.

As as side-bar, I should mention that Rushton makes only one mistake there. Rushton says that Marxian analysis ‘does not go far enough’ because it overlooks the influence of genes. However, on the contrary, Marxian analysis does not overlook it. Friedrich Engels explained in 1894 how the geographic features of the earth shaped different ethnic groups, and how that shaping has a dialectical relationship with the development of the economic base.

Aside from that one minor mistake, everything else that Rushton has said is correct.

But hey, maybe for some people it’s difficult to decide whether they should believe science and their own naked eyes, or whether they should instead believe the words of Roosh Valizadeh and his followers hammering the ‘personality’ button on a twitter poll.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

More severely, they’ve allowed scores of attention-whoring women to enter their movement and have a voice in its future.

That statement is more than ironic, given that Roosh is literally the definition of an attention-whoring man.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The alt right is becoming so authoritarian [...]

I’ve just got to laugh. Do you hear that, everyone? Roosh thinks it’s really awful how authoritarian all this is getting! It’s not like ethno-nationalism is a political tendency that has always attracted authoritarian personalities or anything! It doesn’t yet work the same way in the West as it does in the East, but it’s a work in progress.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

The story of what happened to the alt right is the story of every single internet movement in existence: subversion. The initial thought-leaders of the movement got overtaken by outsiders or those whose intentions were at odds with the founding ideals.

Again, irony.

Roosh Valizadeh literally is the embodiment of a subversive tendency. He is the spearhead of a tendency which sought to redirect everyone’s attention away from advocating ethnic genetic interests and constructing the kind of counter-institutions that could develop strategies for maximising those interests, and instead toward trying to transform the conversation into one about love relationships, pick-up artistry, game, and the feely-feelings of jilted men.

Yet now he accuses everyone else of being subversive.

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, 22 Feb 2016:

I still believe that a form of nationalism is needed to defeat the liberal establishment that is run by sociopathic globalists, but it must be one that doesn’t mimic feminism in controlling male behavior.

In other words, Roosh’s final plea is for everyone to become like the ANC-controlled rape-paradise of South Africa, a place where male behaviour is never controlled, and which is made of both failure and AIDS.

No thanks. Not ever.

Roosh’s crypto-Muslim agenda

Lest anyone forget, Roosh also said this:

Return of Kings / Roosh Valizadeh, ‘Women Must Have Their Behavior And Decisions Controlled By Men’, 04 Nov 2015:

[...] Women would not be able to attend university unless the societal need is urgent where an able-minded man could not be found to fill the specific position. Women would not be able to visit establishments that serve alcohol without a man present to supervise her consumption. Parental control software on electronic devices would be modified for women to control and monitor the information they consume. Credit card and banking accounts must have a male co-signer who can monitor her spending. Curfews for female drivers must be enacted so that women are home by a reasonable hour. Abortion for women of all ages must be signed off by her guardian, in addition to prescriptions for birth control. [...]

Anyone who reads these things and doesn’t realise that these are Islamic values being promoted by Roosh, is frankly delusional. His rhetorical strategy seems to be that when he is asked about what should be done to prevent the exploitation which he is promoting, he responds by promoting Islamic values as a ‘solution’ to a problem that he is helping to exacerbate.

It is alien and pathetic.

To our female readers: A better way

There has been a lot of talk about the ‘proper role’ of women in the struggle. My view, a view which I personally live by, is that any struggle that you do not participate in, is a struggle in which you will be left on the sidelines after it’s done. In order for a movement to really be capable of unifying a population, everyone has to able to participate, and women form 50% of the population.

Young women who are interested in serving ethno-nationalist causes absolutely should not ever spend their time obsessing over petty men and relationships, and should not consider ‘housewife’ to be a fitting role. That’s a waste of valuable time and energy.

We as women should be doing everything to insert ourselves into core industries and services, such as:

• Police: There are a lot of dindus out there, and you’ve got to have the capability to work with a team in order to catch them all and put them into the prison system. Also, buy shares in the companies that run the prison system, so that you can win while you win. Recently the police are getting a lot of military surplus toys to play with, so you can enjoy that too.


• Military: In some countries it’s possible to choose an infantry combat role, but don’t get suckered into that dead end path, the physical requirements are too high. Do not choose an infantry combat role, there are plenty of other great roles which cater far better to the inherent strengths of the female brain, which will still allow you to get used to the complex processes involved in killing people either directly or indirectly.


• Defence manufacturing: Once you have been able to establish yourself, it will be difficult to get off the conveyor belt of increased responsibilities. And you won’t want to get off it, because it’s too fulfilling.


• Oil and Gas sector: Who will liberate the oil and gas from the hands of Arabs who don’t know how to productively use it? Without the oil and gas sector we’d all be lost. Many of these companies are undergoing reorganisation recently because of the plunging oil prices, but once the situation stabilises there will surely be lots of roles available and I hear they like single women with no immediate family commitments. Oh, wait, actually, everyone likes single women with no immediate family commitments.


• Private Military Contractors: Don’t count them out! If things get really bad one day, PMCs might be granted the ability to directly target and loot specific areas of the Middle East. Some people have been talking about the possibility of this becoming the next big phenomenon in warfare, the return of privateering. It could get really interesting.

This list is written in a lighthearted way and it is by no means a complete list, but I’m also 100% serious. It’s intended as a sketch of the mindset that you ought to be in. Aiming for any of those kinds of life roles requires a determination to succeed despite adversity. It also requires that women take advantage of the openness of the school system, a system which has never been more open than it is now, to take STEM subjects and stop doing degrees in “women’s studies” and so on.

You only live once, and your mother did not give birth to you just so that you could become someone’s boring Stepford Wife. I’m not a Stepford Wife, and I never will be.

All women should strive to be the best they can be. I hope that you women out there who don’t yet see the necessity of this struggle will come to see that it is necessary, and I hope that some day you’ll join us in this struggle. We have to do what we can, where we can, to help our nations to safeguard their genetic and cultural heritage, and to ensure that the children of the future live in a world that is better than the one we inhabit today.

My record on political soothsaying is by no means perfect.  But tonight, for the first time since the Tory triumph in the General Election last May, I am starting to feel optimistic for a Leave triumph in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we now know will take place on June 23rd.  The arguments for Remain have already been rehearsed and written off as Project Fear.  They will not grow stronger with repetition.  All the positive noises, all the energy and excitement, the populism, the passion, the patriotism belong to Leave.  I have been amazed to see the freedom and frankness with which even hitherto rigidly loyal journalists at the Telegraph and the Mail have, almost without exception, derided Cameron’s so-called “deal” with the other 27 member states and declared for Leave.  It is said that up to half of the Tory parliamentary party will campaign for Leave, an unknown number of them mindful only that victory for this great cause will very likely remove Cameron from office and put Boris Johnson in his place.  But that is but a small detail of the huge change - a genuine metapolitical shift - which will be triggered by a Leave victory.  Let us just consider that for a moment.

The European Union is a project for the elites.  It is one of the principal engines of globalism, and it is immensely ambitious as such.  It offers a vision of an eventual multiracial, non-democratic unitary state concerned to expand to the eastern and southern borders of Russia, into Turkey and the Levant, North Africa (via the Barcelona Process), and, in time, across the Sahara and into the rest of the African continent.  All this is a matter of record.  But none of it would be remotely open to consideration were it not for the four grand, overlapping developments in the politics of the West in the late 20th century: the triumph of Capital over the command economy; that of political internationalism over nationalism; that of elitism over democracy; that of business and banking over peoples and populism.  These four triumphs winnowed national politics in the West, leaving us with the machine politician, the career politician; and his economically neoliberal and socially neo-Marxist, identikit parties; and ushered in an era of corruption, cynicism and betrayal.

Not unnaturally, this model of power politics has come under attack in every one of the European democracies.  In the UK, although nationalism has failed to lay a glove on it, euroscepticism has not.  True, UKIP could not break through with Westminster seats last May.  But David Cameron was forced to write into his party’s election manifesto a promise that, if successful, a Conservative government would hold a simple in-out referendum on EU membership by the end of next year.  At the time of the election the polls were very tight, and doubtless Cameron expected, at best, to be back in Downing Street with support from the Liberal Democrats.  They, of course, would never sanction any kind of challenge to their beloved project in nation destroying.  In the event the LibDems collapsed, Labour failed miserably, and Cameron won a most unexpected majority.  But ... he was now lumbered with that manifesto promise.  Plainly, he and his advisers thought they would have little difficulty in repeating the success of Project Fear in the Scottish IndyRef.  After all, who would remember Cameron’s Bloomberg speech, in which he had talked of a deep reform of the institutions of the European Union and of the UK’s relationship with it.  Nobody. They’ll all just vote for the status quo ... for what they know, won’t they?  Simple.

But now it’s starting to look like change is coming on 23rd June.  The return to independence of the UK will deliver a mighty blow to the process of ever greater union, energising dissent throughout the Union; ramping up costs for the other contributor member states, of which I believe only five or six will be left; and showing once again that the people do not want what the elites want, but still love and value their nation states and long to preserve them as independent and whole, functioning entities. With Schengen almost dead now, the euro in permanent crisis, the European economies seemingly permanently enfeebled, and the second largest economy negotiating its departure from the Union for good, the credibility of an EU elite which insists that the project must be advanced with ever more speed and determination will be tested and will be found wanting.  The Union could already be fatally wounded.  It might take years to die or it might happen with the dispatch that attended the collapse of communism in the east in 1989.

For nationalists this is a highly significant moment.  The pendulum has surely begun its long, stately swing back towards our politics.  We are in no way ready for what will come.