A writer from Roosh Valizadeh’s terrible Return of Kings site recently got himself into a bit of trouble at a white power convention in Tennessee.
The problem wasn’t that the writer, one Blair Naso, didn’t fit in with the motley assortment of Hitler-lovers and former National Review writers who attended the 2015 American Renaissance conference, put on by an organization that actually has won itself an official “hate group” designation from the Southern Poverty Law Center for its virulent racism and its obsessive advocacy for a white “homeland.”
No, he fit in fine, ideologically speaking. In a post for Return of Kings, Naso praised the AmRen crowd for “doing a wonderful work,” and “saying the things that others are terrified to say.”
The problem? Well, Mr. Naso got a wee bit drunk and started harassing women at a local bar. As Naso sheepishly admits in his ROK post,
On the first night, I got very drunk. If I were wise, I would have gone to bed after the speakers, but instead I went to a nearby bar with the other guys. I went around asking girls to dance, because I wanted to use the swing lessons I had taken. All of them rejected me, because no girl likes an obnoxious wasted guy.
A few young girls were being especially snarky. I knew they wouldn’t dance with me, but I decided to ruin their night anyway. I go up to them and say, “You’re fat, and I’m balding. Let’s dance.” They kept saying no, and I kept asking them, just to piss them off. One pushed me, and I pushed her back, and then the bouncer literally threw me out of the bar.
Another conference attendee, Matt Parrott of something called the “Traditionalist Youth Network,” tells a similar story of Naso’s misadventures.
Here I was at the bar … when I felt pushed by a nearby scuffle and saw the short, balding, swarthy guy [Naso] being physically thrown, black-and-white Western-style, out of the bar.
Parrott ran outside to try to cool Naso off, sitting beside him on the grass while Naso went on about “how the girl was fat and had no right to reject his advances.”
We kept him off of the property and got him back to the conference safely, then spent the next hour or so effusively apologizing for him, buying the girls drinks right and left, and promising the locals we would avenge their girl in short order.
As Parrott evidently sees it, Naso’s actions don’t necessarily reflect badly on the white race, “since the guy’s (arguably) not exactly white.”
Naso, for his part, insists that despite his “olive complexion” he has a “largely Scottish background.”
White Supremacy sure is complicated, huh?
Parrott was much more impressed with Naso’s traveling companion (and Return of Kings colleague) Matt Forney, who also attended the event. In Parrott’s estimation, Forney was the Gallant to Naso’s Goofus.
Forney thoughtfully argued his anti-feminist and male-empowering positions until he was too drunk to thoughtfully argue. Meanwhile, his fellow attendee boorishly irritated both male and female attendees alike until he was too drunk to contain his frustration about women and pushed one of the local girls at the nearby bar.
It certainly sounds like a glorious moment in the history of the white race.
In any case, Naso’s post on the conference is, he says, his swan song to the Manosphere. In a post on his own blog, he declares that
I’m quitting the Manosphere and will very likely not return, because it’s been exacerbating some personal demons in my life for the last several months, which I won’t go into detail here with a sob story.
It would seem like this is a product of the fiasco at AmRen, but that would be a wrong assumption. AmRen at the very most only moved it up by a few weeks, if even that. This has been coming for a while, and it takes more than a few dorks who live on the internet to make me quit.
Also leading to his decision: his horror at discovering evil feminists like … Lindy West.
I could have gone my whole life without being exposed to Jessica Valenti and Lindy West. We are writing against some truly vile and empty human beings on a very deep level of the soul, regardless of their actions. I think any man or woman who is exposed to mainstream feminism long enough will lose some part of himself, no matter what his reaction.
Poor fella! As Lindy’s Twitter bio asks:
WHY FAT LADY SO MEAN TO BABY MEN
Why, Lindy, why?
P.S. If any of you have any doubt that a large number of the readers of Return of Kings are completely awful Stormfront-style racist assholes, take a look at the comments on Naso’s ROK post. Yow.
“I’d have thought MRA types would see him as an epitome of the ideal male.”
I heard it explained to me once in this way:
These self-proclaimed betas-trying-to-be-alphas got shoved in a few too many lockers in HS by Vin Diesels and they never got it over it. So it’s actually the confident, likable alpha males for whom they feel the real resentment because the truth is they want desperately to be like them but know they never will.
But they can’t actually admit out loud they’re resentful of confident, likable alpha males cause that makes them seem unmanly. So they redirect that hate on to women.
One some level it makes sense but I’m not 100 percent sure. It could just be as simple as the Vin Diesels of the world have unlimited access to the one thing they want but can’t get — attractive women.
Not that Vin Diesel himself would ever shove anyone in a locker. He seems like a pretty nice guy (not to be confused with Nice GuyTM).
anyhow, yeah ,that’s how the Guns skill works in gurps. Each weapon has an accuracy that gets added to your skill if you Aim before your Attack.
15 skill is *way* high, though, in a realistic game. If you aim with that most guns give +2 or +3, you can brace for another +1 and focus fire for another +1. That’s an effective skill of 20, which gives you 50 / 50 odds of hitting your target at 100 yards, and means you basically can’t miss at anything less than 50. If you *don’t* aim before you shoot, though, then you’re going to be missing a lot. Its one of the built in assumptions of the system that people with a ranged weapon aim before they start firing. If they don’t, the penalties for range are pretty extreme, and will mean they’ll basically hit nothing. More extreme with rifles, that have accuracies of +6 or +8 (more with scopes)
Firing multiple rounds if your weapon as rates of fire higher than 1 increases your chances to hit exponentially, as well it should.
Also note that Guns skill in GURPS is an [easy] skill, compared to a lot of other “combat” skills that are either [average] or [hard]. That means having high skill ranks is relatively cheap.
Alternatively, cinematic rules boil down the ranged modifies to very, very little, you buy the Gunslinger advantage to always get the acc of your weapon without even aiming, get a laser-sight and an accurately machined pistol, and shoot through the holes of donuts at 1000 yards because your effective skill is casually 30.
Anyhow you miss a lot if you expect to hit targets at 300 yards in standard GURPS because its hard, as well it is in real life.
Fun story – I once played a game as a travelling courier working with The Greatest Swords-Woman In The World. I don’t know what her actual “Broad-sword” skill was, because she never really used a broadsword, she always used a stick, or a tree branch, or an iron poker, or some other generally sword-like object that was within reach. This means she defaulted her sword skill at some appropriate negative for using another weapon than actually a sword, like -4 or -6 or something. 5 sessions and despite always carrying a sword, she never drew it. There was a lot of talk of why, and the gist of it boiled down to the fact that, well, she was the greatest sword-wielder in the world, and if she actually used her weapon, she’d never feel the slightest bit challenged.
Eventually someone important is kidnapped and held for ransom in a camp, and everyone is agonizing over how to rescue them. The player of the sword-wielder says she nods, gets up, and walks towards the enemy camp. We all go “huh?”. The GM says there’s two guards outside, who draw weapons and advance. The Sword-PC goes: “Okay. I want to draw my sword and strike both of them in the head with the flat side of the blade”, and reasonably, the GM says: “That’s like -26 worth of penalties, you’re essentially asking the impossible here”.
And the Sword-PC goes: “-26? Ah, that’s not that bad.”
GURPS modifiers can get a little weird.
@Policy of Madness
Actually, that’s kind of funny. I think its a pretty commonly held theory – I’ve heard it a few times at least – that the combat rules are clunky exactly because getting into a fight constitutes a failure state, and the non-streamlined rules were meant to reinforce that.
If you auto-succeeded attack rolls, did you carry the 3 dice over to damage, and then auto-succeed that as well? Or did you roll damage+3? I ask because your system is a pretty decent way of doing it, I’ve been thinking of just doing something similar for my Vampire game. I do have more important things to do with my life than roll 4 opposed dice pools every time someone attacks someone else…
On any roll that carried successes into a subsequent roll, the 3 “auto” successes carried over as if they had been rolled normally. We just treated them as if they had come up on a thrown roll.
One of the advantages to the 3 auto success rule was that with weaker opponents, it might be literally impossible for them to really defend themselves. If the werewolf is guaranteed 3 successes on each roll, and the target has only 5 dice rolling against a difficulty of 6, simple mathematics tell you that the target is going to lose and it’s only a matter of time. This would sometimes take people completely out of the Circle of Endless Dice Rolls, because they would say, “I’m just going to beat on this thing until it stops moving,” and the Storyteller would rule that it would be dead in 3 rounds. That was 3 rounds of that corner of the battlefield not taking up time with rolls.
Holy crap, this is so much information for my little newb brain to take in. *o*
THAC0 minus AC equals the number you need to roll on a d20 to hit.
1d20 + modifiers = the number rolled on the d20.
Some people subtract their modifiers from THAC0 to get one number to roll against, but you don’t have to, and it’s kind of counter-intuitive to do it that way.
At least 4th Edition GURPS dropped Snap Shot for firearms (if your adjusted skill was less than the Snap Shot number for your weapon, take another -4 to hit) and streamlined machine-gun fire.
@PI: Don’t fret if it all seems confusing. I, at least, am always willing to repeat THAC0 at you.
Oh, and I knew a few people in college for whom “combat is a failure state” and “there are plenty of good reasons for your killing machine to refrain from killing things” was apparently too subtle.
They’d play Werewolf, hulk out in front of mundanes, and count on their teeny brains to overload and blank on the whole experience. They expected mundanes to go into denial about what they’d seen, and shrugged off the chance of spawning new Hunters as the price of doing business.
Hunters, as I understand it, being humans who’ve Seen Things and decided They Need Killin’.
In my last campaign, one of the PCs was an elf. The player put all of his proficiencies into longbow. By tenth level, the amount of damage he could do was startling.
Looking back, it was a rather elvenocentric campaign.
A character concept I thought about playing but never actually did was a high-Rage Ahroun with the flaws “short fuse” and “forced transformation to Homid on frenzy.” The idea being that this character would have to be REALLY GOOD at self-control in order to be even slightly effective as a fighter. Never did it, but I thought about it long and hard.
I played a Corax in a werewolf campaign. I talked a young Garou down from salughtering a human. The player thanked me. Then I IC said, “Right kill him with a blade, claws would break the Veil!”
For some reason I always had a rep as someone who would never kill anyone. It was always amusing when I did and saw people’s shocked reactions. (OK, I did have a tendancy to play martyrs)
Okay, I understand some of what is being said about you guys’ tabletop games, but I kinda blanked on THAC0.
I think I’m just gonna go do research and check out that d20 site.
Not just you, POM.
Looking at rok even the white supremacists are saying it’s OK for men to mate with non-white women. So what about women who love interracial sex and relationships? I am a caucasian female I only have sex with east asian men. I have been with white men in the past but not for years now. I am also expecting a baby with a chinese man. These Men also see nothing wrong with white men marrying or having relationships with non-white women? So why do white women HAVE to be with white men? I have nothing against white men as human beings. I am white and have nothing against other white people. I just prefer asian men sexually. It seems to me that these men just want to take over the world, and take away sexual and power opportunities from other men.
They want all the ladies. They don’t think women should get a choice. They’re gross in so many ways.
The Southern Poverty Law Center IS a hate group. This group is probably the ewuivalent of the NAACP or something. Sure it’s silly but harmless.
Oh no, embed mammoth!
One more time.
Night of the Necrotrolls
The people that run this site are a bunch of beta faggots
Roosh and his crew have always been gigantic, delusional idiots.
That, and getting drunk is a sign of fundamental weakness. These people have little control over the,selves, yet they think it is okay to try and gain control of others.