3 Things We Have Learned A Year After The Battle Of Canada

August marks the one year anniversary of Roosh and Return Of Kings‘ defiant stand against Canadian SJW violence and social terrorism. As part of his lecture tour across North America and Europe, Roosh expected the usual leftist opposition to his work, which this time consisted of giving speeches to fellow men about how to navigate a perilously anti-male Western world. What developed in Canada, however, soon surpassed all expectations.

Roosh’s planned lectures Montreal and Toronto were the catalyst, especially in the former city, for a wave of SJW and media lies, threats of violence, and, in the end, actual violence. Whilst the lectures took place at secret locations, we were left in no doubt that a number of crazy feminists, sympathetic pseudo-journalists, and even politicians did everything they could to endanger Roosh and get him thrown out of Canada.

So here the three biggest learnings from these pivotal days, which have become known as the Battle of Canada:

1. Media outlets and politicians need really good hyperbole to make people believe—and they failed miserably in Canada

Previous articles of mine have mentioned the so-called “CNN comments phenomenon.” Leftist media outlets like CNN and The Guardian, which form the majority of all “news” coverage, have plenty of narrative-guzzling fanboys and fangirls. All in all, though, surprisingly large numbers of readers and viewers refuse to take their biased journalist-dispensed medicine. Roosh’s Canadian stand was no exception.

Dozens of defamatory articles falsely accused Roosh of being pro-rape and organizing illegal harassment against feminists. Yet control of the predominant media narrative did not result in SJWs and their journalist enablers getting thousands, let alone tens of thousands of protesters out onto the streets against him in either Montreal or Toronto. It additionally failed to prevent Roosh from entering Canada (and there was much time to do so), failed to get him removed, and failed to stop the lectures in Montreal and Toronto.

For instance, when a Montreal café owner surreptitiously photographed Roosh and tried to organize another real-life lynch mob, the backlash against him and his establishment was significant. Irrespective of the depraved souls supporting the vilification of and violence against a paying customer, many people and even some media outlets called out such behavior for what it was: the condoning of violence and a desire to physically intimidate those you disagree with. Noted critics of Roosh, including Marni Soupcoff in The National Post, ended up rebuking the mentality of the SJWs trying to undermine Roosh’s lecture world tour.

SJWs also grossly overestimated the support they would get for violent acts, such as when a mob used assault and the threat of violence to falsely imprison Roosh in a building. Naturally, the mainstream media initially delighted in what occurred on this night in Montreal. But the coverage was ephemeral and instigators of the violence, including Katie B. Nelson and Jessica Lelièvre, either went underground on social media or tried to quickly delete comments linking them to the mob acts. Efforts to whip up hatred and physical confrontations with Roosh and his lecture attendees, as serious and malevolent as they were, fell far short of what SJWs and their media allies really wanted.

Then there was the array of compromised or plain pathetic local politicians trying to ride the anti-Roosh gravy train. Toronto Mayor John Tory, suffering from a serious case of relevance deprivation syndrome compared to the more well-known late Mayor Rob Ford, wanted to cash in on the free media attention to elevate his electoral prospects. Politically and arguably biologically senile Toronto Councillor Norm Kelly aimed for the same thing. The worst by far, however, was Ontario provincial parliamentarian Cheri DiNovo, a former drug smuggler, who expected that her anti-Roosh vitriol would help her later disastrous bid to become the national leader of her awful ultra-leftist party, the NDP.

All this thrown at Roosh, Return Of Kings and the lecture attendees… and the lectures still happened. If anything, what transpired in Canada raised Roosh’s profile ten times more than the lecture tour otherwise would have.

2. The Canadian media abandoned their mentally ill, criminally-inclined poster girls (and who can blame them?)

Jessica Lelièvre was the gift that kept on giving in ROK’s discrediting of the Canadian SJW rage.

Professional agitators and attention seekers Aurelie Nix and Katie B. Nelson represented the more mentally ill corner of the SJWs Roosh faced, while Nelson, Jessica Lelièvre and the mob of white knights in Montreal showcased the rather criminal side. At first, media outlets both inside and outside Canada were positively gleeful about the SJW violence and threats of violence, jovially covering the mob antics on the streets of Montreal especially. Even before organized violence was arranged, people like clearly inactive and unfulfilled, would-be schoolteacher Sara Parker-Toulson were praised as “heroines” for starting defamatory online petitions against Roosh. That said, serious cracks in the stories and backgrounds of the lead SJWs began to emerge.

Aurelie Nix in particular was a loose cannon and the Canadian media, who had ridiculously portrayed her as a victim, quietly dropped her “story.” For a start, she foolishly acted as if she had been the victim of “revenge porn,” decrying how links to publicly available nude photos she published online were shared. Secondly, she falsely and very slanderously claimed Roosh had made a rape threat against her, before insisting that the menace was actually coming from ROK supporters, an equally farcical assertion. Again, the supreme irony of Nix’s false allegations was that she is on record insisting that spurious sexual assault allegations against men are rare.

Plus, enough of the female SJWs were simply far too privileged for the media to continue using them. Assault-loving Jessica Lelièvre, now surprisingly studying to become a lawyer, was outed as a young woman with more privilege in her little finger than 98% of men have across their entire bodies. Her father owns a very profitable construction business, which he had inherited from his own father and grandfather. All three of these very white men have thus allowed poor Jessica to live the life of luxury she suffers today. Without even entering the full-time workforce (she was too busying criminally attacking Roosh), she has a property in the United States in her and her sister’s names, courtesy of her parents’ wealth. As you can imagine, my little violin just broke from over-playing.

Haley Yael Firkser, working in a cushy “business development director” job for her hardware store chain-owning father (with no normal qualifications for the position), was another anti-Roosh feminist who tried to court media attention. Presenting herself as a poor oppressed female at the mercy of the patriarchy, her glorification by the media was short-lived. Together with Katie B. Nelson, who must have had a very good way of supporting herself financially in between her violent acts towards police, history of drug abuse, and other forms of delinquency, Firkser underscored how women with too much time on their hands and an insufficient work ethic were leading the charge against Roosh. This did not make for a sustainable campaign by the media.

3. Armed with so many advantages, the SJWs and media backed down because of low energy and lack of conviction

Lacking sane poster girls, the Canadian media was forced to jettison liabilities like crackpot Aurelie Nix.

Media outlets such as CBC possessed an enviable arsenal with which to attack Roosh before, during and after his Canadian lectures. CBC alone is publicly funded to the tune of at least hundreds of millions of dollars annually and when all its financial sources are counted, it rakes in ten figures’ worth of revenues every year. And what about all the various private media corporations who went after Roosh in Canada?

Journalists are already infamous for being overwhelmingly liberal in their political outlook and whilst this did translate into a tidal wave of very unprofessional and false ad hominem attacks against Roosh, the lack of success against him meant the targeted media hate eventually sputtered. Writers paid to vilify him and Return Of Kings went for cheap attacks that at best barely scratched the surface of why his world tour was taking place.

Canadian media outlets have spent an inordinate of time trying to legitimize infantile, preposterous theories like “rape culture,” but cannot explain why, if this culture supposedly exists, those (falsely) called “rape advocates” by feminists and journalists are invariably the recipients of violence, threats, and very organized campaigns to remove them from particular jurisdictions. This is the kind of glaring inconsistency that CBC and other platforms could never really touch on in dealing with Roosh, lest the flimsy facade of “society institutionally oppresses women” fall away. Superficial broadsides fired at Roosh were one-dimensional and soon crumbled.

Another big reason for the death of the anti-Roosh campaign was an unwillingness or inability of the journalists to critique Roosh’s own points in detail. Roosh’s lecture world tour argued that men were being silenced throughout the Western world and the nature of the media crusade, used as it was to inflame SJW violence, proved this very argument. Convinced that the world should be a particular way, the journalists and crazy feminists involved in the public hate did very little to appropriately explain their positions and rationalize how Roosh’s were wrong. Once the initial fury had subsided, there was little else they could do except retreat and forget their campaign occurred.

The SJW hate and violence will reemerge

Just six months after the Canadian hate, Roosh faced another targeted campaign against the ROK meet-ups.

The sensationalized and patently false stories about the ROK meet-ups at the start of this year illustrate how Canada-style hate campaigns against us will continue to appear. Inasmuch as I have pointed to a lack of persistence from our SJW and media enemies, we should not underestimate the risks to Roosh and others in the crucial days when SJWs resort to serious threats and violence. The type of mob that tried to seriously injure or kill Roosh in Montreal can and almost certainly will materialize again.

Despite the deranged groups, media interests, and political ideologies who desire our demise, the lectures Roosh gave in Canada and the extraordinarily hostile environment in which they took place constituted a significant victory. The danger was real, but the message was delivered loud and clear.

With the publication of Roosh’s book about his Canadian experiences, Free Speech Isn’t Free, thousands of new men will be positively introduced to both him and Return Of Kings. And that’s an outcome SJWs did not anticipate when they tried to take Roosh down in Canada–and failed to do so.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Sex With Animals Is Now Legal In Canada But Speaking Your Mind Leads To Persecution

128 thoughts on “3 Things We Have Learned A Year After The Battle Of Canada”

        1. “Why don’t the hot guys want me? Maybe if I get a few piercings…
          “Didn’t work. Maybe if i cut my hair shorter…
          “Nope. How about I dye it fucked up colors…
          “Shit. Only thing left to do is coat myself in tattoos and bitch, I guess.”

        2. You forgot they strip naked and protest in open public just to be “seen”. Maybe an alpha would notice and fall head over heals for. HA HA HA.

  1. I noticed a trend of white-girl-daddy-funded-SJW-enabling-privilege in a couple of conspirators listed here.
    Fathers, make your daughters work for something other than some BS job in your own business or company. Apparently, girls don’t appreciate how good they have it working in a job provided by a strong patriarchal sense of providing work and income for one’s own children in the family business. Furthermore, they don’t respect the men that provide them the means and freedom to pursue their lunatic causes, and see their own father’s sex as a privileged class that must be attacked and defeated.

    1. I think this is a trend not only with SJWs, but active/vocal feminists as well. How well off are/were Steinem, Dworkin, Valenti, Sarkisian, Quinn, and other feminist are because daddy/hubby spoiled them with money and a life of luxury? At a hunch, I’m guessing well over 90%.
      It would be interesting to call out their monetary privilege and where their money comes from as an article. It would be really interesting to see how they are against male “privilege” when they are dependent on their daddy’s to cover their luxurious life.
      These are not voices of activists or authority, or even had the best interest of women in general. These hags are spoiled rotten brats that need to be verbally spanked down hard (I refuse to touch them physically with a ten-foot pole for a physical spanking.)

      1. Not only were they almost all children of privilege, they were also backed by CIA funding. This is public knowledge now, certainly in Steinem’s case. And Betty Fridan as well. So in that sense, we have been forced to pay (via taxes) for our own destruction…

    2. psychologically young women seem to have real difficulty with any set of circumstances in which their ‘needs’ are catered for. In a sense that makes sense. Even without the poison of feminism warping their minds many women don’t know how to handle a situation where they are longing for or deprived of the things they want. That’s the paradox of being a male provider figure: if you are insufficiently successful you’ll create discontent, but if you are too successful it may be even worse.

      1. Women have been conditioned to search for the highest level of provider, even if it backfires. That’s why they weren’t ever given rights. They’re inherently disloyal.

    3. Men (who should know better) funding their own (and their own culture’s) destruction. Incredible. Just one more way female wiles distort Daddy’s thinking process. Or lack thereof.

  2. Toront-ho, Mount-real, Van-cooz-ver…just buy ’em some pierogies and some poutine, eh, and you can bang ’em all.

  3. My favorite part of this little gender war is that women will ultimately be the losers – by their own hand. Marriage and birth rates are at all time lows – which will strangle the feminist/socialist state. Oh – the irony. The outsourcing of birth (mass immigration) from the remaining breeder/patriarchal nations will – and already is – running dry. The story of the massive failure of feminism is yet to be fully told.
    All Westernized nations are implementing forced marriage for men – through ‘de facto relationships’, the ‘Cohabitation Rights Bill’, and ‘Affirmative Consent’ – all carefully designed anti-male laws to continue the financial raping of men at women’s behest. As a result, soon, men will not only continue to flee marriage – but also cohabitation.
    Lawyers and judges are now actively legislating from the bench to continue the forced transfer of wealth and power from men to women – through giving cohabiting women the same rights to alimony, asset division, child support (alimony++) and civil suit payouts following false accusations their divorcing married female counterparts so enjoy.
    Words and phrases like ‘domestic violence’, ‘sexual harassment’, ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’ are now used routinely, liberally and falsely following the wrath of a woman scorned – to force the extraction of wealth and power from men to women. Feminists are pushing hard to have ‘affirmative consent’ or a facsimile thereof raised to the criminal justice level – ensuring the mass imprisonment of men following false accusations.
    Give idiots enough rope…

    1. What do you mean immigration is running dry? This seems to be the greatest victory of the globalists this far imo.

      1. The remaining breeder nations are struggling with lower marriage and birth rates as well. Where they once had 8, they’re now having 4. Soon, they too will fall below replacement level. It’s only a matter of time. Feminism is infecting their cultures, too. There are very few talking about or acknowledging this trend as it defies the supposed benefits of feminism and because such talk would only highlight feminism’s ultimate failure. You’ll see. Just be patient. More and more, this too will become part of the discussion.

        1. I’ve been banging on about the ‘below-replacement’ effect of feminism and the connexion to immigration for ages. I have absolutely no idea why none of the dissident media, including ROK, have explored this aspect. Feminism=immigration. The public has yet to make the connexion, but it seems we too have yet to make the connexion despite the fact that is probably nothing more emotive than mass immigration right now. Feminist career women don’t have babies (not necessarily a bad thing in itself) = more immigration = manufactured refugee crisis = terrorism

        2. Does feminism in practice necessitate socialism? Maybe in the abstract it doesn’t, but in western civilization there’s definitely that correlation, seen in the (attempted covert) forced wealth transfer from men to women. The point is that socialism has created the demand for immigration because they’re worried there won’t be enough workers to pay for the retirement and healthcare of boomers. Without government mucking up those service industries it wouldn’t have been such a problem. In fact, in the old days a landowner with multiple sons had the dilemma of what to do with the younger sons. Splitting up the land would have an adverse effect on the economy of scale of the farm, so he might as well will all the land to one son, the oldest. Overpopulation was a big concern, now it’s the opposite because of the thirst of socialism. I wonder if we conflate the cause of socialism with feminism too often.

        3. you make an interesting case. There is certainly a danger of mistaking correlation for cause. There is a tendency in England at least to think of population control – i.e. fewer heads through any method – as a good thing rather than a bad. That’s because we live within the mindset of a crowded island, and in a sense the idea of a world that represents over-crowding on a much vaster scale has spread much more generally, I think sometimes for very good reasons, and sometimes for much for questionable ones.
          I would say there is definitely more of a depopulation agenda than a keep it steady mindset in the world today, and that is probably more a legacy of environmentalism (and the ideologies that underlie it) – the idea for instance that human beings are destroying the planet rather benefiting it. I think the best attitude is to avoid too many generalizations: each country, and indeed each family, needs to consider its specific needs. Africa currently has a genuine population crisis in terms of projected population figures, but the opposite is true of the west where arguably the economies would benefit from at least keeping things stead. Feminism in the West does seem to me to have the effect of population control for the obvious reason that it keeps career age women from breeding as much as they otherwise would (both pros and cons there but in terms of replacing the population mainly cons).
          Where socialism is concerned, sure it provides the ideology (and perhaps the economic necessity) for mass immigration, but is that necessarily the principal cause? I would say the system at present is as intricate as the mechanism of a clock. There is socialism and multiculturalism, and feminism, on the one hand working together (and without anything but superficial contradiction) with the big corporations who want cheaper labour and indeed a broadened workforce that will also provide much larger markets for products, and a broader tax-base for governments. I’d also say that the latter the big money & the big government (whether socialist or conservative they tend increasingly to be equally statist) are doing the running here. Feminism helps with the ideological side and stewarding the cheap labour for the evil fat plutocrats

      2. Perhaps he’s implying that the Western people’s desire for immigration is rapidly reversing course?

        1. Feminism =/= immigration.
          Outside of America, who’s largely been spared due to proximity, the West has completely shifted poles on immigration and rapeugration due to the chicanery enveloping Europe.

        2. my point is that feminism necessitates immigration and feminism needs to be associated with immigration in the common imagination. It may be more complex than that but not that much so. Feminist career women will never reproduce at the rate of actual women hence if maintaining the head count is desirable then feminism should be considered an evil. The trick is that most people are worrying about over-population of countries (especially in a small island like the UK), but that is largely a result of excessive immigration. Feminism is birth control without sex

        3. Pretty sure we’ve made the connection here at ROK.
          But I agree showing the connection publically could be effective

        4. it’s something that tends to be mentioned in passing, if at all. There’s been lots on how feminism leads to the decline of nations, but I can’t think of an article (possibly one by Relampago F.) that explicitly associates the decline in population consequent to feminist career choices with the necessity of addressing the shortfall through immigration. We’ve just had a Brexit in the UK where immigration was pretty much the issue which galvanized half the population to vote to leave the EU, but what did we get: more feminism and a feminist PM & cabinet

        5. Those that benefit from it certainly do. Where would the West be without lawyers, judges, social workers, women advocates and NGOs geared for the fleecing of men to serve women’s proclivities?
          /sarc

        6. Andrea Leadsom wouldn’t have been so bad but Theresa May is an arch globalist, de facto feminist, censor and proponent of the surveillance state. Brexit is what the globalists wanted

        7. People have been raising concern with this for years… in regards to what appears to be an organised genocide.
          No one listens ofcourse because hey, its just evil whitey that is the prominent victim and anyone concerned about European ethnic survival and self determination is obviously a Nazi, bigot, racist who wants to gas 6 billion Jews.

        8. I think the point can be made responsibly and preferably without bringing Jews into the equation. It’s not a far right observation, but a very obvious observation that ordinary people can’t seem to make because the issue is somewhat taboo. I am not saying the connexion hasn’t been made, but that it hasn’t been made effectively, in such a way that it sticks in the mind, and that’s partly because it comes across as reflecting far right politics, which is not the case. It should be absolutely obvious to everyone, right wing or left wing that more feminism means more immigration, and that’s only going to change if the elite start producing babies in factories

        9. I don’t think it became taboo by accident. It could quite easily be enlightened upon the people through the usual channels the great unwashed receive all their other (dis)information yet it would never happen.
          I agree with most of what you have said but a curious person investigates further down the Rabbit hole to see the why, the how and the motivations behind it. I’ve come to some conclusions and beliefs. I don’t think they would align with yours but I can respect those that understand something is not right and pursue their own path of discovery.

        10. Thanks. Curiosity can takes us in many directions. I think the argument about feminism and immigration can be made quite simply in terms of the (relative) infertility caused by feminist career choices necessitating some kind of population top-up. The easiest way of doing this being mass immigration

      3. take a gander at this site. I assume the same thing is going on in Canada
        refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com

    2. “…women will ultimately be the losers – by their own hand. Marriage and birth rates are at all time lows.”
      THIS.
      There is an old adage in the Manosphere – 80% of the women want 20% of the men. What’s going to happen when that 20% dwindles to 10% or 5%? Tier-one men are becoming wiser to the game and many are seeking better options overseas, while many others are reluctant to date due to potential rape charges and general misandry. This will dry up the pool of potential husbands for these women (the ones they want, that is).
      These women have created an environment where most will be left with three options:
      1.) Become a spinster due to lack of available alpha cock.
      2.) Marry a metrosexual lapdog and spend the rest of their lives unhappy
      3.) Slowly go crazy trying to find the dwindling amount of single tier-one men.
      Note that all of these options end in Cymbalta.

        1. I currently get paid close to 6k-8k bucks /a month doing an online job. If you are willing to do basic online jobs for 2-5 hrs every day from your living room and get good payment in the same time… Try this gig http://self36.com
          dfgf5345gfdd

      1. 4. They vote for progressives who makes society even worse (somebody’s gotta pay for their poor decisions in life)

        1. when I was a kid, I thought the Nicholson character was an asshole. Now, we need this type of man more than ever

        2. Nicholson was a psychopathic blowhard who forgot the most important lesson of all: Everyone from the lowest private to the CMC is absolutely and completely replaceable. Cogs in the machine.

        3. I know what you mean. Kids in schools have been brainwashed that masculinity is bad. We think this into adulthood. Only those that discover the truth think otherwise and have to reprogram our thinking.

        4. I always thought it a peculiar piece: typical lefty SJW message thru and through- til Nicholson’s angry rebuttal speech. And it rings of truth and the writer (Aaron Sorkin) seems to know it. Of course he has to punish that character (the masculine truth teller…)

        5. Cruise’s character is basically a useless tool, until he ‘wisely’ taps into the brains, insight and inspiration of Demi Moore’s female lawyer. Of course! Lesson learned!!

        6. The longer I’ve been redpill, the more I start to identify with the villains in modern Hollywood movies.

    3. I dont agree about the outsourcing of birth running dry. There are hundreds of millions of immigrants in the Third World ready to take off and move to the West at any moment.

      1. The supply of desirable migrants may shrink because (a) some poor countries are becoming richer and more peaceful, meaning their highly educated citizens are more likely to stay home, and (b) the areas that have the best skilled migrants – Europe and east Asia – are projected to shrink demographically.
        But yes, shit migrants are always available in overabundance.

    4. I honestly don’t see men fleeing marriage and cohabitation. Those who do aren’t your average man.
      Average men now use female tactics to try and obtain “exclusive” relationships. They’re all too willing to get married and have children if it means women will stick with them longer.
      Women have the upper hand in western societies, nothing short of a major catastrophe is going to change that.

      1. Nah, she’ll probably croak within the first two. That’s why I don’t get too upset about her in The White House.

    5. So, what is it you want? Do you want to see your people replaced by by non-Whites while our men “go MGTOW” and cry about our degenerate women instead of identifying the REAL enemy and correcting the problem? That’s the plan. That’s where this is going. (((They))) want you and your heritage erased.
      Instead of identifying the (((people))) behind 2nd and 3rd wave feminism, many seem to have decided to basically declare war on roughly 50% of our OWN race (or inspire others to do so). They’ve decided to exacerbate an unnatural divide between the sexes that hasn’t existed until (((revolutionary activities))) of the late 19th and 20th centuries facilitated such degeneracy. Equality, feminism, egalitarianism, etc. all products of (((Cultural Marxism))) and the (((Frankfurt School))).
      I’m assuming you’re White, of course.
      I’m about to give up on this website’s commenters. What the heck is wrong with our men? Do they wish to see their race die out? I had an article published here under the name “Harlan Blackwood” about Jewish feminism:

      Why Is There A Prolific Jewish Presence In The American Feminist Movement?


      How much more evidence do we need that Whites are under attack? The conspiracy is not even being hidden any more. (((Hollywood))), the (((media))), (((higher level academia))) are all explicitly anti-White. There isn’t a “global war on men”, there is a global war on WHITES. They are not implementing feminism in non-White nations like they are in the West.
      Instead of blaming the Jews who are responsible for brainwashing our women (and men) through Cultural Marxism, you’ve chosen to simply blame women in general. You’re not “red pill”. Taking the “red pill” reveals that men and women are NOT equal, and therefore cannot be realistically held to the same standards; yet here you are, blaming White women instead of identifying the NON-WHITE Jews responsible for implementing this program of brainwashing. So, who do you want leading our women? Either the Jew will lead them (and our entire race) to destruction, or WHITE MEN will lead them back to stability.
      Your choice.

      1. Tell me. Do you believe that all civilizations that declined did so because of Jews?
        You and your ilk are by no means red pill with your pedestalization of women as holy bearers of civilization. Or whatever it was.
        Read Joseph Watson’s “Of the Rise and Decline of ancient Civilizations” and educate yourself.
        Leftist mentality and mentality in general is highly genetic. The leftist always looks for safety first. As such he will not face severe risks and go with the flow. When those risks are removed he naturally undermines values and standards as those pose risks.
        That is what a Jew tends to be due to their long history of following cultures.
        As you should learn by reading this book is that it’s not the Jew who removes those risks. It is pathetic submissive beta men like you who can’t say no to a woman.
        Do you really believe that there is some agenda to brainwash women?
        What is wrong with you?
        Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence…

      2. There is no evil force out there trying to separate men and women. Government didn’t just pop into existence out of thin air. Government is a reflection of its voters. Government IS the voters. This ‘evil’ people speak of is ‘the voters’.
        When NAWL wrote the no-fault divorce legislation, first signed into law in California by naive white knight, then Governor Ronald Reagan, where was the demand to halt such legislation? There wasn’t one – which means the voters voted for it by not voting against it and its supporters. See there – no big bad bogey man pulling strings – but rather immoral and corrupt voters enjoying the status quo. As a result – the divorce rate shot up to 75% and stayed there for a long, long time. Since that time, no-fault divorce is now the norm – with millions of men’s lives destroyed through asset division, alimony, child support (alimony ++) and false accusations EVERY SINGLE YEAR – tens of thousands of whom have committed suicide EVERY SINGLE YEAR for the past several decades and TRILLIONS of dollars forcefully transferred from men to women. The big bad bogey men are those who wrote the legislation (feminists) – legislation that guaranteed women their X husband’s current and future assets and income following divorce – those that voted for those that supported it (naive, self-serving white knights and women) – and those that didn’t vote to stop it (the massively disconnected, self-serving electorate).
        Now, we have ‘affirmative consent’ – also initiated by the California legislature – which is also going national on college campuses. Every effort is being made to move this ‘law’ to the criminal courts as well. What does this law do? It removes men’s rights to presumption of innocence and due process – allowing for the mass imprisonment of men following false accusations and forced wealth transfer through civil suit payouts. Where’s the outcry to stop it? There isn’t one. You have a tiny minority of women who oppose it and the vast majority of women will not vote against it. What’s more, our male leadership will vote for it to keep their jobs. Why is this law being allowed to proliferate like no-fault divorce? For the same reason no-fault divorce was allowed to pass through the land like a cancer. You think women are going to vote in mass against a law that ensures massive civil suit payouts following their false accusations of rape/sexual assault/abuse? How about the naive, self-serving white knight political class? Are you nuts?
        These days, men only exist to provide forced wealth transfer from men to women – and the government exists as their enforcer of that wealth transfer – all allowed to commence either through voting or not voting by the self-serving gynocentrists (most women and nearly the entirety of our male leaders).
        This idea that men should ‘learn the game’ and ‘learn to pick the poison free pieces of candy in a pile of thousands’ is ridiculous. Every piece of candy is poisoned. Why? What NAWALT isn’t going to instantly transform into an AWALT following the wrath of a woman scorned? There are no NAWALTS – only AWALTS not yet set on the path of male destruction. Don’t believe me ‘happily married men’? Wait until your income earning years are over or until some unpreventable event leaves you less able to continue your life as a walking, breathing ATM. Then come back and we’ll talk.
        Here’s my recommendation to all men: Create a list of all the things you need to accomplish to have a great life – and put women dead last on the list – knowing that all of the fruits of your life accomplishments can successfully be transferred to ‘the one’ with the words ‘divorce’, ‘sexual assault’, ‘domestic violence’, ‘sexual harassment’ and/or ‘rape’.
        How do you fix it? YOU CAN’T. It’s too late. You think women and white knights are going to reverse a system that caters to them personally? The Jews? Give me a break!

        1. Government is not a reflection of its voters. That is the biggest fallacy in current times. And anyone who believes it isn’t truly red pill.

        2. I understand your perspective, and understand why you think the way you do. I also understand that at this point you probably think you have things “figured out” about our world.
          I know these things because I used to think just like you. I’ve been reading this website for nearly 2 years, have had two articles published here, and have consumed THOUSANDS of comments to gain better perspective.
          However, after writing my article about Jewish feminism, I began to dig even deeper into that topic. A thinking man has to ask the question:
          Why is it that Western Civilization went centuries WITHOUT feminism, and then all of a sudden, after WW2, the ideas of equality between the sexes, racial equality, and other forms of egalitarianism all took off? Not only did these ideas take off, but they took off at an exponential rate in WHITE nations.
          Our people had survived for centuries under the notion that men would lead, and women would bear children and have limited power within our government; i.e. women were understood to fulfill their traditional roles as wives, mothers, and caretakers.
          And, regardless of what some red-haired feminist claims on a local college campus, women were MUCH HAPPIER when they were supposedly “oppressed”. Women were happier when they were fulfilling their traditional roles, and there are plenty of studies you can find on the internet to confirm this.
          So, what am I getting at here? I’m trying to show you (and hopefully other readers) that feminism was implemented by Jewish feminists and a handful of other global elites to:
          A.) Get women into the workforce to pay taxes, thereby enriching the top 1 or 2% of the world’s wealthiest families
          B.) Accomplish White Genocide; feminism is only one aspect of accomplishing this goal that is now wide out in the open. Massive non-White immigration is another tool they are using.
          That’s what this is all about. 50% of the White race didn’t just “snap” in the 20th century and start conspiring of ways to hurt their OWN men. They were brainwashed into doing this by (((social movements))), movements that were heavy with Jewish involvement.
          Men and women are not equal, as most of us already know. You can’t expect men and women to react to such unhealthy stimuli in the same way. Women are more easily manipulated through emotional stimuli and are also more likely to participate in group-think and “go with the flow”. They want to fit in to the social zeitgeist, and the current zeitgeist is absolute degeneracy.
          In the past, Europeans and European-Americans kept our women in check and set the moral and cultural standards for women to operate in. Cultural Marxism of the 20th century and all of the unnatural social revolutions DESTROYED this basic fabric of Western Civilization, and we have the Jews to thank for that.
          Feminism is but ONE of the many destructive movements of the 20th century. We also had movements for fag rights, and for racial equality and integration (led in large part by Jews) around the same time the feminists were conspiring amongst themselves and with the global elites who were funding them.
          We also had the Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), which was written by a Jewish lawyer (Norbert Schlei) and pushed hardest by Jews in influential positions, such as Celler himself and Jacob Javits in the Senate. After passage of the bill, Jewish groups immediately went to work on opening our floodgates that in 2016 has put Whites at risk of soon becoming a minority in our own lands.
          The baby boomers and some of their parents allowed these movements to gain the necessary foothold needed to gain institutional power. They have collectively subjected their children and especially their grandchildren to a sick, sick world.
          So, in conclusion, instead of holding half of my race in contempt for being born into a world that intentionally brainwashes them and brings out the WORST in them as a result of their biologically programed instincts, I’m more interested in going after the people responsible for pushing Cultural Marxism and Egalitarianism on Western Civilization.
          The Jews.

        3. Hey Danky, you should be glad that (((we))) are disappearing because of the feminism you attribute to (((us))). In the future, Jews will be a boutique religion, with so few of us as to be a curiosity. As (((Lion of the Blogosphere))) points out, we will be a people who have are poor, dress funny, and have a lot of kids.

        4. “Your ilk” “Your kind”.
          Go on, you can say it. The G word. Goyim.
          Just pretend you’re back at Hebrew school/camp learning about how horrible the Gentiles are as the leaders throw around the term.
          Don’t be shy now. Its referenced quite often in the sacred Talmud.

        5. Yes, I shouldn’t have used such a derogatory manner of speaking.
          That being said you are not the first one of your corner of ideology to completely avoid the topic with an ad hominem.
          Tell me. Do you think that all civilizations declined (surprisingly very similarly like ours) because of the Jews and that women are “holy vessels of civilization”?
          Also, tell the other guy to unblock me and answer squarely as he seems to have done that.

        6. Actually since the mid 1800s. See:
          Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
          Woman’s Rights Convention, Held at Seneca Falls, 19-20 July 1848.

      3. I upvoted your comment. Whites are under attack, but I am not sure it is just the Jews. It is true that the Jewish state DOES want multi-culturalism for everybody else and uniformity and only Judaism for itself.
        Colonialsm does give people some good reasons to hate Europe and white people. Problem is, all the other countries had wars and slavery also. I think Europe just came out on top because it had the benefits of a high trust Christian society at one time that helped it get the upper hand.
        Problem is, you are hated if you win.
        So back to the Jews. It is true they like multi-culturalism. Makes it easier to operate within a society behind the scenes. They can have their ol boy network, promote each other invisibly, but still not be a persecuted minority. Best of all words. Add that to the fact that the Holocaust gives them perfect cover to scream “anti-semetism” if they get called out on their own discriminatory practices..
        So that is why they control the top levers of our culture, banking and Hollywood. I have been the number 2 candidate before and been asked by the Jewish interviewer if I was Jewish. And saying ne, not getting the job. (I have been told by several Jewish people that I seem Jewish, whatever that means.)
        They have a high trust society for themselves and a globalist network which they have cultivated for 2000 years. Paradoxically, ever since they got kicked out of their homeland by the Romans.
        I have Jewish blood, but my family has been Christian since medieval times.
        It does appear that the bible prophesies concerning Jewish world supremacy are coming true.
        And that, now that Christians are abandoning their faith, the time of the Gentile and their supremacy under Christianity is coming to an end.
        Our culture is dying, and I see little that can be done to save it. The Christian churches that remain have often been co-opted by elite agenda such as the neocons.
        I do see a few positive things though. It looks to me like there are a few Christians bucking the trend. The biggest is Alex JOnes. Christian conspiriacy theorists, it seems to me, haave “eyes to see” what is really happening better than most. Hagman Brothers are also pretty good.
        However, the person who, I believe, saw deepest down the rabbit hole was Rudolf Steiner. He actuallly appeared to work closely with some of the brotherhoods and theosophists such as Blavatsky before rejecting them and turning to Christ. Even if parts of his Christian doctrine seem rather strange, he saw much that is happening today already in the early 1900’s.

        1. Alex Jones is what is known as a ‘half truther’. A distraction, misdirection and cleverly discrediting ‘conspiracy theories’ whilst appearing to be against the narrative.
          His director (handler) is a Jew and I believe he has married into a Jewish family.
          Never once acknowledges or confronts the Jewish question when the facts are undeniably so. I believe one of his videos I watched he was claiming the royal family in England are the global elite and they are Nazis. Lol you got to be fucking kidding me.

        2. Well, dig deep enough the and find out theroyal family= mount battons (German Jews) + Astor bloodline (Jew); they are from Denmark aka the Danites with their tribal symbol of the red dragon. What is on their current oat of arms? The red dragon. Same red dragon in revelations.
          Alex jones sold out a long time ago though. I believe he was once in our side, but took turner money.

    1. “How can we fight for them when we are still fighting for ourselves? We have to settle our issues first, before we impose our culture on them.”

    2. I misread that as why don’t feminists fight muslim women, which is actually a very good idea:
      I wager a pony on Triggly Puff to beat Yasmin Alibhai Brown.
      Think I might follow that match on the radio though in case clothes start falling off

      1. I’m in! I don’t give a shit about the Olympics or any of that boring garbage but that I would fucking pay to watch!
        Actually anything beating on muzzies would do come to think of it, but some of the chicks look sorta hot, like a kardashian sort way, tickles the pickle but would never go to boom town with…

      2. Like womens mud-wrestling- now that’s worthy of the Olympics. I love that real little bitch push and slap thing at the start.

    1. Relative on the payroll. Sort of like “VP of Mergers and Acquisions” and the last time the company did that Eisenhower was president.

    1. Gets dicked out 40x on mission trip.
      Parents: We’re so proud of you, and everything you’re doing out there!

  4. Pay attention. This is the ‘globalist’ big picture. Whole individual>Masculine men>Feminine women>Rest of the trash.
    It is quite easy to comprehend why this appeals to every single person. To state the obvious, it would reduce the traditional families to a minority and sex merely to a means to reproduce.
    And also note their current indifference to your battles. They will out themselves to win the war after your ruins.

  5. Patriarchal Agenda Meeting Notes, April 1, 1960:
    – Things Most Beneficial to Men –
    (1) An End to Marriage:
    Marriage sucks for men. Men are forced into roles as providers and protectors, forcing them to waste resources on parasitic women and sacrifice their lives on women’s behalf. How best to trick women into rejecting marriage? Maybe if we convinced them that marriage oppresses women?
    (2) An End to Monogamy:
    Having to have sex with the same woman for the remainder of your days is not a pleasant thought. It would be far better for men to enjoy the bounty of poody for life rather than to be tied to single woman for long periods of time. There must be a way to turn women away from monogamy. Maybe convince them that true female empowerment is having sex with multiple partners throughout their lives?
    (3) Freely Available Images of Naked Women:
    Yeah – sex is good and all – but edge-fapping to a few dozen of the most stunning women on the planet can be a lot of fun too – if you know what you’re doing. How to best get women to disrobe en masse for all men to see? How about convincing them to strip down naked to thwart sexual objectification through the normalization of female nudity and/or as a means to exemplify their empowerment and womanhood? We could call it ‘free the poody’ or some such thing.
    (4) Working and Taxpaying Women:
    Being in charge certainly has its pluses, but what if there were a way to get women engaged in employment in equal or greater numbers to men? Women sharing the tax load would greatly reduce the burden on men to work and pay taxes – leaving men with far more leisure time. How about convincing them that being stay at home moms is really the mass oppression of women?
    (5) Women in Battle:
    War is something that men are particularly adept at handling – but what if there were a way to get women into the service as well? Fewer male deaths and a greater instance of tail for the male troops readily at hand would certainly do wonders for morale. Greater frequency of women in the service might even reduce war a little. Could we possibly convince women that the service is nothing more than an exclusively male bastion of toxic masculinity ripe for female domination?
    (6) Self-Sustainable Single Mothers:
    Single mothers without men as providers can result in major fiscal headaches for men. What if their were some way to spread this burden to women – even childless ones? What if there were a way to spread the cost of maintaining women without individual providers back on female taxpayers? We could call it ‘welfare’ or some such thing – forcing women to pay for other women’s kids – lowering the overall cost and responsibilities of reproduction to men.
    (7) Use Women to Destroy Legal and Financial Male Obligations to Women:
    What if we create a means with which women themselves can deter men from financial and legal commitments to women? We could make it easy for women to destroy men through such commitments – deterring men from wasting the fruits of their labor on women in the first place, further incentivizing women to attack men – creating a continuous vicious male-hating ‘cycle’ – naturally freeing more and more men over time?
    Final Notes:
    Remember that the above notes are for members of the patriarchy only and not to be discussed with the general public. The patriarchy cannot be seen as the underlying cause of women unwittingly doing exactly what men want. To pull this off – women have to think this was all their idea. They must believe all of the above to be empowering to themselves and punishing to men.
    Until the next meeting…my ‘good men’.

  6. “Dozens of defamatory articles falsely accused Roosh of being pro-rape and organizing illegal harassment against feminists.”
    LOL. It was satire, right? Despite it not being satire.
    Also, the dozen or so pathetic excuses for men that actually show up for these idiotic displays of hate is evidence enough of Roosh’s abject failure.
    Why, just look at those brave, masculine warriors with black boxes covering their faces. Poor little victims.
    Real men laugh in Roosh’s rape promoting face. Self respecting women throw drinks in it.

    1. What the fuck would a little bitch like you know about being a real man? Posting that pathetic comment in this section. Spewing imbecilic falsehoods, and bitching about a guy on a site he created, in a comments section full of his supporters. And completely and shamelessly swallowing the lies of the media, and the scum of the earth. You have no intelligence, you have no reason, no honesty, shame, or pride, you little bitch, and you’re using the term real men?
      And you really are everyone’s stupid little bitch. You’re the media’s bitch. You’re the feminist’s bitch. And someday you’ll be some bloated, blue haired “woman’s” bitch (if you aren’t already).
      And it never fails to be amusing how bitchy little cowards such as yourselves want to call people cowards for taking normal precautions to protect their identity. Worthless little cowards are always the first to call a man a coward for being reasonable. When has a little bitch like you ever risked anything?
      But if you want to talk about it, why not show us all your face. Go on, upload a picture. You’re not going to call someone a coward for not wanting to show their face, without being called out. So fucking do it. I’m sure you look like a little weakling. Prove it.
      And likewise with making the pathetic, cretinous, disgusting slander of calling a guy a rapist. People used to be, quite rightly, fought and killed over attacking someone’s character like that. Now I know an imbecilic little faggot like yourself would never have the guts to make that accusation if you knew there were consequences, but the least you can do, to at least not appear a complete, embarrassing idiot, is provide proof. Support your accusation, coward, or embarrass yourself further.
      But of course, you’ll just come back with some worthless bitchy snark. You can’t support what you say, you don’t have the guts or the brains. You’ll just bitch something completely stupid and irrelevant, and pathetic. And emasculated. Which is what you are. Stupid, irrelevant, emasculated, pathetic.
      P.S. You might be a woman. Same difference. Being you’re entirely bereft of femininity, and you’re trying your hardest to mock men the way guys would, everything applies just the same. You can be a pathetic little bitch of a man, or a pathetic little bitch of a woman. Same difference.

      1. Reality supports what I claim. Roosh is a scumbag, and RoKs is it’s epicenter. Your comment is exhibit a.
        Did I invade your safe space? LOL.

        1. Why do you people from Jezebel and other feminist communities bother coming to this site? I mean, were you just too bored on a Saturday evening?
          If you have a factual claim to make, then post a valid link. Otherwise, you are just trolling for attention. Petty.

  7. I said this exact same thing last year and I’ll say it again: that smirk has “cunt” written all over it.

  8. Enter the age of MAN. Patriarchy will have the green light soon. Shed ye womanly ways and clear ye lungs. We mustn’t bum rush the entrance like a black friday hamsterfest. It’s one solid step at a time. We will core this orb and spit out its hamsterforce bitch pit. ”Ptooey”. The wrathful bitch spirit will fold. Thence it will be written, where man plants his foot he remains. Our species will reach the next level. Hail the patriarchy!

  9. Incidentally, what’s with French Canadian bitches? Sounds like they’re all batshit crazy leftoid.

  10. Does anyone else see Alex from Clockwork Orange in that pic of Jessica Leleivre? She’s one scary looking woman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *