Monday, January 11, 2016

Should the Alt Right White Knight?

The Alt Right is the synthesis of race realism and sex realism. Meaning, we recognize that racial and sexual differences are real and equality is a myth.

But because we recognize race differences does that mean we must hate other races? And if we recognize that men and women are different does that mean we hate women?

Hatred for other races does not belong in the Alt Right. We just advocate for self-determination for all people. Similarly, we do not need to hate or exclude women. We just recognize that nature has provided us with different functions and roles. For example, it is proper for a woman to be a mother, not a soldier. Pretending that a woman can be an effective Navy Seal is just silly and a denial of reality. We must always focus of what is real, not on how we might wish things to be.

Concerning "White Knighting" - it depends on the motivation. Helping people in need (such as women, children or the elderly) is a noble quality for a man. Such is a healthy form of White Knighting.

But sucking up to a girl in an attempt to gain romantic affections is pathetic and harmful. Boys should be taught to avoid such "White Knighting". Many girls (see link below) will naturally take advantage of naive boys who engage in such White Knighting.


  1. Wow, just wow.

    YCMTSU - you can't make this stuff up.

    Military used to be for National Defense. People joined or were drafted to defend the nation.

    Given the invasion of Europe, you'd think that this Swedish politician was calling for forced conscription to defend Sweden from the invaders.

    BUT NO!!!!! It is to use the military to aid the alien hordes to invade and conquer with greater convenience and ease.

    If Monty Python had made a skit like this, people would have laughed. But now it is reality. But then, Monty Python once joked about a fairy military and man wanting to be a woman... and those things came true.

    What should this be called? It can't be called National Defense.

    National Destruction? Be all that you can be... by serving to ensure that your people will no longer be.

    It is no longer enough to watch helplessly as your nation is invaded and destroyed. You must enthusiastically take part in the invasion and destruction.

    Well, there is one upside to this. Swedes had a habit of taking trips to Africa and the Third World to help the dumb darkies with food, shelter, water, and etc.

    Now, they can save on air fare since they will have all the moronic darkies to take care of in Sweden itself.

  2. The problem I have with the Alt Right is it begins with an abstract theory, and then apparently tries to deduce from that it is ok to be pro-White. It's as if they are going to great links to "justify" their loyalty to their own people.

    1. What you are saying is that Ramzpaul is APOLOGETIC (in the proper sense of the word) about being pro-White. He's making a major theme of how it's okay to be pro-White, whereas somebody who has really liberated his thinking wouldn't be doing that.

      These "Alt Right" guys all seem to be still worried about the taboos that have been set down for us by our enemies. To the degree that this is the case, they are still subservient to our enemies.

      One of the manifestations of still being subervient to our enemies is this tendency toward distancing oneself from others that our enemies have designated as beyond the pale. SEE THAT GUY? HE'S BAD! BUT I'M NOT LIKE HIM! I'M GOOD!

      There are various manifestations of this. I recall about 15 years ago it was all the rage among Stormfronters to insist that one was not "racist" but "racialist," even though in terms of meaning and implications there is no improvement with such a change.

      More similar to what Ramzpaul has been doing lately with this term "Alternative Right" is Greggy Johnson's hijacking and attempted redefinition of the term "New Right." Johnson's self-serving misdefinition gave his so-called New Right the maximum possible distance from Adolf Hitler, whom Greggy very inaccurately labeled "Old Right."

      It is not hard to discern that lingering fear of the enemy's propaganda motivates this kind of contortion.

    2. Interesting thing is that Trump does not do what Ramzpaul does, i.e. he does not make efforts to distance himself from some of the less bourgeois-respectable people that happen to agree with him. He just doesn't worry about it.

      I remember seeing a couple of Jews interview Trump. They asked him if he would repudiate White Supremacists who support him. He sort of rolled his eyes and said, "Yes, I will repudiate them if it will make you happy."

  3. Well said, Ramz. There are far too many White femcunts and white-knighting White beta-boys in the WN and Alt-Right movement. These women rely on the protection of good White men and figure they deserve such protection simply by virtue of having a pussy, offering nothing to these men in return. I see it all the time. These people ought to be targeted and singled out.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. If this video/blog entry is a reaction to this
    it completely misses the point. I thought about Roosh's remark yesterday.
    The question here is, need women suffrage. Must men take suffrage away from women. I know a lot of German women (I mean, personally. E.g. my cousin and her employees (runs a shop, sells glasses)) who root for diversity. They don't believe me, diversity is a root of evil. They root for Hillary because she's a woman. They don't like Jeb Bush because they associate them with the George Bushes and for them the George Bushes are presidents of war and they want peace. (facepalm)
    Realistically, I can take only one of two positions.
    a) Men have the responsibility to take women suffrage away. White men have the responsibility to make the decisions which are good for both white men and white women. If men fail at this task and women are part of the political process and their decisions have consequences that are bad for them, they carry no responsibility, it was the failure of men to prevent suffrage that caused the damage.
    b) Roosh is right. Our white women with their wrong political decisions had it (Cologne NYE) coming. Not that there aren't men who decided wrongful things also. But the women had it all wrong in much higher percentage.

    Now there's the hard question: do white men have the task to protect women from their own misdecisions, and deprive them of suffrage? Such task could be called "white knight".

    1. Men should be making the decisions because men are more cautious toward enemies.


  7. We should embrace racism as race + ism.

    Race means race, and ism means belief. So, race + ism = belief in the existence of race, belief in the possibility of racial differences, belief in the need for racial consciousness. After all, even Negroes will say that a black man is not simply a white man with black skin.

    We should spell it as race-ism and pronounce it as race-ism than racism. Say 'race' and then say 'ism'.

    For example, if our enemies say that sexual preference for your own race is racist, we should say, 'Of course, it is race-ist. That is why it is so great. It means love and appreciation of your own race. It means racial self-esteem.'

    After all, why would you go with another race unless you felt racial loathing for your own people and believed that the genetic heritage of your people isn't worth preserving.

    Also, we should use the term 'interracist' for those believe that OTHER races are superior to their own. That is why most people go for interracism. Black men find black women to be ugly and inferior and see white women as superior. Many white women see white men as inferior to black men in sports and funky music, so they go with Negroes. So, interracism is just another form of 'racism'.

    Also, let's just look at the sordid history of interracism. Usually, the winning side sexual conquered and colonized the losing side. Spanish men conquered indigenous women in South America while native men were reduced to cuckery. White slave masters took black women while black men were reduced to cuckery. Since the end of segregation, the trends have been reversed, and muscled black masters of sports and funky music conquer white women while white men are reduced to cuckery. Asian women find white and black men superior to yellow men who are reduced to pansyboy cuckery.

    So, interracism is a form of violence.

    Sexual race-ism is more harmonious because men and women stay within the race. But interracism is about men or women rejecting the opposite sex of their own race and favoring the mate of another as racially and sexually superior. It is a form of racial and sexual conquest of another race or a sexual-racial rejection of one's own race. Interracism is the product of feeling contempt for the opposite sex of your own race.

    There is no worse hatred than hatred and rejection of your own race.

    Btw, would it have been so terrible if the Spanish who conquered South America and Mexico had been opposed to race-mixing? They would have left native women alone to native men. But as the Spanish were opposed to race-ism and promoted interracism, they sexually conquered and colonized native women while native men were rendered inferior.

    And would it have been so terrible if Mongols who invaded Persia and Russia had been opposed to race-mixing? They would have sexually stuck with Mongol women. But Mongols were full-blown interracists and raped and sexually colonized lots of Russian women and Persian women.

    And interracist Ottoman Turks raped so many Greek women.

    Ah, the sordid history of race-mixing.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.