NY Mag Attacks Return Of Kings For “Radicalizing” Men Yet Remains Silent On Islamic Extremism

It seems that reading articles about how to sleep with more girls or how to become a stronger, more masculine, or successful man is the same as doing the Muslim profession of faith before stealing a truck and running over Christian pedestrians. That’s the ridiculous conclusion of NY Mag after publishing their article “The Online Radicalization We’re Not Talking About” based on their own report.

Christ, what a runt. Can physiognomy be more real?

For their web site report, they used two girls under forty, (((Alice Marwick))) and Rebecca Lewis, who have apparently no knowledge on Islam, terrorism, the red pill, neomasculinity, or any of the subjects contained in the article. Alice Marwick, a researcher for Harvard’s (((Berkman Klein Center))), become especially happy when she found a way to conceal her Jewishness, for reasons that we can only speculate on.

The report is quite entertaining due to its blatant dishonesty and intellectual shortcuts. Here is a link to see the full extent of their lunacy. It starts well by using the title “The Radicalization That No One Talks About”. That is because no one cares and no red-pilled man goes setting off bombs in crowds of children at some slut‘s concert. I could stop my argumentation there but let’s dive in.

So why are our writers and readers the worst villains since Pol Pot?

An autobiographical article by NY Magazine

Here are some extracts on the article:

When you hear the word radicalization, what usually comes to mind is young people turning to Islamic fundamentalism. But the far right is doing virtually the same thing — and possibly even more effectively. (…)

In their pseudo-hierarchy of evil, posters that do politically incorrect jokes on the Internet, post frog memes, talk about bedding girls or laugh at feminists deserve the same treatment as Muslims setting off nail bombs, throwing gays off buildings, or burning little girls in cages while alive.

We have now become the equivalent of ISIS. Calling us “radicalized” shows that the lying, good-for-nothing MSM has gone full circle. They have nothing left but redefining what words mean and accusing us of “thoughtcrime”.

It continues:

What the red pill actually reveals depends on who’s offering it. To men’s-rights activists, being red-pilled means throwing off the yoke of popular feminism and recognizing that men, not women, are the oppressed group. To the alt-right, it means revealing the lies behind multiculturalism and globalism, and realizing the truth of isolationist nationalism. To conspiracy theorists, it may mean accepting the influence of the New World Order on society. To white supremacists, it means acknowledging that Jewish elites control the culture and are accelerating the destruction of the white race.

I am afraid that the authors already became red-pilled by writing those truths and are probably getting further radicalised, buying ROK t-shirts as we speak. The fact that we don’t buy into their narrative and expose them seems to be the main component of our “radicalisation”.

It helps that the extremists are also extremely adept at making their ideas palatable, by using irony and humor. (…) Actual hate groups can draw people in using humor, while also normalizing their most extreme ideas.

However, given the similarities between far-right and Islamic radicalization, it’s worth examining the efforts by political scientists and counterterrorism experts to combat the latter.

I have yet to witness the website Return of Caliphs or the goat memes of the Islamist board 4sharia. This is an attempt at a witch hunt where we are targeted because we won’t bow to the narrative and want our common man to open his eyes.

They attempt to paint us as thought criminals in the eyes of the authorities instead of focusing on factual crimes. They want us arrested, imprisoned, and our lives destroyed because we challenge their power by our defiant thoughts. This is the reality of the situation.

The female writers seem to have a crush on us as Roosh, Matt Forney and Return of Kings are mentioned about twenty times in that report alone.

But recently, the pick-up artist Roosh described his first book as “an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility,” and his blog Return of Kings has recently posted rants about interracial pornography and other favorite annoyances of the alt-right

Looks like I rattled someone’s cage by calling out who is behind their favourite category of porn.

If you’ve read this week’s conspiracy-mongering stories about the supposedly suspicious death of DNC employee Seth Rich — or if you’ve read in the past about the rise of White Student Unions on college campuses, or “Pizzagate” — you’ve seen the fruits of their efforts.

As internet and media scholars, we began this project focused on media manipulation and the spread of misinformation. But as we delved into these spaces, we noticed that one of the biggest trends taking place had been flying under the radar. And that is far-right radicalization. (…)

They don’t call it radicalization, of course. They call it “taking the red pill.”

“I will have you know that I was promoted to the rank of internet and media scholar, you nazi. So watch out.”

We are winning at the game of truth seeking. And they can’t stand it. We know the vicious techniques they can use against us and our readers and how low they will stoop. Hence our need to keep our guard up.

Truth will triumph

Muslims that kill apostates are not “radicalized” as the MSM would like us to believe. They just become more zealous and apply the principles of conquest and forced conversion that their Holy book teaches, a fact that has been proven and keeps being ignored because “that would be racist”, even if Islam is not a race.

The MSM is grasping at straws trying to show that the cause is everything but Islam in its nature. They are deeply hurt as their ratings are plummeting compared to alternative media, who have no one to answer to but their readers and viewers. They have ran out of methods to fight us.

Calling us Nazis or racists did not work. Trying to cut by cancelling ads did not work. So they need to portray us as the twin brother of the paroxysm of evil: Islamic terrorism.

One can only distance himself from the media machinery and defuse their influence once it is understood that they have no interest in information or truth. They are performing dogs rewarded by their masters when they do tricks. I like this quote by Soral that sums up the MSM :

Des menteurs qui crient de douleur quand ils vous poignardent

This article follows Saul Alinsky‘s “Rules for Radicals” handbook: accusing others of your crimes. The same method that girls use when they test you: projection.

They need to turn the tables and channel the concern of the common people on us. It is more important to save the narrative than seeing more people die at the hands of Islamic terrorists.

By these declarations, they confirm a sole fact. That what we do harms their business and the dishonest elites. We gnaw at their tower of lies by exposing who holds the reins of their mental manipulation and open the eyes of the people who will stop giving them clicks and shekels.

Read More: Why Do People Hate Return Of Kings?

440 thoughts on “NY Mag Attacks Return Of Kings For “Radicalizing” Men Yet Remains Silent On Islamic Extremism”

  1. “If you don’t have any haters, you’re doing something wrong”
    Just more urbanites spazzing over things outside of their control.

    1. It’s a bigger problem, though. The media disseminates it. The pseudo-intellectuals go dig up the official looking report. It’s all a set-up for the next stage; a basis has been fabricated to not only push censorship, but make it seem reasonable.
      I wish it was benign as ‘urbanites spazzing’.

      1. Fortunately, we have the 1st Amendment in the States. Europe though, may take a hit.

        1. I don’t believe the 1st is so ironclad. I do believe the long game is to broaden the definition of what inciteful and threatening speech is (already not covered under the 1st), and further get sites like this (and by extension, our comments) labeled as that brand of inciteful and threatening. At a minimum it requires our vigilance.
          Remember, too, censorship can also be realized simply by one side outspending the other in court. If Roosh had to show up to defend against bogus claims? I’d guess that’s not presently in the budget.

        2. I don’t believe that the 1st allows or will ever be successfully argued to allow an exemption for “muh hurt feewingz”.

        3. He does have a point, however. The constant push to equate spoken words with actual violence can move the Overton Window in such a way as to allow liberal judges enough cover to undercut the 1st in a significant way.

        4. We have SCOTUS on our side for likely the next 20 years, assuming more conservative judges don’t mysteriously die and get replaced by a Leftist POTUS. After that, then ok, it might happen, but by then our “damage” will be done or so far in progress that censoring it would be pointless.

      2. I know that what you say is true, but I also feel that the widespread discrediting of the liberal media will blunt the effects of this. Once upon a time, everyone would have bought that and been terrified. Nowadays, half the people will be curious and possibly join us. How else do you explain 4chan?

        1. I’m thinking about this. Granted, a good number of regular people are there with us. But the politicians aren’t, the elites aren’t, and the courts might not always be.

        2. The judges’ pomp didn’t blunt the guillotines in the French Revolution…
          The elites were never on our side and they’re pretty much synonymous with politicians at this point. We haven’t really made any new enemies in that case and we’re inevitably gaining the attention of normal people who are realizing that the jig is up. My two cents is that I think we’re reaching critical mass on how much people can be subverted before they realize what’s really happening.

  2. ROK radicalizes men? Bwahaha. Let’s apply a little reductio ad absurdum here –
    If ROK radicalizes men by encouraging them to be the strongest, most empowered versions of themselves that they can possibly be, then feminism radicalizes women by encouraging them to be those very same things.
    All Big Media has proven with this bogus allegation, is that it continually adheres to the old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again.”

    1. If masculinity is considered a form of terrorism then ROK is indeed guilty of radicalising men.
      They want men to be more like women which if you consider yesterday’s article probably means they want you to go out and stab your boyfriend

      1. Little Miss Muffit, sat on a tuffit, snorting her coke and blow. Along came a judge who held no grudge and now she is let go.

    2. It really depends on your definition of radicalization. RoK is more radical than mainstream media but less radical than The Turner Diaries.
      Anyways, the manosphere contains much more radical sites than this one (lookin at you, Heartiste) that promote active civil war.

      1. Yeah, the Chateau can be a real cesspool. There are some decent articles/observations/shivs there on occasion, but I got pretty tired of the constant bullshit articles and comments section food fight.

        1. Radical in the sense that it’s basically just throwing shit everywhere with huge doses of white nationalism thrown in to boot. It’s more or less like a Stormfront Manosphere site.

        2. I like that site as it first introduced me to the redpill, but I’d prefer if they stick to game.
          GBFM FTW lolzozlzolzolzlzzzzol!

        3. I thought it was just about game to be honest. They don’t have pictures much so you have to read the articles

        4. Oh, I still read it, and there are some great game gems and shivs to be certain.

        5. This bit from GBFM had me laughing for quite a while:
          The Matrix:
          Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
          Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
          Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
          Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
          Neocon: What is it?
          Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthex Matrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer asscockig in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl

        6. Thanks for telling me
          > I’ll move to Heartiste, see ya
          Edit: Just went there – he doesn’t name jews, he doesn’t even use the word globalism, total cuckpage, not white nationalism, go back to reddit, fgt.

        7. I have no problem with actually caring about our own ethnicity. I just think that he goes way overboard sometimes, which I get is his style, but after a while I’m skimming past those articles and looking for cuck shiv or game articles.

        8. Heartiste doesn’t name the jews? doesn’t use the word ‘globalism’, total cuckage?
          Clearly you don’t know Heartiste. It is more redpilled than here, he explicitly name the jew and talk about race. It is one of my favorite sites since years ago.

        9. Something I particularly like about Heartiste is he consistently reviews scientific articles that back up his anecdotal observations.

        10. I don’t know who’s behind Chateau, but clearly is an extremely bright individual. His observations about human interactions, evolutionary psychology and game are simply spotless, and his sense of humor is the best.

        11. Sounds to me like somebody who went to the wrong URL. If you don’t see his comments section covered in ((())) and “Eskimos” and shit, then you probably accidentally dialed in a Jerry Fallwell page or some shit.
          Don’t blame others for your own incompetence.

        12. The thing is that studies on evo psychology, sociobiology, developmental pyschology and so on have been around for much much longer than these blogs, including studies who show that multiculturalism is perhaps no such a terrific idea. I am only 31 but I knew about guys like Richard Lynn and David Buss for many years before I started to read and write online.

        13. I think the different blogs have different functions. Roosh is the answer to SJW culture, Roissey is the answer to socialist academia. That’s why you see a different crowd here than there.

        14. Good lord. That guy is still around? He’s funny the first few times but he is so repetitive

      2. This is true, when your worldview is so warped that you define normal as lunatic feminists, gay parades, tranny bathrooms, cuckoldry and such, then people who are normal would seem otherwise.

        1. That makes a lot of sense. So basically, if you don’t act insane, you are a dangerous radical in need of medication. I got it now.

        2. Reminds me of an episode of the Walking Dead where they had to pretend to be zombies just to get through them all.

      3. Gotta say I enjoy Heartiste, and remain a loyal reader. He was way out in front of PUA which eventually, and quite normally, turned political.
        The man brought evolutionary psychology to the forefront which broke the western feminism code and essentially weaponized PUA against globalist social engineering.
        What people don’t like about him now are his observations on race. While some cringe about the ugly truths he delivers regarding race, let us be reminded of how some of us cringed when he first delivered ugly truths about females when we went looking for answers.
        There are differences in the genders just like there are differences in the races. You’re not required to like truth, but, ignore it at your own peril.

        1. Yeah. I don’t mind discussing differences in race (as should be clear by my posting here), I just get the feeling that he and the readership get a little too spergy on it at times. I’ll read for a while, then leave for a while, then read. I rarely if ever comment.

        2. I admit his comments board is mostly a bunch of inside jokes. Honestly I never commented there in all my time reading his site.

        3. Yeah, his evo psych stuff was great. We need to acknowledge general differences between races. (Africans have great muscle tone, Asians have high pain tolerance, Caucasians have strong future time orientation, etc.) Those differences are apparent to anybody who’s travelled to Namibia, Japan, and France.
          The problem is what Heartiste DOES with that knowledge. His feverish hatred is cartoonish.

        4. He’s Alt-White. A while back, Vox Day subdivided the Alt-Right into Alt-White (Stormfront et al), Alt-West (nationalists and western civ supremacists), and Alt-Light (you know who qualifies here).
          I’m Alt-West, but occasionally I hear something of value from the other factions. It’s worth hearing, but they do spend more time off the deep end (from my perspective) than I would prefer.

        5. The way the nation and world is currently shaping up I suggest; There are no enemies to the Right.

        6. Reminds me of Emo Phillips famous joke about trying to keep a man from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.
          It’s been voted the best religious joke ever written. (No joke.)

        7. Amusingly, by that same logic the entire Left (and a decent percentage of the “middle ground”) has been radical forever.
          That could prove an interesting angle when that attack inevitably comes.

        8. I’d never heard of Emo Phillips (crucify me as a philistine), but I’d heard the joke. Based solely on that, I can see why it’d be the best religious joke ever written.

        9. that’s because you have to wake up pretty early in the morning to find Emo peeking through your bedroom window

      1. You are on a roll today, for sure…now If somebody reads The Wall Street Journal or People Magazine occasionally, that doesn’t make that person a cult member. But if you read material at ROK, well, buddy, you’re a radical extremist and a dangerous revolutionary. Huh? Somebody please explain the logic to me there…oh wait, there isn’t any.

    3. “If ROK radicalizes men by encouraging them to be the strongest, most empowered versions of themselves that they can possibly be”
      yeh – god for-fukkin-bid

      1. That’ll be enough of THAT kind of masculine behavior from you, Mister Man. Knock it off or no TV, and I mean it…

        1. I’m pretty sure my kindergarten teacher was a feminist lesbian nazi jew.
          No wonder I’m fukked up.

        2. A feminist nazi jew? Soros was your kindergarten teacher?? You’re probably coming from a very wealthy neighbourhood.

        3. hahaha I wouldn’t say that….But even the dullest public school systems let some misguided “new blood” in once in a while.

      1. John Atomic Symbol Guy dropping knowledge bombs like the fucking Daily Llama over here.

        1. “empowering them” !? my foot ! Let them “invent” their own Tele/Mobile/Smart phone; Let them “innovate” their own Transmission, Engine, Gears, Vehicles; Let them “pioneer” their own Electricity/Current/Power, Radio, Tape Recorder, TV, Clock, Microwave … !!
          Guess how many pussies know about FATHER of GYNECOLOGY !!

        2. Or any aspect of a nation’s, city’s or municipality’s infrastructure. Next time a women gets uppity on this subject, gently tell her:
          “Let’s do a quick thought experiment…imagine yourself on a street corner in any bustling city in the world. Now — look all around you, and point to one thing, anywhere, that a women designed, invented or built. OK now — what did you come up with? That’s right — NOTHING.” You can add “now STFU” at the end of that brief moment of clarity if you like. But of course, she’ll ignore everything you just proved.

        3. Im convinced if we just refuse to A open jars and B refuse to change womens tires we can bring feminism to its knees.

        4. Thanks. I didn’t up-voted you because you up-voted me ! but because (just as any other real MAN and ROKer) you took time to read the Informative Article(s) and are part of the ROK Platform.
          Skin color doesn’t matter, come with any sort or kind of injustice happening to a MAN; we stay UNITED.

        5. Exactly. How come these females (especially those who endorse and/or follow femicuntism) are able to remain ungrateful !? How on the earth they are devoid of FACTS !? How can they ignore the Biology and demand “equality” !? OMG !!

        6. It will take a lot more than that. You overestimate your worth. Besides any woman knows all you have to do to open a testy jar knock the lid on the counter a few times. Also, many women know how to change a tire and if for some reason they didn’t they know how to add roadside assistance to there insurance. Especially since they have a job and can pay for it!

      2. feminism doesn’t want people feeling their gender, and liberalism gets creative from there

      3. Feminism has given these cunts the idea that they hold some real power. I’m embroiled in another shit fest and this time I am able to hold frame and let them hang themselves. They have gone too far into the swamp and can’t find their way out. And I? I am sitting in the weeds waiting to pounce.

      4. Feminism is a scam started by lesbians to get women to hate men, and come over to lesbianism.

    4. So you’re basically saying ROK is like feminism for men?
      Feminism does not radicalize women by “encouraging them to be the strongest, most empowered version of themselves.” Feminism radicalized women to be the weakest, most dependent, least responsible, sluttiest version of themselves.
      You’re giving feminism waaaaaay too much credit.

    5. Worst idea. I find it hard to believe that a liberal will be able to resist something that they’re “not allowed” to read or think about. It’s like that one experiment they did with a cookie and a two year old.

    6. radicalizing men = teaching men not to be wimpy, faggy, metrosexuals who support the globohomo agenda
      And we can’t have that now, can we?

    7. Well said. If ROK radicalizes MEN, then what about the worthless sites like “PussyBel” !!? Those ungrateful bitches shamelessly use the Technology & Infrastructure Invented by MEN and churn out shitty articles against MASCULINITY.
      pussies can smoke, drink, get obese, get ugly & filthy, deliberately and desperately wear skimpy clothes & objectify themselves, can hook up for lust/easy money & luxuries, walk bare chested, do slut walks, call themselves whores, leech out tax-payers money, bask on the hard work & efforts of MEN, are not accountable for their own actions, no consequences to face, …, etc. etc.
      …And yet, ROK radicalizes MEN !!

    8. It’s hilarious because PUAs are all about figuring out what women want and giving it to them. They just don’t like that the men will not be going in blind and stupid.

    9. I thought feminism empowered women to be sluts and to use the state to gain advantage? Not to be the best possible women.

        1. Just did it here for the first time in well over a year and a half. Fucking disgusting how they worship “diversity” like that all the time. Fuck Google.

        2. “Invented” the rainbow flag, did he?
          Yah – and I ‘invented’ the Two Scoops guy on a raisin bran box.

    1. His last post was from december or january. Sadly he died in the Manila attack while banging a 5year old girl.

      1. I thought he posted pretty recently, like within the time I became a commenter on here

      2. I suspect Loljew and his clansmen chased him out. His clique were hyper critical and relentlessly trolling his blogs.

  3. This is actually good for RoK. It will push more eyes to this site, and it will cause more conversion. The Red Pill cannot be denied.

    1. I just finished reading the report, and its even more gloriously awful that the article suggests. It’s so full of misunderstandings, propaganda and out-right lies, its laughable. It read like your grandma was trying to explain the internet to you after reading an article about it in the Reader’s Digest. It’s so fundamentally retarded on an intellectual level, I can’t even put it into (more than 70) words.

      1. I used to know a radical leftist (BLM, feminism, you name it) who believed every bit of propaganda she heard against the right wing. I bet she’s read the report and believes every word.
        As a typical leftist, she’ll use the lies to label people but never actually do any independent research. Not like I’d expect an unemployed Lib.Arts major who does “slam poetry” to have any intellectual honesty, though.
        EDIT: I now suspect I give her too much credit. I can’t honestly expect her to have read the report, either.

  4. This is a test indeed. Let’s show them that we’re not afraid of them — let them be afraid of us.

    1. You would make a great journalist…I mean, absent your penchant for clarity and accuracy…

  5. New York Times has been a fag/SJW rag for a long time now. Trump apparently hates them, too. That is good enough for me. BTW, Return of Kings pretty much rules, as do you guys (fellow readers). Oh yeah, and fuck Islam.

      1. To him, it’s all the same. New York = all things evil.
        BTW, Kansasbred — Trump’s loves and hates change as quickly as the moods of a twelve-year-old girl. Are you the last supporter left standing?

        1. Why, of course, they’re miles apart. For example, NY Mag endorsed Hillary Clinton on September 15th. The New York Times waited all the way until September 24th to endorse Hillary Clinton.

        2. maybe between the 15th and 24th september they were seriously considering supporting Trump. Decisions, decisions. Must have been a hard one that

      1. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !du164c:
        On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs454MarketCampGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!du164c:….,…..

      ‘Fagging SJW, Champion of the Raggot’,
      Since a Long Time Now”

        1. I just now read your other comment. I wasn’t stealing your idea about sycophancy, I swear!

    1. Androphobia. It’s a real phenomenon where people are afraid of men.
      For example, many feminists I’ve seen not only hate men (misandry) but, to a larger and more fundamental degree, fear men and masculinity.

        1. They’ll blame us for Barbie and say it gives young girls unreasonable self-image issues.
          Then they’ll go home and hide a magic bullet.

        2. Let’s look at what they’ve done with the existence of He-Man so far:
          – used “He-Man” to describe what they view as toxic masculinity (“he-man language,” “he-man posturing,” etc.)
          – invented the less-popular She-Ra
          – completely ignored any possible body-image issues an icon like He-Man could cause (because, let’s face it, guys just think he and Schwarzenegger are cool)

        3. Nah, it’ll have to be something without “man” in it. She-Womyn. Her-Girl. Dudette-Dyke.
          I don’t know, but like femGhostbusters how lame it all is will escape them just like when they had to have She-Ra.

        4. I think they would defer to restrained politeness, as the gender is indeterminate by today’s standards

      1. Interesting game: take anything masculine, on its own, and see if you get the sense that it’s “bad”. Or even a sense insecurity/ foreboding.
        I don’t think this is gender-specific. On a spiritual level, they program you to associate wrongness and collapse with the masculine and safety and peace with feminine, even though it’s opposite.

  6. A man who looks like he spent most of his high school years stuffed in a locker doesn’t approve of a website that encourages masculine behavior. The hell you say?

  7. 1. Islam is the religion of peace.
    2. Those right wing guys on the internet are worse than Islam.
    3. ???????
    4. Profit?

    1. Thtat’s why we need to use islam phrases like ‘White Sharia’.
      They can’t criticize us because if they would criticize White Sharia, they would be forced to behave islamophobic =)

    2. Islam is kind of like the scapegoat of the Liberal Family – they love it, but will occasionally point fingers at it if it takes the heat off the liberal agenda

  8. Anyone saw that Lisa Bloom and Kathy Griffin press conference?
    Most bizarre shit ever.
    They blamed sexism for the outrage after K. Griffin beheaded Trump in an act of ‘art’ (I would call it Entartete Kunst).
    During the press conference Griffin joked about how her tits were sweaty because she’s nervous and that Trump tries to destroy her life (victim card). And of course she said she should have a right for free speech.
    Okay, if that is free speech I will depict myself tomorrow holding a bloody jew head in my hand – let’s see if (((Lisa Bloom))) will defend me then.
    It get’s more weird everyday…
    Also take a look at those two gems:

    1. She has as much right to free speech as anyone else. However, she is also required to face the consequences of her free speech, just like anyone else.

      1. That’s a concept that’s lost to so many people. Not just SWJs or feminists, but a lot of normal people as well. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve debated people over a certain topic and their go to responses were “It’s my opinion, and I have a right to it.” As if that was ever in question. Just a poor attempt at deflection, but a very frequent one.

      2. Communicating death threats to a sitting POTUS will get you a visit by the secret service. As she found out.

    1. They are capable of holding simultaneous contradictory opinions about a topic that are activated only when needed. So one minute they can love Islam, and the next they can sneer “Manosphere is like Islam!” and it will never, ever, not once, seem contradictory to them. It is a very frightening mindset and ability.

      1. “The world is overpopulated, white people need to have fewer children! Oh my God white people aren’t having enough children, we need to flood their countries with the third world so they can get on welfare and shit out kids!”

        1. On a slight deviation the media shyster’s even convince us in the ‘manosphere’ to turn on our own.
          “Sweden deserves to die because their men are too weak”
          Zealously manipulate the political/social status/cultural landscape and mental health for men then absolve themselves and deflect all fault of heinous ideology by labelling the subjugated white men failures, too weak to protect their nation.

      2. All experiments indicate the only definite method to eliminate that mindset and ability is thorough ventilation.


        Gotta keep that a.c. running.

  9. Maybe they should look at male feminism to find some radicalised men:
    Male feminists are (amongst other things) misogynists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by0spgMrbl0&t=808s
    Male feminist kills female co-host on feminist Youtube channel: https://www.dailystormer.com/male-feminist-youtuber-kills-his-female-co-host/
    When you don’t put women on a pedestal like male feminists and betas do, you realise to fundamental things: women are not worth killing yourself over, and women aren’t worth killing. The Red pill allows you to realise that when a woman does something wrong to you, you can just let her go and find another woman. AWALT saves lives, feminism kills.

    1. “When you don’t put women on a pedestal like male feminists and betas do, you realise two fundamental things: women are not worth killing yourself over, and women aren’t worth killing…etc.”
      If there’s ever a Red Pill “bible” that should be Chapter 1 Verse 1&2. Heck I’d even say that should be on the back of the shirts.

    1. The title makes me cringe. Do they even marginally understand what they’re saying openly in the title alone?

      1. Just speed-read it. No, they do not, and it’s hilarious.
        They literally say that being a “cuck” puts you in the same camp as John McCain, without realizing how bad that sounds to most people.

      2. I’ve never been a fan of the “cuck” insult… but these guys have really earned it.

        1. “You know what men described as cucks used to be called?”
          Real answer – “not guilty of murder by reason of temporary insanity.”
          It is only in our warped faggot society that a woman caught with another man doesn’t result in two dead and everyone else going, “well that’s what happens when you fuck around.”

        2. It is only in our warped faggot society (matriarchy) that women can openly sell vibrators while men need to feel ashamed when they use a fleshlight.
          For the first time in history female sexuality is praised while male sexuality is suppressed and discouraged
          A girl I went to school with (I fucked her together with two other guys when she was 17) works as a sex toy seller now, it’s the first result on google when you type her name:
          Weimarer Republik 2.0

        3. Two things: first, I’m not sure if this is serious promotion of cuckoldry or satire making fun of it. Two, it’s perfect that the wife is drawn as a big ham planet, but the bull should have been black.

        4. I read somewhere that humor occurs during conflict of concepts. The fact that you cannot tell if this is real or satire is what makes it so funny.

        5. What in the hell is a “fleshlight”? I’ve learned long ago to not search specific terms that will likely bring me to really scary sites.

        6. I can tell you for a fact that I’m not going to click on that link. A verbal description is more what I’m looking for.

        7. Relax, it doesn’t lead to any site, just to google search. Fleshlight is a sex toy that looks like a flashlight, made of stuff that supposedly feels like real skin, and the entrance looks like a pussy

        8. Ah. Thank you for the description.
          I prefer the real thing, personally. Maybe that’s just me though.

        9. it’s not necessarily that he wouldn’t be guilty of murder, as it is that the cause of the murder is no longer reported

        10. It is only in our warped faggot society that a woman caught with another man doesn’t result in two dead and everyone else going, “well that’s what happens when you fuck around.”

          God agrees.

        11. Every single one of those adjectives except desirable sounds like something you’d call your grandma. So a Cuck, according to the author of that GQ article is 75% grandma and 25% faggot.

    2. Written by a woman for Gentleman’s Quarterly, who can’t help sticking to propaganda responsible for miserable people in general and solitary White Knights specifically:
      “The action of a cuck who also seems like he might be someone we’d have mutually satisfying sex with.”
      Ran it through translate.ginahamster.com =
      “The loser wallet who believes we might give him action someday when all the other men move on to new fresh batches”.

    3. the beautiful thing about ‘cuck’ is that it cannot be reclaimed. The every act of trying to reclaim it is cucky.

    4. “If you wonder why the prospect of your wife having sex with another man would be more humiliating if that man were black, well, congratulations; you’re not a racist.”
      They may be losers but least they are not racist like us.

  10. Why does “radical” have a negative connotation? In theory, it should be neutral – “radical” means “at the root,” after all.
    Radical Islam, radical Marxists, radical feminists, and radicals of other destructive mindsets have given it a bad rap. When one adopts a destructive mindset, one destroys, but when one embraces a constructive or even neutral mindset, life improves for everyone.

    1. I don’t consider it a negative. I’ve not moved past the original true 1980’s TMNT definition. Example: “This pizza is like totally radical, dude.”

  11. Idiots – Return of Kings isn’t even a blog, let alone Roosh’s blog, even though he started the site. Did they ever even make it over to his actual blog? LMAO!

  12. So….help me out. They LIKE Islam and HATE the Manosphere and try to insult the Manosphere by comparing it to Islam?

    1. No they make no sense. They’re like a strapped kid screaming at mommy in the store for a sweet kosher trans fatty nabisco treat. They thrash backwards when they mean to indicate forewards. The shitlibs are quickly burning out like on Nov 9.

    1. According to their own report, “white supremacist” twitter accounts are up 600% over the last year, readership for sites like RoK is steadily increasing, and memes are working their Kekistani magic.

  13. Don’t expect liberals to practice Common Sense that practice stopped a very long time ago.

  14. the only solution to this shitstorm would be: all men take one nation and stay there, let wimenzzz stay alone with their beloved muzlims-
    I bet In a few 5 years, wimenzz will swarm back to men’s country beggings for cocks and protections!
    …too bad the world is filled with lots of average joe’s, starving for pussy, they will not join us and continue to white knight sluts.. so this will remain just a dream.

      1. maybe, but this means we we should act asap since white fertility rate is dropping down drammaticaly in all the western countries (EU fertility rate is already near extinct rate (1.3))

  15. DEATH TO THE NON-BELIEVERS! Oh wait….the religion of peace does that. Ah, what the hell, kill em anyway.

  16. Yes we’ve been radicalized and are dangerous. Like that time that Roosh arranged for us to meet up and grab a few beers in our respective cities and after we organized our terror cells and hurt all those innocent… OH WAIT THAT’S RIGHT WE COULDN’T EVEN MEET UP FOR DRINKS!
    These liberals are insane and there is NO GETTING THROUGH TO THEM. Without selective outrage they’d never be outraged. Without double standards they’d have none at all.

    1. And the irony is the Islamic terrorists can meet on a regular basis, plan an attack, and blow up a concert, all while the authorities do nothing…

  17. When you’re so evil/retarded that you criticize a site like this while sucking muslim dick.

  18. If radicalization means I work on myself, my body, and my mind, and seek truth and enlightenment over a world that grows darker each day, then ya – consider me “radicalized.” Lol

    1. quite right, although the way you structured that reminded me of David Rockefeller saying he was proud of being a globalist

      1. Well, to be clear, I am as far from being a political globalist as one can get. At least philosophicly.

  19. I find it interesting how these girls tried to conflate Anti-Feminism and Anti-Semitism. Typical misdirection technique.

    1. If you look at the ADL website it overtly supports feminism. I would love for someone from the ADL to explain why an organisation that campaigns against antisemitism should also effectively campaign for feminism.
      Personally I think it has to do with the role of the Shekinah in (reform?) judaism. Anyone able to comment (constructively)?

      1. Because Feminism is a Jewish project.
        Just like PC, or Multikulti.
        Their aim is White Genocide.
        Feminism sows discord between the White male and the White female, so we will not procreate.
        If we do not procreate, it can be used as an explanation why importing millions of migrants is “necessary”.
        Importing migrants is necessary for a Multicultural society.
        Multicultural society is necessary because Jewish infiltration into most power holding positions over us is not something outstanding in a Multicultural society. Also, the inevitable conflict between Whites and non-Whites, Christians and Muslims, makes it harder for either to deal with the problem of Jewish infiltration into most power holding positions over us.
        PC is needed to stop people talking about these things.
        It is all Frankfurt School social engineering – a Jewish project devised by Commie Jews.

        1. well, there’s a certain lack of finesse in that description. Feminism most certainly is patronised by many jewish groups and influential jewish individuals and that certainly requires explanation, explanation that is rarely forthcoming unfortunately. On the other hand feminism almost certainly precedes jewish influence at least in its current form (wollstonecroft wasn’t jewish; I’m not even aware of any jewish suffragettes). I would also say you’re fixating upon the idea that feminism is a trojan horse. I agree that in many ways feminism is not what it says it is about; that it isn’t about equality, and that it purposefully damages relations between the sexes and that many of the power players, not just jews, but the major gentiles planners of our brave new world have sought to use it damage relations between males and females etc. but its necessary to point out that the ‘hostile elite’ explanation misses one essential thing which is that feminine sexuality is important to (at least modern) judaism in its own right (I exclude orthodox jews who are still patriarchal in the main). Reform judaism and other varieties often take a strong stance on breaking down boundaries, exploding binaries etc.,. Are there some historical tensions between (some) whites and organised jewry. Of course there is, but if that’s all you see you’re almost certainly missing the bigger picture here

        2. Feminism is just exploiting on a political,social and economic level the tendency of women to be viciously angry at the way nature made them.
          It has been known since pagan times that the feminine principle is the principle of chaos. A woman, especially a beautiful one is loathe to relinquish the power that youth and fertility randomly bequeath to her.
          When her decision making leads her down terrible paths she directs her ire towards the men. Indeed they are stronger and more future time oriented. They possess a nature both perplexing and envied by women.
          Because she cannot ever truly attain the masculine principle. She cannot ever piss standing up holding a powerful phallus. So she simply hates with black envy and desires the total usurpation of men. This is her chaos principle in full bloom.

        3. I do think there’s something in that. They are abundantly dissatisfied with their lot as women, and will always blame men for that. In a secular – rather than intellectual sense – that makes them quite gnostic, and as a consequence suckers for the social justice wank. Feminism aside though I’m not sure all women suffer from penis envy though – at least it may depend on personality and circumstances

        4. I’d say we need to distinguish between shit-testing and the genuine cersei lannisters who think they could piss standing up if only they had the right shaped tube

      2. that’s really weird. Shekinah? I’ll have to look it up. that’s a term I’ve heard being tossed around in the evangelical world. also new.
        this is why you have to be careful about worship these days.

        1. it’s the female aspect of God within jewish thinking – I think these days at least pretty much the mainstream. It’s also described as ‘the dwelling place’. Christian evangelicals use it I presume because they’ve borrowed fairly heavily from jewish ideas, but some critics of the idea say it isn’t a christian idea at all as it doesn’t appear (explicitly) in the bible, at least not as far as I’m aware.
          In christianity God is usually depicted as masculine rather than feminine (rightly or wrongly) or alternatively as above and beyond gender (i.e. since gender is ‘created’ and subsequent to the creator). In judaism the masculine and feminine aspects of deity are supposed to be balanced. Except it’s a bit more complicated than that. The star of david represents a great deal of that above and below aspect, and probably reflects the influence of the (medieval/early modern) kabbalah than anything obviously abrahamic.

        2. they want to start a different religion out of an existing one. not a cult, a religion

        3. In christianity God is usually depicted as masculine rather than
          feminine (rightly or wrongly) or alternatively as above and beyond
          gender (i.e. since gender is ‘created’ and subsequent to the creator).

          It’s not so much Christianity that depicts God as masculine (indeed contemporary Christianity seeks to paint God as sexless), but rather the Bible itself. God identifies throughout as masculine. Regarding gender (I prefer the term sex — nouns have gender, people don’t), I think C.S. Lewis stated it well in Perelandra, although I can’t cite the passage, that God was masculine even before there was ever a man made in His image.

          In judaism the masculine and feminine aspects of deity are supposed to
          be balanced.

          As I recall, there was the Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 1 that Adam HaRishon (the first man) was “male and female” — i.e. that the first man was an hermaphrodite. …And that therefore, since he was created in God’s image, God himself must be an hermaphrodite. This finds its way into the mediaeval images of the alchemical androgyne, and no doubt later Eliphas Levi’s conception of the Baphomet.

          Except it’s a bit more complicated than that. The star
          of david represents a great deal of that above and below aspect, and
          probably reflects the influence of the (medieval/early modern) kabbalah
          than anything obviously abrahamic.

          Yes — the upward-pointing triangle represents the male sex and the downward-pointing triangle the female. It amuses me to see Christians sporting what is literally a sex-symbol… 😉

        4. The prophet Amos spoke of the Jews making “The Star of your own god” in reference to pagan idolatry, for which the people would be punished. I think this is the “Star of David” that we now know.
          To read Genesis simply, God made Man (that is, Adam) in his image, then fashioned Woman (that is, Eve) to be a complementary help for him. God would not, then, be said to be woman, which is why he came as a man in the person of Christ. Therefore, we call God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (this last not being described as masculine, but also not as feminine).
          Admittedly, pagan goddess worship is beyond me, as I’ve been out of the Occult loop for ten years and change. But that’s my take on the subject.

        5. I’ve been told that the Holy Spirit having feminine attributes, but I don’t believe it. The Holy Spirit is a person, and being so, has a gender. Because it is part of a Godhead refered to as “He”, He must be a He.
          They’ll go from making God neuter to making a Goddess out of the Holy Spirit, Shekinah.

        6. this is motivated theology. church plants with trendy names like “revive” are out to take money, push liberal propaganda, and replace Christianity in the West.

        7. they pretend to be cuckservative, which is always the only appearance of weakness and honesty; everything they actually say betrays them

        8. “I think C.S. Lewis stated it well in Perelandra, although I can’t cite the passage, that God was masculine even before there was ever a man made in His image.”
          I will have to search that out. C.S. Lewis produced some interesting work.
          “As I recall, there was the Rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 1 that Adam HaRishon (the first man) was “male and female” — i.e. that the first man was an hermaphrodite. …And that therefore, since he was created in God’s image, God himself must be an hermaphrodite. This finds its way into the mediaeval images of the alchemical androgyne, and no doubt later Eliphas Levi’s conception of the Baphomet.”
          This is a profoundly interesting issue, and one which is rarely discussed explicitly. Kabbalistic and occult ideas have never been discussed openly until recent times and even now speaking frankly about occulted ideas is problematic / aporetic: are they occulted because of the nature of the ideas or the possibility of perceiving such ideas, or simply because ‘keeping stuff secret’ is a form of power and control. One might make the argument that it is either or both.
          The relationship of the kabbalistic Adam to the Baphomet cannot be anything other than controversial. If there is such a relationship what is it? It’s absolutely certain that Levi was influenced by cabbala of some sort, but I don’t know of any evidence that there is any origin to the figure of the Baphomet other than his interpretation of the hermaphroditic / hermetic idea. The first mention of the baphomet I believe was with reference to the accusations levelled at the knights templar by phillip the fair back in the 14th century: is there any evidence the Knights Templars were kabbalists? I’ve only ever heard it said that they might have been influenced by the Ishmaelis, who I think were wierd mystics from the islamic world
          Having said that, and allowing for the possibility / likelihood that we are talking about a syncretic tradition, with various interweaving branches, and possibly more than one origin, we still come back to the idea of the hermaphrodite in hermetic philosophy, the chymical ; alchemical / sacred marriage understood in terms of sacred hermaphrodism and of course the kabbalistic take on the jewish cosmogony, including as revealed in scripture / torah.
          Adam in judaism is two figures, which I understand to be the Adam you mentioned, Adam Ha-Rishon, who is the Adam of Adam and Eve (in the torah / bible) and the more mystical primordial Adam Kadmon, who appears to be co-extensive with creation (although I find the concept difficult to pin down to be honest). My understanding was that the primordial Adam Kadmon was sexless, or intersex or whatever, whereas the human Adam (Ha-Rishon) was a man, rather than a hermaphrodite. Obviously since his rib is taken to create his help-meet in the form of Eve, it could be argued that prior to that point he was hermaphrodite rather than male, but this would surely be an unorthodox interpretation. Out of interest do you know whose interpretation that was, that Adam was a hermaphrodite?

        9. The first place I saw that “female Holy Spirit” was that heretical toilet paper novel, The Shack. I couldn’t even get through the book pretending it was a fantasy novel.

        10. My first thought was “which one?”
          My room mate has a novel called “Bipolar Faith”. Something for everyone.

        11. That’s seems to me like a fair description of the christian and traditional Abrahamic viewpoint. It seems to me to be a quite late kabbalistic (early modern) innovation, with far-reaching implications, that probably reflects also alternative traditions within jewish history, including worship of other gods, including female ones. “The star of your own god” reference is an interesting one. Which star? The one we know as the star of david? Saturn? Sirius? It’s most curious

        12. Actually Christianity is very feminine in its spiritual language. The Christian believer is part of the Church, which is also the Body. Now the Church is the bride of Christ and must be penetrated by Christ and have his seed dwelling within them.
          I’d say that’s pretty fuckin fagged out.

        13. fair point about the church as the bride of christ. The point there though is to ensure christ / God represents the masculine principle. Personally I think the imagery was taken too far, and even in a sense sexualised in a way that’s comparable to the almost erotic language of female mystics. On the other hand you’re failing to distinguish between a church defined in its relationship with Christ and the Christian as imitatio christi. The Christian both defers to and emulate christ, including as the active principle. Obviously there are some who think that’s wrong, or evidence of slavishness, but isn’t just delusion to think one is THE active principle in the universe, which is what the logic of being ones own God ultimately requires

        14. I can’t speak for anyone else and their views. Though personally not believing in the slave morality and the Jewish whipping boy Jesus does not make me evil God emperor to be. Just means I recognize the power of my own will as the only active principle I CAN change in this world of uncertainty. To act against it or to automatically declare as evil the natural instincts a man has as decreed by a foreign God is just no longer the poison I will imbibe.
          In that sense you could consider my viewpoint pagan. Christianity transvaluated all good and moral teaching by placing in the negative context any will to power.
          Christ has to IMPREGNATE you with his seed so that you can be born again into cuckoldry and servitude. The “old” man as the bible says must be crucified and put to death. The “new” man or New World Faggot as I like to call them is the end result of this transformation.
          I know personally form many years zealously attending evangelical churches and learning from the best teachers in the Protestant doctrines of faith.

        15. “personally not believing in the slave morality and the Jewish whipping boy Jesus does not make me evil God emperor to be. Just means I recognize the power of my own will as the only active principle I CAN change in this world of uncertainty. To act against it or to automatically declare as evil the natural instincts a man has as decreed by a foreign God is just no longer the poison I will imbibe.
          In that sense you could consider my viewpoint pagan. Christianity transvaluated all good and moral teaching by placing in the negative context any will to power.”
          I think you formulate the issue very well, if provocatively. Your position seems pretty much niezschean / genealogy of morals as far as I can tell. Firstly, there is no reason not to critique Christianity insofar as it might have had undesirable effects etc. Obviously there are all sorts of theories – mostly unfriendly – about the origins and purpose of Christianity, including that it was all a roman psy-op to keep the jews passive (give unto ceasar what is ceasar’s, turn the other cheek etc.) or that it was commandeered by Paul or Constantine or whatever. Nietzsche’s take is that it alienates men from their natural instincts, and from a more genuine impassioned affirmation of life.
          I think the kinds of criticisms he makes do need to be taken seriously, although I suspect he overstates his position. This is after all a guy who both claimed that “a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that that faith does not prove anything yet” ended his days in a lunatic asylum. Likewise Crowley who wrote in praise of Nietzsche’s ideas followed such “natural instincts” and ended up buggering his friend victor neuberg as part of bizarre magick rituals that would help him to realise his true will.
          Now I don’t really care one or another if you or anyone else is a pagan and seeks on such a basis to actualise the will. The question in the first instance might be what is the nature of that will but also how ‘true’ it really is. Nietzsche, Crowley etc all fit in nicely with the Freudian notion that man is all about his libidos, his id, which is repressed by conventional christian and bourgeois morality. So from the christian viewpoint the libido, the id – man’s true will – is constrained in obedience to the will of God. Sure I can appreciate that if no such God exists then one might well say why should there be any such constraint? But are we really more free, or true to our own wills when we indulge it the kind of passions that Nietzsche and – in a different way Crowley would have us indulge in. Is there anything aristocratic or heroic about the indulgence of our will and our passions that has followed with the decline of a Christian faith that was often pragmatically often quite akin to the reining in of the passions characteristic of the stoics? Is the post-Nietzsche transvaluation of values a great success story? Do you feel more true to your will because you are (as an esteemed world citizen) a slave to central bank debt, or to the multiplication of human desires that has followed on from this liberation from repression. Has transgressing every bourgeois or christian value set anyone free? I’m not saying we shouldn’t be free to transgress such values – adults should be free to do what they want within the law – but we’re not talking about the legal system, we’re talking about freedom. The truth is probably not entirely black or white. There’s been a lot of Christian stupidity, and that may well include anathemising natural sexual expression, and healthy carnality etc. That’s part of the on-going conversation. But a part of that conversation may also need to be about whether the whole true will thing isn’t just a scam. Most of what has been achieved in the world has arguably been achieved within the context of christian civilization – that’s true even when it was in tension with the church authorities. The will to power, personal realisation / actualisation etc., has rarely been constrained in practice by living within a christian society, precisely perhaps because subscribing to christian values (or their equivalent) frees us from sinking into the morass of carnality, the addictions of unrestrained desire, which ironically may work against the realisation of will.
          As for True Will as peddled by Crowley and the like, I’m not entirely sure it isn’t a scam. The Do what thou wilt always seems to involve ascending to the point where you are at one with the cosmos and recognise that you yourself are god, just as everyone else who finds their true will ascends to the point where they realise they are at one with the cosmos and recognise that they themselves are God, and the next one and the next and so on. By which time you have a great many people believing the same thing just like in the more traditional social controlling religions except this time, it is just ideology which binds these gods.
          I get that not everybody who rejects christianity or slave religion or whatever has to follow that route, although arguably where man does seek to supplant God ‘in terms of function’ one does need such an ideology – “doing god” doesn’t work if everyone is an atomistic free thinker – in their own way these ‘do what thou wilt’ guys need to be serving the needs of the larger programme. Which is why atheism at root often involves something akin to god-building. Why is that necessary? Because a single individual, understood as little more than a speck of dust in the traditional viewpoint, can’t really handle being the part that thinks it is as great or greater than the whole.

        16. Those are some good questions and I don’t claim to have the answers. I’m still figuring shit out. In fact when one moved from old knowledge to a new revelation, it almost is as if you are born again into a new life and a new way of thinking.
          I actually appreciate the ascetic, stoic aspects of Christianity. I would be the kind of person who is motivated more by self regulation than unrestrained passion.
          I’m very aware of the destructive nature that resides within the self with no restraints. You probably know this already but I’m more in line with Evola’s philosophy than anyone else. I believe in the heroic/solar path as a way forward for a man. We observe in nature the way of things. We see that might is right.
          Christianity may have shielded us from this for a time. It may have made life easier but look at the sum result of this! Should we really have made it all so much easier?
          The weak flourish on the vigor of the strong as the strong are drained of all life. Useless eaters propagate like rats and the best of us don’t reproduce. The end of this age will end with violent upheaval.
          By freeing myself from the idea that all “good” comes from outside of me, I stop condemning myself to the hell of failure and ego assuaging.
          I don’t need a god to tell me I’m wrong or right. I have the tools to figure this out on my own.

        17. I have a lot of sympathy for your take on things, although I wouldn’t want to overstate that. I don’t know that much about Evola although he’s been on my to-read list for a while now. From what I know I would say there are some points of contact, including as you suggest the idea of asceticism or self-mastery and control of the passions etc. Christianity is sometimes associated with self-abnegation and hatred of the body. That’s probably the gnostic element, the idea of the defeat and the mastery of the flesh, but that’s hardly exclusive to the christian faith. I would say moreover that from the christian viewpoint it is only through mastery of the self and the passions through faith, duty etc that self-mastery is possible. One achieves mastery through alignment with the eternal (rather than slavery to the mask of personality). That’s not entirely different from some of the occult ideas we’ve discussed except here the part does not claim to be with the whole or achieve any kind of equality. I’m not saying that’s necessarily right and I don’t expect you to agree, but perhaps the point is that a lot of the time it’s about the words you use, or even the spin that’s put on an idea: Nietzsche constructed that ‘alignment’ as slavery or ‘submission’ or whatever. Yet with respect to Crowley for instance, one could probably meaningfully speaking of being a slave to one’s passion (which we’ve discussed) or even as “submitting” to one’s true will. Liberation theologies start with the words we use.
          On the other hand I think the idea that right is might is fairly incompatible with Christianity, with the except of the almighty Himself.
          But how does one even define right is might in today’s world? The elites who govern us don’t do so on the basis of any kind of aristocratic vigour such as Nietzsche would have recognised. They don’t fight openly, they don’t fight with honour, or with masculine vigour. Today the strong don’t lead the armies, and defeat their enemies in open combat. What they do is club together, lead from the shadows, get others to be the frontmen and the storm-troopers, use leverage and cunning, deceive and manipulate and if necessary feign weakness, or even play dead. Anything, literally anything that works or delivers advantage. Are they not strong? Or can one only be strong as an individual? I prefer the ideal of the individual man achieving strength and success through self-mastery and vigour, yet if might is right, then how can such men, your traditional heroes and leaders even qualify as righteous, when those who rule automatically hobble those who are strong of limb, mind and spirit? I’m not disagreeing with you here about the kinds of values we should cherish but about the ability of those who personify such values to measure up to a maxim such as ‘right is might’. If the strong perish at the hands of the weak were they ever really strong?
          Indeed at the present time it is the useless eaters, the useless elites, women, immigrants, scroungers working the equality system etc who could better be described as mighty precisely because they have clubbed together, worked their vulnerability to their advantage. You could blame democracy, but what of cartels or monopoly capitalism etc?
          The above is unsatisfactory, but I don’t think it has anything to do with christianity, or christian society. Altruism and pro-social values are inherent to christian society (or should be at least) and christianity has always had an impact on socialism but it has never been socialistic / communistic in the leftist sense of re-structuring society around institutional weakness, or systematic re-distribution. The principle of Christian charity does concern itself with the poor, and may sometimes do so on a systematic basis but it is atheism (and arguably gnosticism with it) that is at the root of the levelling creeds that I would say is most responsible for the society you / we despair of. Indeed christian societies have arguably been amongst the most vigorous in history (together perhaps with the pagan Romans): it is only once christianity began to ebb and atheism and socialism to wax that society has begun to rot. All the institutions that the modern world has attacked, heterosexuality, family, race, nation etc. were fundamentally held together by christian values.
          I don’t for moment pretend that there aren’t major problems with christianity as it is, and the main one is the one you identify perhaps: christianity, and most religions often do infantilise their adherents. The christian is expected to be as a child. But this is only by my understanding insofar as he is position in relationship to God, the part to the whole so to speak. in that respect we play the child, but as men, in our capacity as individual actors or even leaders, within family or society etc., we function as adults, or fathers / parents in our own right. We can function as adults without being Gods. I would say that is actually compatible with determining for oneself the ethics and rules one lives by. I consider myself a christian but if I haven’t murdered any of my neighbours yet it is not because I am slavishly afraid of violating the 10 commandments or burning in hell for eternity. It’s because I think it would be wrong to do so, and because i have no such inclination (as well as perhaps for pragmatic reasons like fear of punishment, prison etc)

        18. Shame about that. I got the first one but didn’t get the chance to reply. You were saying about how christians couldn’t achieve self-awareness or self-mastery if they deny the self. Obviously I think it’s entirely the opposite case: the self, the “personality” is what obscures the world and the self within it. Ultimately no man in the grip of desire and carnality can be more than the passions he reduces himself to. That does not mean that the object of passion / desire etc is good or bad, but merely the degree one is beholden to them

        19. Its more than self denial the Christian engages in. It’s total self condemnation. Jesus said that you must be crucified on your own cross daily. This is why you had groups of people flagellating themselves with whips at one point thinking they are being pious.
          I’ve never seen such rank self righteousness , hypocrisy and obliviousness to reality than in the zealous Christian. Their entire view on life prohibits them from ever understanding the cold hard truth about the world or themselves.
          While I was someone who believed perhaps like you do, I found no other equal among those sheep.

        20. It is condemnation of selfishness, self-obsession, self-absorption, fixation upon and beholdenness to the carnal earthly self. Self-abnegation and self-sacrifice is a part of that no doubt, but people flagellated themselves because of how they interpreted passages like that. There are any number of alternative interpretations: Jews for example have built up their whole creed on interpretation.
          Freedom from carnality, though, doesn’t necessarily mean hatred of the body, or even abstinence – although abstemiousness might seem to be indicated. In fact the hatred of the body and the material world, and of human sinfulness on that basis is probably more gnostic than christian. It is not christians who hate on the world and wish to ‘perfect’ it and themselves on account of that hatred. All the silly progressives movements can be seen in terms of this fundamental turning away from the world in order to fix it: to fit the world to ones ego, rather than ones ego to the world. Yet you consider christians to be self-deceived.
          Sure there are gnostic elements to christianity too but ultimately one turns towards christ rather than away from creation
          As far as self-righteousness, hypocrisy and obliviousness to reality goes, there is much of that certainly, but I put that down to the modern trend of christians closing their minds to the faculties of the mind in favour of emotionalism and blind faith in whatever their pastor tells them. Christianity can be consolation, but where it is just consolation that can be stripped away.

        21. Leaving aside metaphysical interpretations around how the self is affected and developed in regards to Christianity, there is insurmountable evidence that the God of the old testament and the new are completely different Gods. Not only that, there exists numerous other failures of reasoning to be made in order to make this leap of faith. Any person who is jot jewish must forsake their ancestral gods and bend the knee to the jewish god. Your past must be declared sinful and evil along with your blood and people. You must become jewish. Become the seed of abraham! That shyster who was going to sell his own wife to pharaoh!
          You must exalt the jewish mythos as the highest mythos. You must CONDEMN yourself and your posterity while you raise the jewish tree to the most exalted holy of holies within your heart.
          Yes just like jesus told you to do. You must committ suicide.
          Now this is a gigantic discussion. One I’m tired of disqus deleting so I’ll leave it short.

        22. ” there is insurmountable evidence that the God of the old testament and the new are completely different Gods”
          The “identity” of God is always the issue, in all things. That’s true whether you’re religious or atheist. There’s always an element of Feuerbach in every religion even if it isn’t all ‘projection’. Bonhoeffer himself asks that we think in terms of ‘who’ God is, or who Christ is (rather than focusing too much on the ‘how’ of the matter).
          Your focus is on the ‘judeo-christian’ as a “foreign” species supplanting a native one, but if you go back to all these pagan creeds what about them is ‘essentially’ english, or british, or french etc.. Half of them have their analogues in far flung lands and in the middle east, and nearly all of them were brutal and backward (do you really fancy worshipping the great mother? )
          Judaism itself lifted itself out of the worship of pagan gods, like Moloch, or Baal, or as somebody the other day was saying Asteroth, although it’s complex history sometimes reflects a kind of recidivism with respect to those ‘alternative’ traditions c.f kabbalah. Christianity has likewise flirted with and accepted / rejected syncretic elements, including strands of gnosticism.
          The names of God then are less interesting perhaps than what they represent – what you are accepting or rejecting if you believe in the God of the old testament and / or the new. Gods disguise themselves as principles and principles disguise themselves as Gods. Should one believe in the vengeful God of the old testament, or the forgiving one of the new? Is it really as simple as that. The old testament God is not always vengeful but sometimes he is. Is he the demiurge? Is that what you’re saying? It’s an old debate and a somewhat tiring one to be honest. Just jockeying for position for the most part. One needs to be aware of such issues perhaps, but not get too bogged down by them, because doing so can lead to excessively concrete thinking. Ultimately I would say it’s more a game of politics than religion

        23. You’re right about Judaism. The religion is basically an amalgamation of the other religions Jews came into contact with. This amalgamation is of course colored by a tribal and ethnic supremacist God in jehovah.
          Christianity which is ostensibly non tribal and universally. However as I stated in earlier comment, the end goal is the reign of Zion over all the nations. Everyone and everything must bow at the feet of jehovah.
          Your understanding is perhaps more in depth and non dogmatic but this is problematic being a Christian. Do you not believe the bible is the infallible word of God? If not you would be in error according to your faith.
          Do you reject your blood family and accept only the believers as your true family? Do you take up your own cross and die to yourself daily? Are you meekly awaiting your salvation in fear and trembling?

        24. You ask interesting and challenging questions, although they are somewhat leading. In your own way you are perhaps an evangelist of sorts. Perhaps that is the one part of being a Christian that still has a grip on you, or is there another source? Are you not a kind of Zarathustra going down into the village to proclaim God is dead? Is there any one left in the village who doesn’t already know? Well I suppose, there’s me, perhaps.
          “Christianity which is ostensibly non tribal and universally. However as I stated in earlier comment, the end goal is the reign of Zion over all the nations. Everyone and everything must bow at the feet of jehovah.”
          Of course you are quite right to qualify your claim with ‘ostensibly’. Christianity has often been as tribal as judaism. Empire, spreading christianity etc. can be both tribal and ‘universal’ at the same time. Universal doesn’t mean pluralistic. Likewise in Judaism tribalism may also be universal when it comes to ideology, be it the noachide laws of the chabad etc that are the minimum conditions for rudimentary righteousness or the more contemporary ideologies with a jewish flavour that occasionally influence our world in very big ways. One of the interesting things about judaism is that it often manages to contain its “discontents” very successfully. Jews are by some readings an extension of the godhead in distinction to the gentiles, yet it is equally jewish (well in the reform tradition I think) to argue that “everything is god” which logically is a flat-out contradiction of the former. Jews are both tribal and universal (although in the latter case they do like to do the leading). Christianity is both universal and sometimes unknown to itself also very tribal indeed.
          As for the bible being infallible, do I believe that, no, not really. Is it God’s revelation? Well that’s the question isn’t it, but it properly isn’t particularly helpful to get all worked up about the issue. It is a strange thing though for you to insist that I am in error according to my faith. I would expect a christian evangelist to say that to me not the Nietzsche variety.
          Christianity like judaism is also electic and each christian has to work out for himself what he believes, and what parts make sense to him or do not. Dogmatism is rarely strength even if ‘anything goes’ may potentially be anarchic. But there is a long tradition along these lines. Tolstoy for example in his gospel in belief – which even the “jewish” wittgenstein saw fit to carry around with him – sought to strip christianity down to its ethical barebones. Yet in doing so he left out the physical resurrection. The point is not whether he was right or wrong, but that it is difficult to say what is the essence of a religion.
          As for the totalitarianism of zionism etc. it is precisely the universality of each faith that works towards the totality of its victory. Ultimately the domination of the earth is no more or less than to be proved right, once and for all. It is to win, finally, at eschatology.

        25. Interesting you noticed that. I was heavily influenced by a fire and
          brimstone preacher. His style of preaching he modeled after prophets
          from the old testament. He called people out, made fun of their beliefs
          and was highly aggressive in his style.
          I was very fond of this
          style and also that he saw himself as a prophet preaching the the Doom
          and not all the positive bullshit modern christianity tries to pawn off.
          I learned much from him but in the end he is just another blind
          protestant zionist who wants to be jewish.
          You say that
          Christianity is electic and you would be correct based on the scripture.
          But all throughout the scriptures it says that the election is done
          through god’s choosing and by no effort of the will on anyone’s personal
          part. In fact the bible goes to great lengths to proclaim that the
          will of god is sovereign above EVERYTHING and in fact mankind has no
          will of his own.
          Even Satan is a servant of god doing the will of
          god. In the book of job, satan must ask god’s permission to afflict
          job. In the book of Romans, Paul states that god has created vessels of
          wrath FITTED FOR DESTRUCTION. Which would mean he created them to go
          to hell! In fact it even says god created most of mankind to go to
          Such a loving god right?
          It also says that no man
          comes to the father unless the father DRAWS him. Now the greek word for
          draw would be more akin to drag. So according to the scripture god
          must drag you kicking and screaming and “save” you. In the book of
          Hebrews it says that every father chastises his sons and if you be
          without chastisement are you not bastards having no father? Now the
          word for chastisement is the greek word for the cat of nine tails. The
          whip that tears off your flesh.

        26. Now when you say that every man must work out for himself what the
          scriptures mean I would have to vehemently disagree based on the words of the bible. First off it says that he who is a heretic after the
          second admonition to cut ties with. Now the word heretic means
          “to decide for oneself”. So deciding for yourself what the scripture means is to make yourself a heretic!
          God is hateful and god is jealous and yet we are to be like soft little
          lambs and dumb, meek children awaiting the “father” to come and correct us, To wipe our baby butts and tuck us into bed at night. This is the god of slaves!
          Indeed Paul tells believers who are actual slaves not to break their chains and live as free men but to BE A GOOD SLAVE!
          Isn’t that what this whole message is about? To drop all you own, to
          forsake your family and follow some vagabond around in the desert?
          Indeed in the book of James 4:4 it says that to be a friend to the world is to be AT WAR with god!

        27. “He called people out, made fun of their beliefs and was highly aggressive in his style.
          I was very fond of this style and also that he saw himself as a prophet preaching the the Doom and not all the positive bullshit modern christianity tries to pawn off.”
          In a strange way I can kind of see how not being traumatised at a young age by a fire and brimstone style preacher might weaken the spirit, although I usually associate them with catholicism rather than the protestantism. You’re weren’t presbyterian are you?
          I actually meant that Christianity was eclectic rather than elective, but of course the issue of election / free choice is a critical one for Christianity, and presumably for any religion where the creator is supposed to be all knowing.
          I think protestantism, particularly the calvinist strand, can sometimes tie itself into knots regarding pre-destination. Perhaps the Catholic view is healthier psychologically than the “victim of its own logic” insistence on calvinist pre-destinarianism. You say that “election is done through god’s choosing and by no effort of the will on anyone’s personal part.” Except that is clearly not consistent with most Christian teaching where free will is the pivotal thing, and indeed one might contrast it as such with Judaism where God is most emphatically indivisible. One might wonder if the rise of protestant (pre-)determinism may not indeed reflect the renewed enthusiasm for the old testament in its zeal to reject everything popish and idolatrous, with the consequences that sometimes it seems to emphasise the totalitarian dominion of the father over the grace of the Son, where for Christianity, the possibility of freedom begins.
          Re. Satan being God’s servant, that is an interesting issue. There are interesting debates to be had here, and sometimes I think the jewish monad is more coherent or at least more open than the christian one which is prone to fudge the issue in order to preserve the goodness of God. It is God who creates the distinction between good and evil (or is it just man?) and in doing so, appears to condemn a part of His creation to the hellfire even as it does his bidding. It is a little like the situation where the King’s repute must remain unsullied at all costs but the evil minister is free to take the blame. I am not sure there is necessarily disagreement here. Satan is God’s servant, even as he attempts to usurp his throne. But of course there is also the expectation that he must fail. Does he know he must fail? Would Satan know that himself, or would that knowledge itself be occulted to him?
          Is any of it fair? That’s the whole romantic idea of being condemned to a role that one did not choose for oneself. If the Christian has the choice of right or wrong, it would follow that either Satan has none, or that he will only ever choose to do evil. Is he condemned or does he condemn himself. Followers of the left hand path don’t generally see themselves as obedient to God but the opposite, so how can they blame him?
          I don’t know whether our choices are real or merely psychological It doesn’t really trouble me. Hellfire has never seemed particularly important to me, and although it has featured quite centrally in Christianity down the ages, it is of increasingly little interest today, at least to the extent nobody today really thinks that any kind of ethics based on mere reward and punishment would be of much value in itself

        28. “Now when you say that every man must work out for himself what the
          scriptures mean I would have to vehemently disagree based on the words of the bible. First off it says that he who is a heretic after the second admonition to cut ties with. Now the word heretic means “to decide for oneself”. So deciding for yourself what the scripture means is to make yourself a heretic!”
          I have no problem with that. Although whether you’re a heretic or not may well be relative to the God in question
          “Indeed Paul tells believers who are actual slaves not to break their chains and live as free men but to BE A GOOD SLAVE! ……Indeed in the book of James 4:4 it says that to be a friend to the world is to be AT WAR with god!
          Well that goes back to the issue of human freedom doesn’t it, which is what we’re disagreeing upon. You consider obedience to God to be slavery whereas I consider obedience to the whims of our basest appetites to be slavery. Plato would probably have described the latter as a totalitarian subservience to the great beast. Not to the beast of the christian revelation, but to the beast of the unthinking carnal mob that is society, which thinks good and evil is whatever pleases or displeases it. Perhaps it is worth being at war with the world on that basis

        29. “Perhaps it is worth being at war with the world on that basis”
          On this I would agree. But rejecting the jewish/christian god does not make one a mindless hedonist who lives to indulge every carnal appetite until he is sick. Stoicism could find some ascetic similarities to christianity but without the jewish fairy tales.
          Obviously we both know that to follow every lust and desire you have would surely lead to destruction. What you don’t yet understand however is that to follow the christian doctrine to a T and the words of Jesus would also mean personal and spiritual suicide. Not just personal but suicide for your entire bloodline and people since jesus said it is better that you never touch a woman.
          Jesus said do not think I came to bring peace but a sword. To divide a father from his son and a mother from her daughter. He emphatically states that he comes as a destroyer and indeed the entire religion of judaism views themselves as destroyers of anything not jewish.
          The calvinist strain and the vast majority of protestantism were fools bewitched by jews seeking to drive a wedge between christendom and to further judaize the religion. John Calvin was burning people at the stake and you know what? A meeting of bnai brith(jewish freemasons) in the early 20th century even claimed he was jewish! His real name being cohen.
          Martin Luther even published a book after he realized how duped he was called “jews and their lies”. There is much more to find if you go down this rabbit hole.

        30. you’re really running with the whole jewish angle I see. I am aware that there was a 20th century jew Maurice Samuels who claimed that jews as a people were ‘destroyers’ and could never be assuaged. If you agree, why do you agree?
          Is jesus a jew in this sense of creating conflict? Perhaps? But the christian take, which for most jews was a disqualifier (for being ‘moschiach’) was that the ‘sword’ he brought was not a military one. If families become divided etc. it is to be over the gospel: the seed is destined to fall on both barren and fertile ground. When you reject christianity on the basis of it creating conflict in the jewish mould are you of the opinion that jesus would measure up as the true jewish messiah? Samuel’s writes at one point that “we [the jews] dream of a world of utter justice and God-spirit, a whole world which would be barren for you (gentiles)” Is this what the christian’s jesus wants also? Doesn’t he also say though “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Isn’t there a distinction being made here, that Samuels does not acknowledge. It is not clear here that jesus wishes to deliver the ‘as above so below’ but rather to distinguish them. God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven, but since it is God who creates the distinction, is it His will to end that distinction?
          You are right that that attempting to follow scripture dogmatically may lead to conflicts between the spirit and the mundane world. The christian though does not seek I think to collapse the two, to obliterate the boundary of separation, although having said that in many ways the history of the last five hundred years plus, if not longer can be read as a very lively debate on that issue. The puritans, millenialists and their godly rule wished very much to bring the kingdom of heaven to this world. They were heavily influenced by the old testament and hebraicism, and it may not be a coincidence that they managed to make society pretty miserable in trying to effect their beliefs.
          The legacy of protestantism though has been a very pragmatic and successful one. Christian families have managed very successfully to balance their duties to both spirit and matter, to be both devoted and industrious. The good protestant family was built not on dogmatic calvinism, or agonising over obscure passages that lead one to abnegation of all worldly things, but of choosing those parts of the faith that worked best and demonstrated their value. I am against dogmatism, but not because wishy washy is best. There are all sorts of silly ideas to be found in religion, christian and otherwise. To choose to believe in something, christian or otherwise, you must evaluate tenets both point by point and as measured against the whole, the substance. This is an ongoing process. Your position implies that you are ahead of this process, but in my view it is unfinished. The ideological conflict of the christian sword is precisely what creates the possibility of freedom and choice. We believe something only to the extent that we can see that it is good. Crises of faith and renewal are inherent to this process.
          Re Luther I am aware of what he wrote. My understanding is that Luther was given to believe that the jews would convert freely and accept christ just as soon as a substantive reformation had occurred. He discovered this was not on the cards. Why he believed this is unclear. Perhaps he was told this would happen, perhaps he just assumed it. By the time he wrote what he wrote, history had already happened so to speak. Luther’s antisemitism was a reaction to the circumstances of the day, and of its day. It can be contrasted with the far more jewish sympathetic Bonhoeffer who is probably a better measure of the creed in the modern world including with respecting to adapting to its adulthood. Out of interest when I was growing up one of our pastors was a converted jew. Not a ‘crypto-jew’ but an absolutely sincere and devoted christian. It would have been interesting to have known how he negotiated his beliefs.
          Re. Calvin do you have a link re. bnai brith claiming calvin was a jewish? Wouldn’t it have to be hearsay if it’s masonic?

        31. As per your request regarding John Calvin, I could not find the original link from which I obtained this info. However upon some quick searches I found this link with corroborates the exact facts!
          I have to disagree on the legacy of protestantism. The very obvious legacy is one of constant division and separation. Since each individual can now determine how the words are interpreted via sola scriptura, he in effect now acts as his own pope. This is why the true legacy of protestantism is one in which there is a constant splitting into factious denominations. Hard taking the long view not to see this ultimately as by some twisted design. Protestants dont even know what they believe in any more. They know not of their history. They are blind deaf and dumb. Perhaps that is how their handlers wanted it.
          Check the link and see for yourself. The so called good christian men like calvin have nefarious backgrounds and motivations themselves. Open your eyes. The Jew is the eternal destroyer of all things not jewish.

        32. well, that’s an interesting article to be sure. Not sure what to make of its content though. Half of it seems to refer to an article that appears to borrow from the protocols, and which seems designed to pit the catholic church against the jews, as being behind a plot to destroy the church. This information which appears to come from or be adapted from the protocols (and will therefore immediately be completely deniable) supposedly comes from an informer within the Bnai B’rith or who attended one of their conferences. The problem here is that it is extremely unbelievable that something like this would just have leaked out like this. There are genuine leaks no doubt but a great many of them occur deliberately and strategically, whether from the stated source or otherwise. I’ll make no comment about the bnai b’rith. Suffice it to say that not everybody back in the interwar period who had an interest in ramping up anti-semitism was necessarily a catholic. Many pro-zionists were themselves happy for antisemitism to increase particularly where the ground for such sentiments (like the protocols and this article in the catholic gazette) were of dubious pedigree, as the zionist plan depended upon the perception of a war between (persecuting) christians and jews (it doesn’t necessarily whether they were guilty as charged or as innocent as lambs). I’m not saying that was necessarily what was going on, but its quite possible, and good enough reason not to take at face value the kinds of assertions that are being made here.
          As for Calvin, Luther and Protestantism, I suspect there has always been substantial jewish influence on the origins and course of the reformation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a determining influence, or the sine qua non. What both catholicism and – strangely – judaism have in common is a priestly dominance and protestantism’s relative freedom from such determination is a mixed blessing perhaps, but I would say a blessing nonetheless: it establishes the principle of the importance of the individual to think, see, understand for themselves. Yes this can be fractious, and make discipline and order problematic, but it can also make things more robust: any system that removes large areas of its mechanism from scrutiny, must surely be vulnerable don’t you think?
          As for Calvin himself, I’ll leave my mind open on the issue. There is a tendency to identify everybody influential and as jewish. He may well have been so , but again that isn’t necessarily the reason why some people are claiming him to be so. It’s like with gays. When gay rights got aggressive suddenly they were claiming everybody and their dog was gay. It’s a kind of imperialism of the mind that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with what in fact was or was not the case

  20. Try as they might, they cant grasp it. These fools will never counter us unless they begin a systematic examination of their own ideology and actions. They cannot and will not do this, because that is how the redpilling process begins. They are willing to say that western policies in the middle east contribute to islamic radicalism, but they cannot admit to the role that their own growing tyranny and shitty actions have had in radicalising us.
    Instead they double down. Instead of questioning their ideas, they insist that they must try harder to force them down our throats. “White males arent convinced enough yet of their vileness and worthlessness..hence we must try harder! That will surely help!”

    1. well I agree with your post, but don’t fall into the trap of identifying yourself as they would have you be identified. You may well be awakened to a world that was once hidden from you. That doesn’t make you radicalised. Once they’ve identified you as radicalised, they will try to make you out to be an extremist. The whole point of all of this is – as the article points out – to link “terror/ism” to “extremism” and capture as many dissidents against power as possible within the latter bracket

  21. Oh shit Return Of Kings made the news yet again!! It’s fucking hilarious how these sons of bitches are more concerned about everyday people sharing our views and opinions on a website than they are about Islamic terrorists killing folks. These assholes need to realize that demonizing us while sucking on that hairy Durka dick isn’t going to shut us down anytime soon. We are going to continue to do what the lame-stream media failed to do which is telling the fucking truth in the most non-politically correct way as possible. Return Of Kings will thrive on while those incompetent fucks in the media will continue too fall.

    1. This reminds me of something: the two parties, one being respected, one taking the heat. Return of Kings is legitimate (albeit partially anonymous), and the Islamists are sneaky terrorists. Kind of like how a girl belittles the guys who she thinks she knows, but wants to sleep with the jerk who’s aloof.

  22. From the report – pg 27, which I’ve just skimmed through very briefly. The authors sum the ‘problem position’ yet the section after this just moves on to discuss how radicalisation occurs. There is zero attempt to evaluate what has been described (as below) as though it is self-evidently wrong or absurd. That isn’t good enough. In a report entitled ‘Media manipulation and Disinformation” if you describe a set of ‘problem beliefs’ then you also need to explain why they are wrong. How exactly is the least powerful borders of the media (the alt…whatever) manipulating the collosus of the mainstream media. You’re a Phd sweetheart explain manipulation of the many by the few
    “Many participants are motivated by the desire to share and spread these ideological commitments. As previously mentioned, there is a widespread belief on the far- right that the left-wing is winning the culture war through the spread of “cultural Marxism.” Cultural Marxism is a far-right term for the Frankfurt School, a school of critical theory that emerged in 1930s Germany and was associated with the Institute for Social Research. Members of the Frankfurt School, which included social theorists Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas, were concerned with the failure of Marxist revolution in Western Europe and the rise of Nazism. Their works examined and critiqued the culture of advanced industrial capitalism, and are still widely read.125 According to the theory of Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School was a Jewish conspiracy to weaken Western civilization.126 This belief originated with religious paleoconservatives in the 1990s, such as Paul Weyrich, who also founded the Model Majority and the Heritage Foundation. It was amplified by Pat Buchanan, Lyndon LaRouche, and Fidel Castro, and gained wider acceptance among the Tea Party, white nationalists, and conspiracy theorists.127 According to adherents, the Frankfurt School is responsible for, among other things, widespread acceptance of homosexuality; rock music; modern art; 1960s student activism; the Civil Rights Movement; feminism; environmentalism; and so forth. From this perspective, using the Internet to spread far-right ideology is an attempt to fight the dominance of left-wing cultural criticism (and Jewish ascendancy). Both the alt-right and white nationalist groups believe that they must work from the ground up to establish counter-narratives, which today can best be done online. This imbues online participation with a sense of importance and urgency, and simultaneously positions the far-right as an oppressed minority struggling against a domineering status quo”

  23. Read the NY Mag article. Half of it is true, half of it is PC nonsense. But Mr. Potlatch is doing his movement no favors by using the worn-out “echo” meme for Jewish names. Just proves the enemy’s points about the Pepe the Frog crowd. And I noticed (((Alice Marwick))) is echoed but not Rebecca Lewis! Mr. Potlatch should improve his skill at spotting dastardly Jewish surnames

  24. MSM is now the Zombie Media, it is decomposing and falling apart, it moves but there is no life left in it. I will enjoy pissing on its grave.

    1. MSM gets outside support to push it’s bullshit, which is why it goes along with whatever globalist agenda is at the time. It’s burial is no time soon.
      Started to notice it around Iraq WMD in 2002, it got the fat woman worshipping Toby Keith homos all going for that scam.
      After that, it’s been the same old fear mongering and vapid feminized snark toward anything that isn’t pushing the latest Vitz agenda.
      WMD, hope and change, The Great Thief Session of 2008, Trayvon, Miss Oginny, etc.
      Be sure to grab a Bud Light and stare at the ground. Those weekend warrior fat woman bangers are about as bad as their fem beta counterparts.

  25. This kind of publicity is great for our movement. Any normal thinking person reading NY mag is going to think they are a bunch of dbags and side with us.
    Want to know why I hate leftists? Social engineering. Shoving diversity down our throats when we as humans(all humans) do not prefer it. Citing made up studies claiming diverse teams perform better with no consideration to happiness and harmony.

    1. they get into college towns, overrun the faculty, bernakify the economy to make it appealing, advertise the crap out of the city, citing it as “progressive”. The economy is based in liberalism, so everyone must go along to get along. This is done to change the political climate in key areas

      1. I lol’ed at “Bernakify the economy”. You mean lower interest rates to artificially increase asset prices (homes, cars, jewelry even) so 95%+ of young people need a two income household in order to afford a decent home in a safe neighborhood?

        1. my take on bernakification or whatever is that it’s somewhat like an octopus with many arms, but I’m still getting a handle on the concept.
          biggest thing they do in these cities is job creation for the (liberal) working class (being the “middle” class, etc. there is no middle class)

        2. middle class is the indentured working class. it’s a step below. by the time one loan is paid, the next generation’s loan springs up

      2. Btw, it’s nice to see women posting here(or anywhere on the alt-right). Hopefully you can red pill some more women. Welcome to our movement!

        1. thanks! I appreciate it. I don’t know that it’s actually possible to redpill more than 1% of the female population, beyond the point of useful idiot, but that being said, I found the sphere a while back, due to a woman’s blog. So, I’m not one to throw the towel in.

        2. thanks! I appreciate it. 🙂 I don’t know that it’s actually possible to redpill more than 1% of the female population, beyond the point of useful idiot, but that being said, I found the sphere a while back, due to a woman’s blog. At least, I think she was a woman, but no one knew for sure.

        3. thanks! I don’t think most women can be red pilled past a certain point, but I’ll try to help by devising plans to repeal suffrage, so that it doesn’t matter.

        4. My mom is naturally a civic nationalist and has expressed those views since the 90’s at least. Whenever she would hear about a charity or (((unicef))) commercial designed to help foreigners she would posit “well why don’t we help Americans instead”.
          I have been trying to redpill my parents on the merits of white nationalism, traditionalism, etc. I have certainly had more success with my dad but my mom listens to my arguments and sees my viewpoints. I think she has been coming around ever so slowly. But maybe that’s because my dad understands my narrative better as he has had an intuitive sense that blacks have lower IQs than whites. I merely showed him proof.
          The point is that most women will not come to these conclusions naturally like a lot of men do but they will follow the crowd. That crowd can be a husband, father, or any strong male figure a woman admires and respects.
          alternatively it could a female friend that can speak to her in a way a man simply cannot.
          I would be more optimistic about being able to red pill women. I think each and every day more and more white Americans are waking up and realizing the leftist narrative is incorrect. Intuitively, people are realizing what many of us on the alt-right know to be true. I think many people (women especially) just need a bridge to get to the promise land that is the alt-right.

  26. I’ve been RADICALISED! Amen. Never felt stronger and more healthy. And guess what I have NO desire to detonate myself inside a concert packed full of the children of non ROK readers. Or decapitate feminists or throw gays from buildings. Fuck me how desperate the anything but Islam brigade are.

  27. Roosh, sure, cute. Matt Forney seems more like a fine wine, which is taken in great quantity by women nearing the wall. Or reporters at the end of their career.

  28. it’s certainly something that requires scrutiny. Obviously (the cult of) mary, mother of God is pretty important in catholicism. Beyond that I’m not sure I’m qualified to say too much about catholicism or for that matter evangelical christianity which refers to the shekinah. There was an interesting article on the Scofield bible and how it came about the other day, although I’m not quite clear where ideas like the Shekinah Glory come from. I’m not necessarily condemnatory of the development, but equally one might fairly ask what relation such an idea has to traditional christianity. Feminist theologians have certainly bought into the idea of the sacred or divine feminine, and again their ideas lie rather awkwardly in relation to what has come before, but at least there the critique is open: they are reacting to and seeking to update what they see as a male dominated religion and with it they attempt to update the nature of the divine as well. Whether the shekinah, or shekinah glory amounts to the worship of the female aspect of God is open to interpretation. You can find different opinions on the subject if you read upon the Shekinah. Earlier jewish descriptions of the idea don’t seem to equate it to a feminine aspect to God as in traditional more obviously patriarchal judaism God is considered masculine (check that as I’m not quite sure). In kabbalistic influenced judaism God is however without qualities or characteristics, so it would probably be incorrect to say that God should be understood as either masculine or feminine, except perhaps in aspect. The idea of indwelling of God could arguably be seen in a quasi-sexual / marital sense – the active part of divinity find its dwelling place in the feminine. These aren’t really theologically meaningful ideas within the christian tradition as far as I’m aware.
    However you trace their genealogy I think the influence of these ideas, of the sacred or divine feminine is increasingly significant. It’s not just Mary, or the evangelicals or modern judaism. You get this stuff entering culture through say the Da Vinci code, where the entire idea is that Holy Grail – The Sangraal – or whatever is not a cup in the literal sense, but a cup as one might encounter it in the Tarot. Not to put too fine a point on it: the chalice of the female body; the womb. Hence in the da Vinci Code (and the books it is based upon) the messianic Davidian bloodline is passed down through the literal blood (i.e. genes) of Christ. Its interesting stuff, but not exactly orthodox

    1. the only mention I know of a “female element of God” in the Bible comes from a similar belief the Israelites had at various points. It was viewed in the context of idolatry and came with punishment. There was the female “nature of God” worshiped, and also a belief of a female God that God married.
      Now, when you’re talking about the nature of God, it’s intrinsic to equate “nature” with “personhood”. Three persons in one means “Holy Spirit” isn’t a spiritual presence, but a person in the way Jesus is and God is. So, if “Shekinah” is actually the female nature of God, she gains personhood. My guess is the Holy Spirit, which is male, gets transformed into the goddess Shekinah. I already hear theology about the “feminine attributes of the Holy Spirit”.
      Yeah, it’s going to happen, the biggest heresy of our age. Those kinds of modern churches called things like “revive” and “essence” or whatever one word have already proven to be liberal plants.

      1. My guess is the Holy Spirit, which is male, gets transformed into the goddess Shekinah. I already hear theology about the “feminine attributes of the Holy Spirit”.

        I’ve heard it taught that the Holy Spirit is female, too. They want a father, a mother and a child, just like the pagans did with Isis, Osiris and Horus…

      2. some good points there that I will have to consider. The only solid treatment of the shekinah that I know of is by gershom scholem, and I need to look at it again. He looks at the origin of the idea, including as some hypostasis of wisdom and discusses issues of personhood. The wiki article does seem to consider the christian equivalent to be the Holy Spirit, but without the two concepts being in any way identical. As you say the Holy Spirit is male. The emergence of the idea that the shekinhah is female seems to arise in the early modern period, possibly in lurianic kabbalah, and does seem to involve the feminization of God, and potentially the translation to modern goddess worship that seeks to rehabilitate older female deities, including in the jewish tradition – the wiki article mentions Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, which discusses these non-monotheistic traditions. I’ve not heard of those modern churches, but I note the Branch Davidians used the term. As you suggest it does seem like an outside influence on the modern church, and one with quite unorthodox associations

    2. Meh, femininity worship makes sense in the context of religion when you take into account the manipulative nature of females. Doesn’t surprise me.

    3. I just had a string of text deleted by Discuss.
      The worship of the feminine aspects of God and goddesses in the BIble is met with rebuke and punishment. There were a few such religions in ancient Israel.
      It makes sense that feminine worship would sometimes show up in any religion, when you take into account feminine nature.

      1. I just had a string of text deleted by Discuss.

        Join the club. I’ve had far more than a string deleted… Disqus is garbage. Did you ever get to read that second comment I sent you, by the way? (The other one Disqus “filtered”?)

      1. Interesting find. I just skim read the article but there seems to be some ambiguity re. the identification with Asherah and Shekinah, at least if one includes the quotes and the comments as well. The author does seem to consider the Shekinah may be a (sneaky?) throwback to a time before monotheism (in judaism) where goddess worship competed with or complemented YHWH. Her function in judaism appears to be complex and far from transparent, even if there is no such identification with Asherah (which tends arguably tends towards the less charitable takes on judaism). The sabbath queen and the idea that God has a wife is a strange one and seems to be mostly talmudic or kabbalistic if this article is correct. The comments about a female co-architect as redolent of free-masonry is interesting to. As the presence / in-dwelling of God, and as the holy spirit, Ruach ha Kodesh, she would appear well placed to take over from both God, who in Kabbalah is remote and without form and Christ as the intermediary between heaven and earth.
        Given that gnostic thinking seems to run through all of this the following quote is of interest:
        Gnostics teach that we all have a touch of divinity in us but we are trapped in our earthly bodies. They teach that Yahweh, an evil god, created us and trapped us in matter, but Sophia came to free us and show us how to reach our god state. This is the same belief we see through Shekinah. Of course, this all contradicts the Bible …..”
        The gnostic question lies at the heart of the mystery. The problem I have with all of this is not that it is right or wrong but that it innovations like this seek to re-configure belief systems completely on the sly. It is cuckoo ideology

        1. I come into this with a belief that in the end times, there will be a one world religion. I’m just looking at it to see how they bullshit it together.
          The old testament talks a lot about punishment of people with Asherah poles. The idea of Asherah is that she is God’s wife. From what I understand about Judaism, if their elders were to say they should go back to worshipping Asherah, they’d listen to the elders, rather than the scripture. New-agey Judaism/ Christianity has made it possible to bring back things that were forbidden in the Bible. Of course, “Shekinah” probably sounds and transitions better to Christian ears than Asherah, a known idol.

        2. I’m not really an end times believer. If there will be an ‘end times’ mediated by a new world order or whatever it will probably be because people work collaboratively towards that end, both as enablers and opponents. That’s more a comment about the nature and powers of the story scripts our religious heritage provides us with than any kind of comment about conspiracy, although there can be that too. Personally I’m not convinced anyone with real power wants a nuclear Armageddon or whatever.
          Rabbinic control / influence is a curious thing, and not something that gets discussed very openly. Rabbinic authority has been challenged and I think renewed over the last few hundred years, encompassing many of its dissident elements, including ‘heretical’ takes on the kabbalah. ‘Feminist’ and goddess worshipping elements of in kabbalistic thought, appear to go back a good few hundred years, but perhaps not that long. The idea of a sabbath queen, or of God having a bride may not be that ancient, or may be a reawakening of older traditions as you’ve mentioned

    4. I wonder chicken or egg? is the religion tweaked on behalf of feminism, or is feminism created for the religion?

      1. well if you mean catholicism, I would say that it is still pretty patriarchal. The mary cult is something that can be amplified or dampened down at will, and practically speaking is probably of pragmatic value to a church that admits only male clergy and moreover prevents them from marrying. As for the evangelical churches embracing the shekinah glory, this does seem to be a modern innovation rather than one rooted in any kind of protestant / evangelical tradition. Just think back to John Knox and his ‘first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regime of women’ (which incidentally didn’t put him in good stead with good queen bess)

        1. I’m wondering was feminism introduced with the thought of constructing this new religious offshoot, or was church feminism the result of these changing trends in evangelicism?
          Was the original intent of feminism to start a goddess religion? Women didn’t start feminism, only followed it.

        2. I’m not sure. I don’t think the original intent of feminism was to start a goddess religion. In the 19th century you do get quite a few women charismatics / mystics. There’s one I was thinking about but I can’t remember her name. That doesn’t necessarily have to do with feminism, let alone goddess worship, but obviously there is potentially a feminist aspect to female leadership in the church and one which requires some kind of doctrinal justification or shift for it to happen. Women were pretty central to late 19th century / early 20th century occult spirituality – blavatsky, etc. and the goddess movement probably (re-)emerges in this context rather than with christianity / marian catholicism. I’m not that knowledgeable of the history of women in the church, or with respect to different denominations, but I would say most of the femininsm is contempory with the admission of women into the ranks of the clergy. In the lutheran and anglican churches this has only really taken place in the last thirty years. Feminist and goddess sympathetic / sacred feminine theology is older than that probably by another 30 years or so.

        3. you also had a lot of those weird occult practices springing up, marxism, etc.

        4. out of interest what do you consider to be occult about marxism, or have you happened upon my previous comments on the issue?
          I do think that some of the goals of communism, and indeed the revolutionary impulse itself, reflects an occult influence but I’m not sure how clear that would be to those involved who regard themselves as marxists / revolutionaries etc. In fact I think most of them, the useful idiots at least would ridicule the idea, or consider any compatibility to be accidental.

        5. unforgivable. Maybe there’s something in the idea though despite the caveats? Was marx a mason as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe? Why did he want to level everything? Marxism is certainly not what it says on the can .

        6. something marxism, occultism, feminism all have in common is foul play. 2/3 of those things: possession of a press

        7. marx was jewish, but as an atheist rejected judaism and railed against it as an embodiment of capitalism. So, it both is and isn’t. No doubt his background influenced his thinking including in terms of a reaction to that background

        8. well I certainly agree that they all engage in foul play and end justifies the means thinking. By press you mean the media? I would say the left and feminism pretty much dominate the media. Occultism or at least occult symbology seems evident in a lot of hollywood films and music indusry videos but it would be hard to demonstrate any kind of direct occult ‘control’ of the press even if it were true

        9. he was just setting an example for non-jews, I don’t necessarily believe it

        10. I’m talking about a specific period in time: late 1800s, early 1900s. All these things happen in that period, such as newpapers of the time staging feminism to make it look like there was actually a protest being held about suffrage.

        11. same time period as crowley, same time period as marxism, same time period as Frankfurt School, same time period as World War I and the last breaths of the west

        12. I think I said it was not necessarily what it seemed to be. I don’t believe it’s just cynical or anything. It’s probably inspired by kabbalah. That doesn’t mean marx would necessarily have been conscious of that fact if it was the case

        13. you mean just saying it for non-jews benefit? I don’t necessarily think that’s the case, but merely that what was presented was not necessarily the whole picture

        14. there was a heavy jewish presence in bolshevism. It wasn’t exclusively jewish though as far as I can remember even in its early pre-revolutionary terrorist phase

        15. well that’s suggestive, and there might well be connections, but I wouldn’t know how to directly connect the frankfurt school to crowley for instance. What I think is the case in most of the above is the will to violate conventional / bourgeois institutions etc. So in a sense it may all flow from the same well-spring but still one must be careful not to see connections that might not exist in any direct sense

  29. I would ask fellow Nationalists seriously to eware of the grave error of Statism, a.k.a. State-worship. Why do I post that here? Experientia magistra stultorum.

  30. Take the object of the enemy’s desire and he will conform to your wishes.—Sun Tzu, The Art Of War.
    What do these bitches want?
    Keep them from getting it.
    Then they will do what you want them to.

      1. I thought the last time he got out of town was after he wrote that tattooed chicks are nuts article. Wasn’t he reporting from the the Trump 2016 rallies. Are we going to have to get Bob to put his face on a milk carton?

  31. Well, what the hell do they expect? For years, the mainstream media has demonized white males, just look at the stuff that’s Buzzfeed or Huffington Post puts out. It’s pretty obvious how the mainstream media despises us, so how could they expect us to listen to them? At least in Return of Kings, I don’t have to hate myself or feel guilt for being white and male.

    1. True. Just look at how that hag Kathy Griffin blamed “old white men” for her downfall. I was surprised that she could say that on national TV and not be condemned on TV. She was severely condemned on social media.

  32. Sigh. I once used NY mag to housebreak my dog. If RoK is what that silly rag considers “radicalization” then they are more backwards than I thought. The fact that more people are choosing to take the red pill is the only chance we have against the truly radicalized promoting a global jihad.

  33. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !du164c:
    On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
    ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs454MarketCampGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!du164c:….,……

  34. Foreshadows a power struggle between the Left and the Islamists if conservatives don’t win.

  35. NY Mag wants us to believe that ROK is worse than Islamic terrorism, I do believe that NY Mag is worse than Islamic terrorism. Islam is like the common cold, something you can get easily rid off with borders, but modernism is like AIDS: something that destroys your immune system up to a point where even the common cold can kill you.
    Furthermore, I’d rather have Muslims occasionally crashing the parties of godless faggots, rebellious females and degenerate lolita pop stars than a nation ruled by genderqueer mulattos and with cities full of feral ghetto thugs who have probably raped more “Aryan” cunts and killed more “Aryan” cucks over the last few months than Muslim have over the last decade.
    And to hell with alt-lite hipsters who are just opposed to these degenerates because they believe that they aren’t hard enough on Islamic “sexism” and Islamic “homophobia.”

    1. >> “Islam is like the common cold, something you can get easily rid off with borders, but modernism is like AIDS: something that destroys your immune system up to a point where even the common cold can kill you.” >>
      That should be a top wikiquote of bio-analogies. I’ve heard the ‘cancer’ analogy in a million different ways. Your ‘AIDS’ one is right on target.
      Here’s an ‘enema’ bio-analogy: The west got cultural ‘AIDS’ in the first place by being tricked into granting permission for the schools to give our youth a cleansing enema. It was no harmless enema. It wasn’t an enem(a). It was the enem(y) crashing the back gates. A colossal trojan enema. And they shovelled multicult propaganda up our kids’ asses and no one raised an eyebrow as the borders were kicked open. Well the 5 munites is up and the enemy is a fixin to get spattered and projectile shat upon royally. Never go impromptu for someone’s ass like that fool. They should know better.

  36. It’s also using Pre-Suasion. “Radicalization” is new, as is, more alarmingly, pairing this concept with “counterterrorism.” Such epithets channel attention down targeted chutes and draw attention to anything scary in the memory. Cialdini talked about this. http://masculineepic.com/index.php/2017/05/13/pre-suasion-review/
    “Nazi” and “racist” no longer works as you say, so ISIS it is. Fortunately, they act more like ISIS than we do, and a few images, like that Kathy Griffin clip (which will be a gift that keeps on giving) and the destruction of statues and monuments will take control of attention.

  37. The women or ‘girls’ that spun the article out of their ass like a loom of spidey string are perfectly cut out for what they do. Spinning webs out their ass. That what ‘girls’ in general do exceptionally well. Add to it, they’re BIG girls. Shitlib ‘educated’ girls. Left leaning jewish girls. Ashkenazi jewish girls at that. Feminazi and Ashkenazi Policy institute type shitlib educated left leaning jewish BIG girls. Big yet probably skinny in size and four-eyed but big in the head and mouth. And they think they can launch a witch hunt like their party whip big sisters did back in the neocuck era with Sen Packwood, Reagan and Jimmy Swaggart.
    WHAT THEY FEAR is a real witch hunt that is partly backlash and culturally driven to flush loud mouthed jewradical barren Ashki feminist horns with psych and ‘soash’ masters out of academia, out of the kindergardens, out of the hebe policy institutes, and . . . . . . tossed onto their backs into the back alleys where the lines of Islamic merchant marines await. That would be getting off very lightly.
    Femrad Ashki jew writers get pisstwitchy with fears. They’re the steseotype that defines the ‘neurotic’ jewish woman or the typical ‘neurotic’ jewish mother, always dominating the frame of the jewish household with their ‘neurotic’ boogeymen fears and bothers. The fembitch jew authors are likely 0-1 barren so they’re running full force jew fembitch throughout their media/policy spin career.

  38. If you notice they don’t actually even write the articles in a way where they even feel the need to debunk the opposing views, rather they just take a passive aggressive tone throughout and there is a automatic assumption that the differing opinions are completely insane and wrong, so much so that it does not even require a explanation, as only a insane person would hold those beliefs. As if it’s automatically a given that the people they are covering are simply wrong as an obvious fact that would only be missed by totally deranged person. I think this is part of how we got here. Because these people denied the world a space in which to discuss and disagree, even about “insane” ideas, and they forced the hand increasing extremism as a result. When you deny people peaceful outlets as the elites have done they will become increasingly aggressive as a result. And the most ironic thing is that the people who wrote this article are part of the class that started this situation in the first place that lead to escalating “radicalization” with their double standards and crackdowns. Their destruction of rational discussion is what got us here in the first place.

    1. that’s exactly right. They reference the ‘worrying’ ideas (i.e. that they don’t like) and then immediately follow on to a discussion about radicalisation. That won’t wash any more.
      At least one of the authors is jewish, and since part of the critique she is worried about often involves claims about media manipulation (or excessive influence, control etc) for her to write about ‘media manipulation’ as a concern should, and indeed must require a ‘reflective’ account of the sort “how am I as a jewish academic reacting personally to these kind of ideas? To what extent am in a position to evaluate such material without prejudice and respond with some degree of objectivity. Treating an issue simply in terms of radicalisation or ‘extremism’ is not what any honest academics should be doing. They are simply political agents who are so elevated in the political and academic heavens they don’t even have to argue their case. All they need to is scaremonger and stigmatise what they don’t like
      I would challenge the authors of this report to respond to such criticisms

      1. The best way for them to win the discussion, is to not have one at all in the first place.

  39. Usual leftist nonsense of taking everyone that disagrees with them as one like minded hive and then conflating them with racists.
    So if you find marriage under today’s laws to be a bad deal for men you’re a racist white supremacist. If you disagree with Hillary Clinton you’re a racist white supremacist. If you’ve learned the facts don’t support CO2 driven climate change you’re a racist white supremacist. It all goes back to if you disagree with progressive ideology which btw goes back to eugenics you’re a racist white supremacist.

    1. We might as well go all the way, and become actual white supremacists.
      Nobody believes we are not, so why bother?
      Embrace it and own it. Agree and amplify.
      Besides, why would it be so wrong if us whites ruled the world as its supreme rulers?
      I’m all for it, I would whole-heartedly vote for it.
      I mean, why the fuck not?
      We are whites, we would be better off if we ruled the world.

      1. Here’s the rub, it’s those so-called elite white men that created the progressive view to bring in their absolute rule after the failure of their company towns. None of these idiots bother to study where what they are demanding comes from. As a result they have no idea what it really is. It’s a tiny elite of “white” families to rule and micromanage all of society, world wide. Keep in mind too they view other white men as threats to them so they have an interest in cutting them down as well.

        1. Those people are not “White men” although their skin color is indeed White, but they do not identify as one.
          They are JEWS.

        2. John D. Rockefeller was a baptist. While Jews are over represented globally in the USA the big players weren’t jews.

  40. I wish there was a literal red pill and every male on the planet would take it. Shit would change for the better real fucking fast.

  41. What’s a good rhetorical term or expression to use in response to “radicalized”? “We’re growing a pair”? “I know you want me to f- you”?

  42. I disagree with calling them whores, presstitutes, etc., since offering sex for money is a million times more respectable than what those “journos” do, one of the filthiest proffesions on earth.

  43. I have to suspect that many of the left’s beta manginas actually envy men who have taken the red pill. Red pill men enjoy life and don’t apologize for being masculine. Red pill men take control of their lives and don’t need assistance from others. Red pill men are much freer. Beta manginas are not respected by women. Feminists laugh at and mock their sissified men. Beta white knights and liberal men seem to be constantly apologizing for themselves. Yes, I think they secretly envy red pill men.

    1. If only the red pill was enough. When you have taken it; and internalized to your core – that is when female demons with blood coming out of their eyes come after you. Its like a homing device. The writers are 100% -Mangina’s – the filthy feminist just push them around and make them their slaves.

      1. When I was last single I definitely felt like a dangerous animal. I even had one girlfriend who recognized my un-obligated status and resented me for it.

  44. Damn. I’m a 15 year old Muslim who has been reading RoK religiously for the past two years. Mainly because I don’t have a father for “real” guidance, and secondly for getting a dose of what’s really happening behind the scenes. From the looks of things, I’m radicalized on both sides.
    I must be a savage XD

    1. Is there such a thing as “Jihadi Game”?
      I mean like, growing a bum-fluff/peach fuzz beard as a young Muslim man, and dress the part, like dishdash and keffiah.
      And then going out trying to pick up young Muslim ladies.
      I would bet my life young Muslim girls must have a crush on jihadist young men, finding them cool and sexy.
      I suspect even ISIS must have groupies.

      1. I reside in an urban area and let me tell you, nothing like that exists at least in my society. The idea itself is kinda comical when you look at it. Most principles of game are universal. If you dress up like a Jihadi clown in the way you’ve put it, prep yourselves to be destroyed in any gathering with female attendees. Though I wouldn’t know what goes in the upper-echelons of Pakistani; money is everything here.

  45. Haha – just looked at the report. They quote one of my articles!
    ‘A blog post on Return of Kings, for instance, reads:
    There’s no denying that long term relationships are on the decline. Social con- servatives are often described as hateful and misogynist for railing against pro- miscuity, but the statistics don’t lie. Marriages in which the wife was a virgin have an 80% chance of succeeding, while the figure for brides who have had 15 or more premarital partners is just 20%. Basically, there’s an ever-increasing number of washed-up old hags out there who are coming to regret their earlier promiscuity, and are now facing the realization that they will probably die alone and childless’ (pg 19).
    From this article 3 years ago – http://www.returnofkings.com/48312/the-deregulation-of-the-sexual-marketplace
    How nice of them!

  46. I would not accuse this site of radicalizing men. Words like contradictory and hypocritical come to mind. The NY mag is liberal so sadly it will defend Islamic extremism. Never mind the reality of what is going on. The reality is red pill calls woman names next session will be about bedding them and then how to get those religuse women that are such prudes. The ISIS fighters from behind says. Whatever, we are here to behead you. And for dramatic purposes lets say a woman witness this the ISIS fighters will turn to her and say. Get you butt home and dress as a muslim woman we will find out if you are married to an infidel or single later on and then discuss you making babies for the cause.

  47. This explanation by Tommy Robinson explains what is going to happen here if immigration is allowed unchecked as it has been the last 5 years in Britain. The press allows all, the law allows all, crimes go unchecked and a slow influx into government rule.

Leave a Reply

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