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.

                Vintage Las Vegas Strip II         -  painting by Robert Stark

There is a significant problem in the theory of White/European advocacy.

Those who gravitate to White advocacy will, in veritable first order of necessity under the circumstances, seek to anchor their defense as right wingers; viz., upon objective grounds beyond relative socio-historical perspective and in unassailable universal warrant - the apparent necessity for that first step being that antagonism generally unbeknownst, namely of the Jews, has obfuscated other options.

A race is a social grouping and a discriminatory basis thereupon. Discriminatory social classifications are necessary for human ecology, coherence and accountability - and race would be one important discriminatory classification for humans.

However, the Jews came up with the concept of anti-racism, which is the effort to prohibit social classification of race and discrimination on its basis; and have applied the concept of prohibiting discrimination on the basis of other social classifications in relative social group interest as well - all weaponized for Jewish interests and primarily against White heterosexual males.

Implicit beneath everyday language, the term “the left” applies in a very distinct pattern to organizational efforts of full social unification and concern for a particular social group - union membership modeling what “the left” does. It is a model that can apply to any scale and purpose of group, including nation and race. Essentially then, “the left”, itself, would be called “racist” for classifying on the basis of race or would be called some other discriminatory “ist”, by Jews, depending upon what social group is organized, if they were not in power beyond criticism, looking after their interests and against White interests. In theoretical consistency, only “right-wingers” are antagonistic to these social classifications on principle. White unionization would be the normal defense for Whites, and it would be “leftist” in terms of ordinary usage. However, through academic, media, economic, religious, business, legal and political take-over, the Jews have been able to have Marxism, Cultural Marxism, its objectives to take-down White power and the ostensibly hallowed humanitarian social concern of their so-called social justice advocacy groups arrayed against it designated as “the left”; while White advocacy designated “the right.”

From whence Jewish advocacy has maintained that steady stream of infuriatingly convoluted language games, starting with provocation of absurdly self destructive language games that they set forth with Christianity, to Critical Theory’s incessant rhetorical abuse of White men, the exploitative and lethal implications to White men have been actively unleashed in fact, as sundry anti-White unions - “social justice warriors” who have been set against Whites, ultimately, despite their unwanted imposition, the necessity to force their social integration and to force Whites to share their most precious resources and vital resources with groups having vastly different Ethnic Genetic Interests - to the final incapacitation and elimination of White men going under the banner of “the left” and its objectives.

Not only has being told constantly and pervasively that which tortures you as a White man is “the left” repulsed White men to the ordinary term, but also to the concept of social unionization, full group inclusion and advocacy which lies beneath it. But the normal White response, of objectivity, has been eagle clawed by Jews as well. A system of universal and civil rights and “objective merit” - which started as a White thing, by Locke, to advance objective individual merit over elite class discrimination - was taken by Jews to weaponize Whites own rules against them - so that discrimination on behalf of their classification was held to be illegitimate as well, while this universalizing of rights over classification provided an exception - a special proviso for White men: Because they have enjoyed “historical privilege” as a result of the fruits of discrimination and exploitation, it would be “disingenuous” for White men to say that the same rights and means of judgment upon individual merit should apply to everyone. Hence, people in these minorities need group classification for the purpose of advocacy and advancement in compensation for having been historically discriminated against by White men; whereas White men need no such group advocacy.

Jews have been able to designate these “victim” advocacy groups and their anti-White causes as “The Left”, what it means to be civilly responsible,“socially conscientious” and they have been able to designate and maneuver Whites who object and resist in social defense of their own people as “The right”, and more usually, “The far right” with all of its socially irresponsible and recklessly dangerous implications.

Given the fact that White men, including ones who do not hate themselves, have found themselves in a situation where all kinds of unwanted social groupings have been forced upon them and that social imposition along with all social concern and sharing in resources has been called “the left”, of course their initial response is going to be revulsion to the term and what it designates, through and through - the second “through” is the key, i.e., not only through the groups the Jews designate as valid to advocate, but through the very idea of group advocacy as it has been made didactic by those heretofore successfully using its means.

With the “left” being a matter of social concerns, what sane White man, after all, wants to participate in that socialization? On the contrary, he would quite naturally and more desperately than ever seek objective and pure warrant to defend himself above the conniving rhetoric and impositions of Jews, other non-Whites and insane liberals in the topsy turvey social milieu pan-mixer.

“Group advocacy is not the way of true and real White men; and by golly, I am going to make it my life’s cause to find that pure way.”

While it is the Jews who proposed calling this quest “far right”, at least it is something that you can identify with along with those of kindred reaction. So long as you don’t mind being associated with people that the Jews want you to be associated with, because of the ineptitude, counter-productivity, deserved social stigma and divisiveness to White social organization in their particular reactive quests for purity, you can have a market to try to bring people around to your particular right-wing, supra-social but what amounts to anti-White-social anchoring point - a point above or below the social group that is White/European, but not in White/human social register: that is the organic ground upon which the right, itself, parasitically feeds.

As the Jews have, through the so-called “left” (correctly referred to as “the red left”) levied unbearable impositions and deliberate confusion on any means of maintaining White identity and defense, and because they have eagle clawed the sine qua non of White purity - objectivity, merit and rights - weaponizing it against Whites, Whites who care to defend themselves feel they must try to be more right-wing, pure and extreme than ever - and sometimes feel that they may as well “join the club” at that: after all, “they are going to call you these things”, e.g., “an extreme right-winger anyway,” right? So, you may as well choose one or more of these anti-White social things and get along with the rest: Right-wing elitist, Nazi, imperialist, chauvinist for one nation, Jesus freak, new age pagan kook, conspiracy theorist kook, anarchist, liberal who believes that real men are not bothered by miscegenation nor preoccupied with racial matters and so are going to calm us down from “reacting too much” against PC, masculinist heterosexual who ranks effeminacy and homosexuality the problem, right up there with White genocide, homesexual masculinist, who is going to teach White men what it means to be man, scientitistic Darwinist, polygamist, Arab who teaches PUA methods to go through as many White women as possible and ultimately impose R selective patriarchy upon them, objectivist who believes people should be judged on merit born of a pure vacuum, libertarian free enterpriser, mulatto with pretty French wife who ingratiates himself to Nazis by intimating a stiff arm salute and befriending sociopathic holocaust deniers, or even conservatively or liberally principled, anti-“left” or anti-Zionist Jew. I may have missed an anti-White social category or two, but you may as well identify as one of these, so they say: Take your pick. There may be squabbling as to which are included but that’s accepted as inherent in their paradoxic rule structure -

And there is the significant problem in the theory of White advocacy.

Because the Right is comprised of people who are holding white knuckle and can’t let go of the pursuit of pure objective warrant, Cartesianism beyond social accountability, whether in science, religion or theory - sub or above human social philosophy - it remains anti-social-reactionary, unstable, divisive and bereft of the socialial normative. To compensate somehow, perhaps through Regnery, a theory of theories has been derived which seeks to compensate for their anti-social alienation with a prosthesis of “the big tent.” This was the VoR model, it was/is the Alternative Right model and it is becoming more the Renegade model.

On the other hand, those whose concern is genuinely for the entire White/European social group from the start and from ground-up, who consider all White/Europeans as innocent until proven guilty (until proven disloyal and divisive) are treated as “trouble makers” and to be ostracized insofar as they do come to see the facile, opportunistic, tangential and obstructive positions coming from those given a pass under the big tent for what they are - as coming from and guilty of defending causes that are irrelevant and divisive of genuine White/European advocacy, ethnonationalism, coherence and coordination thereof.

The people identifying as alternative right and typically those hovering in and around the racial market, have thus a common problem of trying to maintain their anti-White/European social and socially divisive of Whites positions; and to compensate for the maintenance of their initial right-wing, anti-social positions, they have tried to establish a gentleman’s agreement - a big tent under which they might bring to bear their tangential and (actually) obstructive positions to the market of White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define “socialized White/European” with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would quite reasonably prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

To repeat in somewhat simpler form:

All of the people identifying as alternative right, and Renegade (Tanstaafl* goes there agreeing with them that “Hitler was right”....right about what?) as well, have a common problem of trying to compensate for their initial right wing, anti-social positions - compensating for the marginality and obstruction of their positions to White/European advocacy and ethnonationalism - by (ironically) trying to prohibit as “anti-social” (“non-team players”, etc) those who reject their anti-White/European-social positions. In a word, they want to paradoxically define socialization of White/European-social advocacy with a rule that would prohibit and ostracize those who would prohibit those who are anti-anti-White/European-social.

“The alternative left” is a part of the alt right big tent. It is their attempt to provide a false opposition foil and a platform for their more liberal misfits who want to bring their own right wing unaccountable positions to bear on the ethno-nationalist market; while they obfuscate this true White Left platform as it operates in the interests of the White class and does not accept their anti-White positions.

* Finally, “neither right nor left” is another claim that right wingers will make in a last ditch effort to avoid social accountability to Whites in order to maintain their right wing aspect.

Role reversal: Perhaps South Asians and East Asians will take pity on Germany. We’re all going to have to collect funds for poor white Germans after they’ve been evicted from their own country.

I’m going to adopt a new format here, where I’m going to cut up the articles and give my responses to the things being said inbetween. It’s just easier this way.

First there needs to be a flashback to November 2015. Andreas Kluth, a writer for the Economist wrote an article in The World In. In that article, it seemed like he was predicting Germany’s next moves, so rather than writing a post about it immediately, I chose to hold on to it to see if the predictions would come true first, which they now have done. The article also contains a lot of information about the mindset of the modern German liberal, a mindset which is every bit as absurd as you might have imagined.

So let’s get underway, we’re on a voyage through a sea of absurdity:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

For centuries the Germans were wont to leave their homeland, emigrating to places such as America, where the Statue of Liberty welcomed them among the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. [...]

Off to a bad start in the very first line. The Statue of Liberty represents the lowest and most disgusting values of mankind, the values which call for love and acceptance of everyone no matter how low and wretched they are.

Emma (((Lazarus))) wrote, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

That is nothing to run a country on. It’s more like how to run a trash heap. It’s basically like saying: Send us your human trash from Africa and the Middle East!

But let’s continue:

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] For all the Germans remaining at home, however, nationality remained a matter of “blood” (jus sanguinis, in Latin) rather than choice or place of birth. That identity was built into the language itself. The word deutsch, originating in the early Middle Ages, meant “belonging to the people”. And until recently the word for “people”, Volk, had an ethnic rather than a civic connotation. [...]

Germany is not unique in that tendency. To this day, the correctly-used word for ‘the people’ in Japanese is minzoku, which denotes the ethnic group. This is perfectly normal.

So, what’s the ‘problem’ with doing that, I wonder?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] To this day its adjective, völkisch, retains ugly racist associations with the Nazis. [...]

Oh, right. Everyone saw that coming, right? Recognising that the German ethnic group exists, of course leads inexorably to death camps and 6 million Jews, which is ‘evil’, or something like that.

How long will it be until the writer starts to call for the total abolition of the German ethnic group?

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

All that is history and will definitively be buried in 2016. [...]

Wow, immediately!

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today Germany is second only to America in the number of immigrants it attracts. Most come from within the European Union (EU), but many come from farther afield. Among rich countries Germany also takes by far the most refugees—today’s “huddled masses”. About 1m were expected in 2015 alone, and the numbers in 2016 are sure to be big too.

These newcomers from Syria, Afghanistan, Africa and elsewhere come into a country where one in five already has a “migration background”, as German bureaucratic jargon calls all those with foreign roots. These include the “guest workers” who came to West Germany—mainly from Turkey, Italy and Greece—in the 1950s and 1960s to provide labour, along with their German-born children and grandchildren. Then there are the former Yugoslavs who came in the 1990s during a previous big refugee crisis, as well as Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians who now enter freely as citizens of the EU, and many others. [...]

Notice how Kluth doesn’t even feel the need to justify this any further. The fact that Hitler existed is all that Kluth seems to feel that he needs to justify the complete erasure of Germany. The logic of race replacement seems to take on an almost Christian redemptive aspect, where the only way to remove the apparent ‘sin’ of the Holocaust, is to get oneself baptised in the sperm of Africans and Arabs.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Naturally an influx on this scale causes anxiety among some Bio-Deutsche, as Germans of ethnically “pure” stock are today called in ironic slang, with a pun on the German term for organic food. Many worry especially about Muslims: will they accept social norms such as sexual equality, secular values [...]

The answer to that question is “no.” They won’t accept any of that. But that’s not even the whole point. Even if they did accept those things, it’s still racial replacement, so I would think that the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ who are interested in remaining ‘Bio-Deutsche’ should still be worried.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] and Germany’s historic responsibility towards Israel?

Wahahah. If the ‘Bio-Deutsche’ are worried about mass Islamic migration because it might make it more difficult for them to bury their noses into Israel’s backside then they are already lost!

Let’s hope that that is not actually one of the reasons being fielded by German ethno-nationalists, and that it’s just one of Kluth’s own neuroses that he’s projecting onto them.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

The spice of life

The task of integrating so many foreigners will test German politics and society in 2016. Yet Germany’s Willkommenskultur (“welcome culture”) will prevail, as most Germans understand that refugees deserve asylum, and immigrants enrich the country. [...]

Most Germans also happen to be as dim as a 20 Watt incandescent bulb, apparently.

Regarding Kluth’s non-ironic use of the word ‘enrich’, I suppose in a strictly dictionary sense of the word, the gallons of Arab and African semen that was poured in the direction of German women on New Year’s Eve could be described ‘enriching’.

But only in the same sense that having a diseased hobo with Hepatitis B peeing into the punch bowl that you are about to drink from could be described as ‘flavouring’.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Today’s quintessential German stand-up snack is either a Turkish doner kebab or a Currywurst, which combines the archetypal Germanic sausage with spice from the sub-continent. In high and low culture, Germany has become unimaginable without such “foreign” influences. When Germany won the football World Cup in 1990, all its national players were Bio-Deutsche. When it won the cup again in 2014, two were Polish-born and others had family names such as Özil (Turkish), Khedira (Tunisian), Boateng (Ghanaian) and Mustafi (Albanian). [...]

Okay, so Currywurst exists, therefore Germany is ripe for mass immigration from those who eat curry?

By the same logic, Chicken Tikka Messala exists in Britain, is it time for Britain to be abolished in the same way? Pizza exists in Japan and South Korea, is it time for all of Italy to migrate to the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago?

This is absolutely childish. The fact that any such thing would pass for argumentation in the western media is frankly laughable.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...] Corporate bosses and policymakers, too, know that Germany needs immigrants. Bio-Deutsche make too few babies. New Germans who are today being fingerprinted as their asylum claims are processed will tomorrow care for the elderly and pay the taxes that fund a generous welfare state.

Absolutely false. Automation of the economy and mechanisation of the economy have led to the creation of a future overhang of structural unemployment. Germany will need less people in the future, not more. If the overhang is not dealt with, it will actually increase pressure on the welfare state, because a lot of people will be drawing unemployment benefits from the state.

Of course, the morons who command the German economy could just deliberately make themselves less efficient in order to keep their growing population employed, by perhaps digging ditches with lots of people holding spoons rather than with machines, and making widgets by hand rather than with robotics.

But then all their companies will be destroyed on the global market by Asian companies which are not having to do that kind of nonsense, and which would always be able offer the same product at lower prices as a result.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

There is really only one last hurdle to Germany officially becoming a land of immigrants, and it is politics. The centre-right Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel, and its conservative Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, insist on the fiction that Germany does not have permanent “immigrants” (Einwanderer) but rather temporary “in-comers” (Zuwanderer), such as guest workers, who will one day leave.

This is a travesty of reality and deserves the ridicule that the centre-left parties are meting out. In 2014 a law was tweaked that makes it easier for most children born in Germany to foreign parents to keep both citizenships indefinitely. But beyond this mini-liberalisation, Germany remains unusual among rich countries in having a patchwork of rules for special situations (spouses of Germans, say), but no coherent immigration law at all. [...]

The lack of a coherent immigration law is precisely how the German government has been able to do everything that it has done so far. The amorphous and sometimes contradictory nature of the laws has allowed them to carry through this plan without facing any significant formal legal challenge so far.

The World In, ‘The New Germans’, Andreas Kluth, 02 Nov 2015:

[...]

In 2016 Germany will pass such a law, because even the Christian Democrats will admit what is already obvious: Germany has become an immigrant country—a land of hope and opportunity to many who, in turn, simply by coming, keep Germany’s ageing society vibrant. The notion of identity by blood died long ago. In 2016 Germans will formally lay it to rest, and will take great pride in doing so.

Oh, yeah? Well, it’s only February, so perhaps it’s too early for anyone to know whether that prediction is going to come true or not. After all, Angela Merkel did promise from her mouth that the migrants ‘will go home’ once the conflict is over. She did say that, right? Right?

Now:

Zeit.de, ‘CDU will Schulpflicht für erwachsene Flüchtlinge’, 13 Feb 2016 (German to English, emphasis added):

With an extended compulsory education, exemption from the minimum wage laws and higher hurdles for a permanent residence permit, the CDU wants to accelerate the integration of refugees. The package of measures will be decided on Monday by the Federal Executive of the party, say sources in party circles.

The draft resolution of the CDU Board provides incentives, but also sanctions. Bild am Sonntag quoted some details from the paper that have been confirmed by persons from CDU party circles. The compulsory age for refugees leaving school without qualifications will be lifted from 18 years up to 25 years old. To facilitate their integration into working life, refugees are to be excluded from the minimum wage laws and are to be treated in the way that long-term unemployed are treated - they would thus in the first six months of employment not be entitled to the minimum wage of 8.50 euros per hour.

An amendment is to grant the indefinite right of permanent residence. Recognised refugees and asylum admissions are to receive that grant only when they can prove that they speak sufficient German, have knowledge of the local legal and social order, have committed no crimes and have the means to secure their livelihood. To date, the permanent residence permit has been issued after three years - regardless of whether someone has demonstrated language skills and ability to work.

Oh. That was fast.

But there’s more! See here:

The Jerusalem Post, ‘Report: Germany expects 500,000 refugees this year ‘, 15 Feb 2016 (emphasis added):

BERLIN - The German government expects 500,000 refugees to come to Germany this year, German newspaper Rheinische Post cited sources from the Federal Labour Office as saying.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told Frank-Juergen Weise, head of both the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) and the Federal Labour Office, to prepare for an influx of that size this year, the newspaper said in an advance copy of a report due to be published on Tuesday.

The German Interior Ministry was not immediately available to comment on the report.

I wonder how many times that number will be revised upward over the course of this year? I wonder how much more the security situation will be destabilised?

I thought the most interesting comment in and around Greg Johnson’s article, Roosh Really is a Rape Advocate (& a Rapist, if He’s Telling the Truth), was Greg’s own, in regard to the woman in Iceland who Roosh claimed to have sex with despite the fact that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated from consenting or not. Greg said that if she agreed to have sex with him the next morning that not only did that not mean she had not been raped the night before, but that consent afterward made it only worse for the fact that it could promote the idea that such behavior would have happy endings (with enough repetitions, it would not have happy endings).

I would like to add that I can well imagine that in a circumstance like that, a woman can agree to have sex with him the next morning and again in an attempt to reinterpret the relationship and her own agentive part in her mind, because it would be too painful to believe that she was violated in a profound way and had no agency. Thus, she might try to go with the idea of superimposing a relational level and her agency retroactively to reframe what was an instance of non-consent if not rape in that episode - re-framed under “a dating relationship with a ‘bad boy’ whose wild side I should be able to handle, being an independent woman and all.”

Long story short: she could have been raped even though she consented afterward - and a woman might act that way because she is insufficiently conscious of her interests and/or perhaps cannot handle the idea of the best and most important gift that she had to offer having been taken by the person treating her the worst - a con-man rapist who cared nothing for her as a person or on a relational level.

Speaking of which, that is what makes Roosh so disgusting. This sand ****** said it was his objective and continues to be his objective to have sex with as many beautiful woman as possible - and that he has been teaching men to do that as well. His response to antagonists in the media is that he will accumulate as many more women as he can.

I’m going to harness all this coverage that you are giving me and convert it to money and women

This was my first occasion to hear and see Roosh V. speak. I must say that I am negatively impressed - his attitude, his mannerisms, his way of speaking - bopping, swaying and grooving - his motives and his way of arguing are either entire affectations of black people or his middle eastern background is more n****rish than I had realized.

One thing is certain, he does not think and act like a European man and nobody should respect him as a model as such. He is a sand-wigger. It is no wonder that he is trying to teach White men how to act like n****rs and Muslims - and to have as much respect for White women as a n****r or Muslim would. Nor is it a wonder that he would now try to take cover under a position of Abrahamic religion - that he is promoting a traditional Muslim model of gender arrangements for all.

Neither he, nor the males he teaches, are cultivating a way to pursue relationships with women that they care about, confirming and reconstructing views and European ways that are important, in fact vital to them. No, just the technique to pander to the universally lowest common denominator of their basest instincts and reconstructing that, while going through their cautionary barriers, including White national barriers, and discarding them.

Who does he think he is to target White women - in as many numbers as possible - with his Negroid/Muslim mentality? And who got the idea that it was Ok for him to target White women and others and pursue alpha n****r behavior? Would this sand ****** talk and have people act this way to his sister, Iranian and Armenian women?

She typed in, “How many girls have you been with in Poland?”

“10,000.”

“No, really.”

“A couple.”

“Do you always bring home girls like this?”

“Never on Tuesdays. ”

“Do you want to see me again?”

“Of course. You’re pretty, you’re sexy, you’re fun. I see no reason why I wouldn’t want to see you again.” I kissed her.

Her tiny size really hit me when she took off her heels. I asked her how much she weighed. Thirty-five kilograms (77 pounds). Besides her surprisingly round ass, she had the body of a gymnast who hadn’t quite made it past puberty.

We moved to my bed. I got her down to her bra and panties, but 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.

Then I grabbed her and made her sit directly on my face. I ate her pussy, the first time I had done so in a couple of years. I enjoyed it.

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.

“At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen.”

It would be nice if that happened - I could picture Roosh being held down and fucked by a few giant Polish queers in jail:

“It took four hours and at least thirty attempts to push into his ass:  ‘no, Roosh cried, no!’ until the large, very large penis was finally allowed to enter and stretch Roosh’s asshole to his great pain. Ooh the giant faggot sighed upon the most satisfying ejaculation into Roosh’s asshole, you are the finest little bitch! I just know you’ll come back to give me some skull in the morning -

    - I think your mouth IS big enough!”

Better still, stay the fuck out of Poland and all of Europe, sand-******.

Only a wigger could admire this guy and find him appealing. He has no place anywhere near WN. Quite the opposite.

Roosh is teaching and promoting R selection strategies among Europeans who are evolved for K selection strategies.

Alex Linder interviewed (try not to let the Australian accent of his interviewer bother you).

There is or can be a misunderstanding.

- that I simply want to refrain from going ahead and killing Jews et al. on principle, naivete or for petty moral reasons.

- that I and we could not be content nor ever recognize that we’d be better off if they were gone.

But that is not the case.

It is the case rather that it is generally not a good idea to announce that you want to get them all whether you think it is necessary or not.

It would be hard to implement and worse, might work to our detriment if not conceived and promoted properly.

It is not only a strategic matter but a theoretical matter: for what we want ultimately is separatism (killing is a species thereof).

Separatism can be argued not only by broader and more practical metrics, but if it is achieved, it is more feasible for the purpose of killing - as opposed to taking the stance that even while they remain tangled up in our hair, we might succeed in the complex affair of teaching people to know, psychologically, what to do because Alex says so (bold and intelligent though most of his arguments are)...

As opposed to Alex saying so, if they are to be killed it would be for the broadly intelligible, broadly acceptable (therefore possible to facilitate) and operationally verifiable reason that they will not leave us alone when given the option, but insist on their imposition to our exploitation and long term extinction - a verifiable consequence and reason for their imposition - to eliminate us as a people, therefore a highly assertable warrant to preempt it.

This could be demonstrable even in their refusal to allow our benign and fair act of separating and expelling them from our people.

Given these considerations hence, my motto: separatism is the first step, separatism is the ultimate aim, separatism is always possible.

In an atmosphere where the ability of ethno-nationalists to talk among themselves is being curtailed across social media and with forums at other ethno-nationalist sites being insecure or even being shut down, a need has appeared for a forum that overcomes the limitations of other people’s past attempts.

This was an option that we had kept in reserve because it wasn’t deemed to be high priority to date, but it has now been completed and brought forward because it is clearly necessary.

I’ll present my explanation of the merits of the Majorityrights.com Forum in a slightly humorous Q&A format, based on questions I’ve actually been asked.

Q: What do you mean by ‘secure’?

A: By ‘secure’ I mean that we don’t do things which are stupid. The guiding principle behind everything we do is basically “don’t do stupid things”.

For example, we don’t have users transmitting their login credentials in plain text over the internet, because that would be stupid. Instead, everything between the client and the server is encrypted just like the rest of the site.

We don’t have profile fields that ask users to enter information into their profiles like ‘date of birth’ or ‘location’ on registration forms, because that would be stupid. The safest way to ensure that no one will say that we encouraged them to compromise themselves by entering that information, is by not asking them to submit such information in the first place.

There is also the view that we cannot misplace information that was never given to us, and that’s a view that I’ve always held.

Q: Do you share user statistics and information with third party advertising CDNs?

A: No, not now, and not ever.

One of the most absurd things that I’ve seen on ethno-nationalist websites is the propensity that many have to complain about how companies like Amazon, Google, Quantcast, and others, are ‘controlled by liberals, Jews and SJWs’, and yet they still choose to integrate those very same advertising and user tracking scripts into their forums.

We have no such scripts, and never will.

Q: Is it possible for your routine backups to fall into the wrong hands?

A: No. Backups of everything are made at certain intervals, and are stored on encrypted volumes in a hidden and entirely separate physical location. The backup regime is such that no single administrator at Majorityrights can decrypt the contents without at least one other person assenting to it. The motto for handling backups is “trust no one, not even yourself”.

Q: Why isn’t the whole place decked out with giant statues of eagles, and muscle-bound Vikings, with black, red, and white as the colour scheme?

A: Because this is not web design by Albert Speer, nor should it be.

Q: Why does the forum software demand that all passwords must contain letters, numbers, and capital letters, and be no less than 12 characters long?

A: Because that makes it much less likely that any hacker dweebs will be able to break into people’s accounts using dictionary attacks and rainbow tables. I just don’t ever want the drama of dealing with people whining about how their accounts got hijacked because they chose a weak password, so the software will force you to at least make a minimal effort to choose a strong password.

Take note though, if you forget your password, the ‘I forgot my password’ feature sends an email to you with a new randomly generated password in it, so you should make sure that your email account is secured with a strong password too, obviously.

Q: Is it possible for anyone to discover what email address I used to register with, without me divulging it?

A: No.

Q: Do you apply patches in a timely fashion?

A: Patches are applied as soon as they are available. Since any patch day is followed by exploit day, we make sure to patch immediately.

Q: Will there be meme magic?

A: Yes.

Q: Will there be doxxing and raids?

A: No.

The Right Stuff forum was just recently taken down because some people decided to foolishly use it as a staging ground for a doxxing campaign against some American liberal soccer mom who then turned around and complained to their hosting provider about it, and it resulted in all sorts of terms of service problems. No doxxing of anyone will be allowed at Majorityrights, because it’s petty, accomplishes nothing, and does more harm than good to everyone.

Q: Do you anticipate that you will have a large volume of people registering?

A: Maybe. One of the greatest advantages that Majorityrights has is that on a large number of divisive issues, Majorityrights has not been known to drive a wedge, and as such does not come with that baggage. For example, there is no European North-South divide, and no legacy of a fractious Male-Female divide here, so almost anyone ought to feel comfortable with joining.

Q: Will there be freedom of speech?

A: Pretty much, yes. Just like always.

Since I am paying more attention to things Asian as a result of Kumiko’s participation here, a couple of videos and a composition of Facebook comments relevant and illustrative of issues that I have been discussing have come to my attention.

Asian illustrations of..

1. Advised social confirmation and elevation: of the value of ordinary routine practices; in this case, participation in social routine.

3. A composition of fake tweets: attributed to Americans apparently mocking the atomic bombing of Japan:
Captioned “stay ‘classy’ America” - the fraud and motive to create a division between Whites and East Asians is traceable to Jewish motives.

Coming to these examples throwing light on racial accountability from Asia, one at a time -

1. Advised celebration of ordinary routine:

Kumiko likes Korean and Japanese pop music videos and she showed me this Japanese one.

Participation in..

..routine social service..

If WN can show bearance upon what might otherwise be construed as an appeal to yellow fever by the presentation of this video, there is actually bearing upon an important point that I made in my article about “the dark side of self actualization” and how to otherwise moderate and optimize actualization.

That is to say, one thing that needs to happen in our re-socialization of actualization is for the value of individual self actualization to become part of a rotating and optimizing process of attention, to where it does not always and statically occupy the top of a hierarchy. That over-emphasis has, of course, destabilized and lent to the rupture of our racial/social systemic homeostasis. The inference I’ve made is that one of the aspects of actualization that needs to be constructed, elevated in importance and encouraged to enjoy is not only a sufficient amount of routine but also routine cooperative social participation in our tried and true practices and procedures. That will not only allow us to learn and develop skills from our forebears, to cultivate them, but it is also necessary to create a platform for elaboration and innovation; i.e., it is prerequisite and socially as important as actualization.

This video shows a song and dance of girls in Japanese postal service uniforms. The point that I am trying to make is that celebrative or otherwise reverential treatment like this, of the ordinary and social routine, might help to emphasize sufficient sufficience, so to speak, in enjoyment of necessary but ordinary social routines, unions, trade guilds, syndicates and with it, an elevation of appreciation of ordinary necessity so that it is not dwarfed nor its vital necessity discouraged by singular social appreciation and veneration of the extraordinary and the sacred.

I hypothesize this elevating celebration of routine (in this case social) practices as one side of the necessary elevation of the social esteem of routine; another side of “routine” elevation would be ceremony and sacral treatment of exemplary practices.

2. Bad parenting advice: The oriental woman in this video was adopted by Swedish parents and brought-up with that idea that she is “simply Swedish, the same as any other Swede”, by proposition.

If she were taught that she was an adopted girl of Korean descent, who was and should be welcomed as counting of a manageable, benign but accountable enclave of Swedish nationals, she would have an efficient enough explanation at her disposal to discharge most conflict on the issue.

By contrast, there is insufficient accountability in insistence upon her parents well meaning but bad advice - simply asserting that she is Swedish just like all other Swedes.

She sets herself up for abuse

Adopted by Swedish parents and growing up in Sweden, she responds to the question from a Swedish man, “where are you from?” that she is “from Sweden.” The man responds in turn, “no, where are you really from?”

She takes this as an example of “racism” and tries to correct the man in the motive she perceives of his question, answering that she is “Swedish just like every other Swedish national” - as her parents taught her.

However, I’d guess that the man’s question was not “racist” in a negative sense. Yes, it was racial in the sense that he was trying to get an accurate sense of how to classify her, but why? Because he thought negatively of her and of her being in Sweden? Probably not.

He was quite possibly asking her for one or all of the following three reasons:

a) He found her attractive and wanted to know where her sort was from for future and general reference.

b) He found her attractive and saw the question as an opportunity for an ice breaker.

c) If she answered, “Korea”, chances are that he would enjoy showing his good-will toward her, by confirming her honest account and her people as really OK, and that as a part of a reasonable and accountable number of her kind of immigration, take occasion to show support for her participation with Sweden.

That is to say, what the man was doing was “racism” by definition in the sense that he was attempting to classify people genetically (not doing the mere liberal thing of pretending to be blind to racial classifications but judging people instead by propositions), but it was, in all likelihood, a benign kind of classifying, motivated by respect and a wish for accountability.

Because she treated it as “racism”, i.e., classification for negative motives, she attempted to denounce it and hide behind the well meaning but fundamentally dishonest advice of her parents that as a propositional Swede she was the same as an evolutionary Swede.

As such she denies the possibility of honest accountability that would serve to limit negative treatment of her in Sweden and gain her support from those who have an honest concern for the management of native Swedes.

Instead, for denying accountability and denouncing the account requested as “racist” she sets herself up for abuse from at least two kinds in particular.

She will perhaps get some abuse from jealous and racially concerned Swedes, e.g., Swedish women miffed with yellow fever. That would be understandable if Asian immigration were taken too far at any rate, but when there is no accountability it is likely to be more provocative of the racially sensitive Swede for her to say, “I am the same as you”, have the same history, etc. But even at that, it is probable that she did not really receive much of the gaffe from true Swedish women. What abuse that she got and experienced, with truly saddening pain, most likely came from Jewish trolls looking to stir conflict between Whites and Asians.

She gets abused by what probably are some Jewish trolls trying to provoke conflict between Asians and racially aware Whites:

3. What makes me hypothesize Jewish trolling? viz., that Jewish trolls can be trying to provoke her and provoke conflict between Whites and Asians?:

How about this. Kumiko showed me this composition, supposedly of Facebook posts by American people speaking of their own accord, saying that they are happy that Japan sustained nuclear bomb attacks in WWII and would be quite happy for it to happen again.

I grew up in America and for 34 years spent there never encountered an American who would speak remotely like this about Japan or the atomic bombing of Japan. Furthermore, if one reads these comments it is clear by a careful discourse analysis that the writer of all of these comments is one or a few people. If one is more careful still, to take style and motive into account, the Jewish hand is evident.

Though it may seem like obvious trolling to some of us, unfortunately this was apparently taken seriously by some Japanese audiences and even shown on Japanese news as if it were an honest reflection of American sentiments - when in truth, these are not remotely accurate statements of Americans: Stay classy America? No, stay “classy” with your divide and conquer chutzpah Jews - greatest shame is upon you and we are watching you.

Full composition under the fold..

READ MORE...