Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Rape-ity, Rape-ity, Raper Roosh

5. How Donald Trump Is Helping White Christian America Commit Suicide
At least it's the way they want to go out - grinning deliriously from under an ugly trucker hat.

4. Dallas Cop-Killer Micah Johnson Was Blacklisted by Black-Power Groups as ‘Unstable’
HA! What's sad is that the Black-Power movement has higher standards for recruits than the White-Power movement.

3. Boi-nie Endorses Shillary
He waited as long as he could hoping for the FBI indictment, but once there was no chance of that, he finally compromised his principles as we all knew he would.

2. GRAPHIC PHOTOS: On Black Death Porn
If you were a visitor to Der Daily Interracial Cuckold Porn Stormer, I am sure you would not be reading this line right now. Instead, you would have broken your finger eagerly clicking on the link because it contained the words "black" and "porn". But, since you are still with us, I can let you know that this article makes a valid point that the 'Kwa is strangely comfortable with images of dead and dying black men in the Mass Media.

1. Rape-ity, Rape-ity, Raper Roosh

Recently, someone asked me what I thought of Roosh V. Well, I personally think it is an excellent name for a vacuum. The Dyson Roosh V has ten times the sucking power of other bagless floor cleaners.

To be honest, I haven't thought about him since the Alt-Fags tussled over him in February of this year. It was one of the reasons I grew so disgusted with the Alt-Right and their ever widening circus tent of internet clowns. They lauded his hatred of White women and his rapey philosophy right up to the point he crawled out his mother's basement and onto the pages of the Daily Mail. Then, suddenly, most of them realized he was a mud, figured the rape allegations might be true, and distanced themselves from him.

Roosh has an amazing amount in common with Alt-Right internet personalities. He plays on the paranoia, helplessness, and angst of a bunch of failures and channels it into modest financial gains that keep him from having to get a real job. It's pretty much the business model of the Cult-Right. The Cult-Right are filled with fanboy's eager to proclaim the genius of their own personal Jebus, and that is, I think, why there is so much overlap between the Alex Jones / Stephen Molyneaux / Roosh acolytes, the Alt-Right Richard Spennttthhher fanboys, and the troll Army of the Quadroon Streicher. Their followers are professional cult members who are used to receiving their validation impersonally from a minor internet celebrity.

But perhaps things changed in the intervening months? Perhaps I needed to reevaluate my impression? To find out, I scanned through Roosh's Twitter feed, checked out some of the articles he linked, and then captured screenshots of the one's that made me laugh the most. Conclusion: He is just as laughable a figure now as then. Why? Well, let's start out with this...


I'll take things a rapist might say for $400. I cannot take credit for that joke, though I wish I could. It was from an episode of Cinematic Titanic.

Because those are basically the only options the West has left, right Roosh? You're sure you aren't an EBT-card-carrying member of the Alt-Right?


 You tell us, because previously you decried the Alt-Right as a bunch of racist betas.


Because you look like one of the muds arrested in Rotherham scandal? And while we are on the subject ...

This one is funny to me, because it is so poorly thought out. You see, the problem is: What morality do men possess, if women evolved the way they did because men were a bunch of murdering rapists? But I am sure there are White disciples of this mud who so hate White women that they would defend this defamation, because remember - the Rotherham girls loved their rapists!

So that's what I think about Roosh, and by extension his whole alpha-male of yo' mama's basement philosophy. The fact that this mud is funded by White fanboys so he can wander around in White countries like some typical Middle Eastern child sex predator doesn't prove how alpha he is, but how beta his followers are.

8 comments:

  1. Oh, Mr Arlott, I must say I laughed at Dyson Roosh V.

    I read Roosh’s website for a bit (the return of kings) when I was searching anti-feminist views, shrugged my shoulders, and moved on. I didn’t understand the fuss. I found it neither stellar nor extremist, just the male version of something like Cosmopolitan. Or whatever Tumblr entries feminists read on their spare time. (Like they have anything but spare time!)

    I understood the fuss in the white nationalist circles even less because the man isn’t white and he isn’t a nationalist of any kind so I just felt a kind of second-hand embarrassment about the “battle over Roosh”. And I just fail to see what is the white nationalists’ urge to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see.

    This might sound unusual but I don’t care if someone like Roosh (or other muds) has consensual sex with white women. Like attracts like, after all, and the men in “neo-masculine” circles will find the exact women they are looking for. If he is actually raping them then it is another issue.

    But I would most certainly deport everyone (yes, men and women) who has laid with non-whites right along with the muds they so love because they have shown themselves incapable of Whiteness. If they can have sex with them then surely they can live with them, yes?

    I just find someone like Roosh entirely insignificant and a waste of time when he is nothing but a drop in the ocean. Ah, but I suppose he is somewhat more intelligent than the average mud since he gets money from white men to sleep with white women while the rest of the muds just rape them.

    Where do we need comedy when human existence writes it by itself?

    (Incidentally, my friend follows Stephen Molyneaux but I have never watched his videos. I suppose I should be glad she is watching something that isn’t mainstream.)

    - Different Anon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Different Anon,

      Another outstanding contribution, thank you. I remain desperate for viewpoints other than what I can get from White Whateverism, the alternative media, and the Mass Media.

      Roosh gives voice to disaffected males. White Whateverism is filled with disaffected males who are torn between idealizing White women and decrying them as the ultimate whores, the source of White decline. Just add it to the seemingly endless number of contradictions in Der Movement.

      Many years ago I spoke with a rather Leftist White Whateverist who would have made an excellent SJW if he hadn't been pathologically enraged by the concept of White women having sex with non-White men. The concept of White beauty being defiled was morally outrageous to him. I could sympathize with that, but I also tried to point out that there was some hypocrisy if the race mixing wouldn't matter as much if the White woman was ugly. I questioned why beauty was so tied to the physical and not the mental and behavioral as well. He didn't see much hypocrisy in the matter, it just was what it was. Apparently, the 14 Words don't seem to apply to ugly Aryan women.

      Your position is sound from a Darwinian standpoint. If White people do not have an innate impulse to remain racially separated, forcing them not to race mix won't instill in them that impulse, it will bury it to resurface later. Anti-miscegenation laws counter immediate consequences of people having a race mixing impulse, but they don't make the people less predisposed to race mix. One wonders why a "superior" people would need such laws in the first place. On the other hand, our society rewards those who recklessly overbreed and cannot support themselves, so we have that dysgenic nightmare to contend with - we pay for mudsharks to raise their welfare mudlings. That is the best reason to oppose race mixing, but it can also be covered simply by opposition to a welfare state.

      I've thought about this too from the perspective of an actual genetic separation of races. Imagine if the human races became so separated that they could no longer interbreed. If they wanted to have sex, it might be considered a deviation like beastiality, but the greatest harm is not possible because no children could be produced. It's something I haven't been able to ask those opposed to race mixing. Is it the act itself or the consequence that offends? And if it is the deviance of the act itself that offends, why aren't you offended by other deviant acts like Jack Donovan's fucking white men like they are women?

      RE: Comedy. That was my thought through 10 years of Compulsory Diversity News. Humans are laughable. I can't imagine what it must be like for other people who read the news without laughing at every other story.

      Hopefully your friend won't disown her family in order to follow a bald-headed crypto-kike YouTuber.

      Delete
    2. If I can provide such a viewpoint I shall be most glad!

      Hah! Yes, it’s called the Madonna/Whore complex if I’m not mistaken?

      The amusing thing about the aspiring patriarchs is that they cannot even follow their own ideology. (But pontification seems to come easier to humans than actual deeds.) If women are the decline of the West and women are—as the neo-masculine crowd preaches—about as autonomous as children and ruled by the whims of the “strongest man” of any given time, then doesn’t it mean that the decline of women followed from the decline of men?

      Women cannot be blamed for all the ills in the world if they are incapable of being responsible for themselves.

      Also, they decry all women as whores but they surely have no trouble sleeping with those whores. Shouldn’t it be obvious that their own ideology and deeds contributes to the creation of those whores? Ah, but they were whores before they even knew what sex was so what men do doesn’t matter.

      I don’t really care if trash has sex with trash, but at that point one should cease the complaint that there are “no good women or men left” to wife up or to marry them. One is only responsible for oneself. If men don’t want their women to be whores then stop sleeping with whores. If women don’t want men to treat them like holes then stop acting like a hole.

      Surprisingly, actions have consequences regardless of how humans like to pretend they don’t or work to remove those consequences.

      This doesn’t mean that I mind patriarchy. I wouldn’t want to live in an African or Muslim patriarchy where violence and the rape of women, children and animals is the norm, as is throwing acid on girls for daring to be raped!

      But I’ve been around women; I’ve talked with them and listened to them. And most of them really are silly little creatures who are prone to fits of emotion, get easily offended even during what was supposed to be an intellectual conversation, and cannot make decisions for themselves. I’ve also seen the effects of female leadership (not that most men are any better, mind. After all there are more male leaders than female leaders even in the current West) and you have no idea how many times I’ve witnessed the conversation about how women start crying after a stressful time at work. And these were librarians.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    3. I don’t care if it is the super-hot blondes or the morbidly obese who prance around with their nigger pet and the mulatto kids. I find them both vile, and would gladly toss them both out of the white gene pool. As I would do with the men.

      I don’t care if the woman is beautiful or not if they follow Whiteness (well, I’m on the fence on self-inflicted ugliness as I find their character questionable but on the other hand most of it can also be corrected) because beauty and everything else can be re-obtained if the damned race survives.

      I suspect the reason is somewhat similar to those naïve people who seem to think that laws exist to STOP crimes. When laws exist only to punish the criminal after the deed is done.

      Oh, how I wish human races became so separated they could no longer interbreed.

      Hah! I already consider it a deviation—I don’t care about the mud children even though they are the direct result of their parents’ stupidity and egocentrism.

      My father likes to joke about his daughters or his wife sleeping with niggers. One time I said to him “if I sleep with a nigger I might as well be sleeping with some damned dog”. He didn’t understand. Perhaps I shouldn’t have expected him to. (I suspect he has some sort of cuckolding fantasy.)

      So, for me, I think it is both the act itself and the consequence that is offending. After all, there are plenty of deviations that do not result in children; such as bestiality, necrophilia, paedophilia, homosexuality, objectophilia and so forth, and find them all more or less disgusting. (If there is one thing that is non-discriminating it is human sexuality.)

      I understand that deviants have always existed and will most likely always exist in any given population. As most people seem to find homosexuality the least offending out of the myriad deviations, I shall offer my unasked thoughts on it.

      It’s not really the desire itself that is disgusting but it is everything that they do with that desire that is disgusting. If men and women want to sleep with their own sex that is fine. In that case, all they need to do is keep their hands off of children and teenagers and their deviancy firmly in the closet. (They wanted God and the government out of their bedrooms and in a brilliant twist brought it out for everyone to see!)

      I would not care to force them to marry and have children (and cheat on their spouses on the side) as I would much rather that they cull themselves out of the gene pool entirely.

      Hah! That is very unlikely. I suspect I am the only one she has told of her non-mainstream views. For some reason people like to confide in me; like my co-worker who told be about his trips to Thailand's girl bars.

      - Different Anon

      (I apologise, Mr Arlott. I had to cut my reply in two parts as it became too long.)

      Delete
    4. No need for apologies, as always it was an entertaining and informative read.

      "The decline of women followed from the decline of men" A most logical conclusion! Unfortunately, they would respond that is why they must become the kings again by pumping and dumping sluts until such time as they can find some autistic virgin to bear their offspring. But they we're never kings. They were always peasants, and they still are peasants. The idea of patriarchy is grounded in submission to a [usually unworthy] authority in order to keep human nature in check. Appointing a peasant man to rule over a peasant woman because she is just a spare rib is a rather amusing joke that Semitic Christ-insanity played on the decadent, declining Chalkies of antiquity. The biblical justification for man ruling over woman is such a pathetic veneer to cover over the simple reality of might makes right. Here's the real reason to submit - Man is physically stronger, and he can force himself on women. Women, submit to your husbands because if every man gets a woman, you are less likely to be a victim of disaffected males from your society or a foreign invader. Men, submit to the king/state because the rule of law will keep other men from taking your woman, your land, your livelihood. Simple.

      Technology has done more to destroy the justification for patriarchy than JOOOZZZZ or anti-religious tendencies or feminism ever could. What is the long term consequence of promiscuity in an age of prophylaxis? When you don't have to have 8 children because 5 will die before reproducing, why do you need big, stable families? When a machine one hundred times stronger and more efficient than a man can be operated by anyone with an IQ above 90, why do you need a strong man as a bread winner? When you can push a button and wipe out a city, what difference does it make what a strong warrior you are? That's what really drives the manosphere crowd to go their own way. They aren't needed anymore. And that's why they waste so much time trying to convince themselves about the alleged moral superiority of manliness - because there is no tangible benefit they can point to. "Hey, at least we aren't sluts!!!" No, you're worse - you're useless.

      I work in the healthcare industry, so I am around women all the time. Men are easily outnumbered 5-to-1. My observation is that women are much more dependent upon authority for keeping interpersonal chaos in check. They are constantly tattling, gossiping, dramatizing, and yes - crying. Yet, they are often smarter, cleverer, and more motivated then men. The men are dumber, more prone to slacking, but they possess more common sense and cause far fewer social problems. Does this mean one is preferable to the other? Not to me. To me it means both need a freakin' boot to the face. I long for a dispassionate robotic control system to electroshock these cattle back into productivity.

      Delete
  2. I had to split my reply as well - Part II Response

    Yes, but you are one of the rare ones who admit that deviancy is deviancy. As usual with me, I don't seem to have as much contempt for a specific type of behavior/belief as I do for inconsistency in same. Examples: Those WW's who decry jungle fever, but give yellow fever a pass. Those Alt-Righters who mock SJW's as faggots but say Milo is "one of us". Those who whine all women are sluts, and then spend their money on books about how to bang [insert nationality] women. That's why the Ina Groll scandal seemed so odd to me. Nationalists weren't upset that she was a cum-gargling whore, until they found out she also fucked black men for money on camera. Huh? She is a professional whore! Maybe you should have considered that before connecting her with your traditionalist movement!

    Your father joked about his wife or daughters sleeping with niggers? Did the joke involve how the cops would only find out what happened to you all or the nigger after genetically testing scraps of human fingernails and hair found in pig feces? Because otherwise, that is a rather difficult topic in which to find humor. Its one thing to look at race-mixing in others and objectively discuss it as no loss to humanity if such deviants leave the gene pool. It must be some god awful level of hell to have to think about it as the fate of one of your own children. I absolutely cannot understand how a White parent could look at a mixed-race grandchild and not wish it was dead. I mean immediately, 100%, into the dumpster dead.

    I see homosexuality as unacceptable because it competes with White identity. The deviant sexual acts are practiced by heterosexual couples as well, so they alone cannot be the source of condemnation. The issue is - is the person a fag first, or White first? If White first, then s/he would understand that no White society can be built around open acceptance of homosexuality, because homosexuality has become an identity. Multiple identities means MultiKulturalism - the poison. No need for persecution, or anti-gay sermons, or roof tossing. It would simply disappear. Gays would be discrete and invisible, and in return, no one would ever ask why Uncle Arthur from the center square of Hollywood Squares never married.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they most certainly aren’t kings no matter how they delude themselves to think otherwise. Or perhaps they are? I suspect they think of themselves as some mythological, fictional kings when in reality most kings were fairly useless philanderers?

      “Here's the real reason to submit - Man is physically stronger, and he can force himself on women.”

      Yes, this. If a woman has ever argued with a man either physically or verbally for the sane ones there should come a point of a total stop. I have once argued with my father; it was kept verbal but there came a point when I stopped it because I realised, “if I take this too far and he decides to make it physical, I’ll lose and it won’t be all fun and games anymore.”

      Not that I ever think my father would actually hit me.
      But this is also why feminism is a horrible and dangerous ideology as it teaches all the wrong signals and paradigms to women. They are teaching them “you can do whatever you want, act as bitchy as you want, and there won’t be a single consequence to you, and even if there is it’s all men’s fault anyway because you hold no culpability to your own (potential) victimization! And hey, look at TV! Teeny tiny women are constantly decking men twice their size and sometimes entire groups! Girl power!”

      (Recently I found an interesting self-defence webpage. I’d imagine you could like the common sense as well. http://nononsenseselfdefense.com/arrogance.html)

      Oh yes, I’ve long thought that in the end humans will make themselves obsolete. At that point we shall see if they will live just for the sake of surviving (well, as most already do) or if they will just fade out and something else comes to replace them.

      Unless some sort of massive catastrophe happens first!

      Yes, I’ve noticed that too about men and women. I most certainly hope I didn’t give the impression that I prefer one or the other because on my good days I hate everyone. (Not equally! I hate some groups and people more than I do others.) It’s just I cannot stand people who vomit their feelings all over the place and then accuse you for being MEAN and HEARTLESS if you inadvertently trigger their emotions. Since (marginally) more men don’t do this than women it is a tiny plus in my book.

      Hah! I suppose I am a rare breed? I just wait for the time when I can enlist myself as an endangered species.

      I very much doubt my father thinks about his dumb jokes as far as mulatto grandchildren.

      Ah yes, that too. When I was writing my original reply I was too much focused on what various WNs have said about the homo issue, and a lot of them seem to only want them in the closets and sometimes married and with children with no regards to the fact it is an identity and hostile to Whiteness. (Or that a disproportionate amount of them are really into children.)

      I cannot stand homosexuality as identity. I find it obnoxious and vapid. They build their identity on something even a retarded animal can do. Be proud! Yes, because apparently they have nothing else but where they want to stick in or what they want be stuck in, and how many there have been. Huh, much like the neo-masculine crowd of alpha men.

      Funny that.

      - Different Anon

      Delete
    2. I think there is a Marilyn Manson lyric that fits the discussion ... "Slave never dreams to be free. Slave only dreams to be king." And in the interest of equal time for both genders - I met a woman at work last year who claimed she was "Queen" of a group of video gamers who play some fantasy kingdom game online. She kept saying how I just *had* to try out the game and come to her realm. I joked that feudalism has never been my thing. She didn't get it. She went on about how its more fantasy with magic and mystical creatures and blah-diddidy-fucking-blah. I really need to remove the visitor's chair from my office.

      It was considerate of you that you did not put your father in the position of potentially resorting to violence. The consequence to you would have been unleashing the power of the state against your own kin. There are women who wouldn't mind that as long as let them be the "winner". Don't hit women, and they can mock you as a weakling and a coward. Hit them, and it is social suicide and the popos come to take you away. By contrast, if a man provokes another man enough to resort to violence, the social penalty would be applied to the loser who called the cops after he got his beating. Yay, gender equality! Still, women provoking men to violence is a rare enough situation that it cannot be used for justification of "returning to kingdom" where the "rule of thumb" reigned. Men need to improve their linguistic skills enough to keep up in a verbal confrontation with women. Unfortunately, masculinity has become so Negroid in character, that grunting unintelligibly is the best we can expect from most White men.

      ***I most certainly hope I didn’t give the impression that I prefer one or the other because on my good days I hate everyone. (Not equally! I hate some groups and people more than I do others.)***

      HA! Hating everyone equally would finally be a reasonable application of the concept of human equality (snigger). For all their flaws, I give women the plus over men. I don't like that they are more feelings driven, but they are more productive overall as workers in my experience.

      That was an interesting link, thank you. I think it can be fit nicely with our theme of the modern detachment from consequence. Thinking people who consider consequences are an endangered species specifically because of the thoughtless stomping around of the minefield-oblivious crowd. I've read some articles that say White people are finally waking up to their peril, and hence we have Trump, and Brexit, and the rightward swing in European politics. I am not convinced they are awake. But even assuming this is correct, these miserable sheep only realized their peril once they were in the middle of the minefield and half the flock had been blown to bits. How many more shrapnel-laden lamb kebabs will be produced before the sheep get themselves back to safety?

      In the long run, if technology renders life struggle-less, will there be any point to life itself? I think that humans would have to purposely limit themselves to bring challenge back. That's one argument I find in support of the matrix simulation theory. When we ask why any intelligent being would develop this flawed universe as a simulation, perhaps it is a playground for immortal, unlimited beings to experience limitation again.

      Delete