Does White Identity Mean White Supremacy?

Influential pickup artist Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, a Persian-Armenian male who teaches men “how to get laid,” acknowledges that evolution, the driving force behind the male sex drive, also has created races that differ from each other. However, race differences are NOT important, says Roosh.

Jared Taylor responds to Roosh’s dismissal of the importance of race. I offer some comments after Mr. Taylor’s rebuttal.

Condensed by Paladin Justice from American Renaissance.

The “manosphere” prides itself on flinty-eyed realism. Men shouldn’t delude themselves about their own nature. Evolution designed them to want to copulate with every attractive woman they see, and the more they copulate the happier they are. Evolution designed women differently, so they have to be maneuvered into copulation, and Mr. Valizadeh has developed a following by sharing his “secrets for fast sex.”

The trouble with explaining human nature in terms of evolution is that once you see how it explains sex differences, it’s hard not to see how it also explains race differences.

In order to prove that he is not one of those weedy blue-pill guys, Mr. Valizadeh admits a lot:

[R]ace differences exist. Varying evolutionary pressures in different environments created the world’s races, leading to genetic differences in personality, physiology, and thinking that can’t be entirely attributed to environmental upbringing. These differences give each race their own profile of strengths and weaknesses that make them compatible and incompatible with certain behaviors and features of society.

So far, excellent. But Mr. Valizadeh then assures us that this is not very important–but does so in a strangely ineffective way: “Unless you’re a policy wonk concerned with immigration, a university official in charge of an affirmative action program, or a politician who creates actual policy, race realism provides a marginal utility in your life.” Affirmative action, immigration, and “actual policy” are important, and you don’t have to be a “policy wonk” to think so.

Mr. Valizadeh also notes that people have a powerful desire to form ingroups, and that the most natural grouping is race. “I believe these ingroups have a right to form and further their own interests,” he adds, but then he jumps the tracks: “The only problem with such nationalism is that the end game is subjugation or genocide of races deemed to be inferior. Race realism by white people leads to the idea that whites are the superior race and all other races are inferior (white nationalism).” [emphasis added]

In other words, racial solidarity–forming “ingroups”–and pushing racial interests is fine for everyone but whites.

And the reason why only whites must not act in the name of race is because they are uniquely susceptible to evil. Get them thinking about the implications of race and they might go berserk.

And apparently whites who care about the future of their race are likely to be losers: “I strongly suspect that active participation in white nationalist circles is a cover for feelings of personal inferiority.” If Mr. Valizadeh dipped his toe into such circles and attended an American Renaissance conference he would find the very opposite of what he describes.

Ultimately, though, Mr. Valizadeh’s argument is one of irresponsibility. He writes: “So yes, there are race differences that range from trivial to significant, and those differences can affect societies, but besides using my knowledge of race differences to select a race of woman that I’m most compatible with, race should not be used as a pillar, foundation, or main component of your belief system, because it will have little effect in improving your day-to-day individual existence.”

Mr. Valizadeh is conceding that race changes society. It changes neighborhoods, schools, institutions, cultures. It changes the country. As he seems to glimpse–if ever so hazily–it changes everything. But he says race is useful for an individual only to the extent that it helps him rustle up “fast sex.” It shouldn’t be an important component of identity–at least if you are white.

It would be easy to dismiss Roosh’s thoughts because he’s nonwhite and he lives for his own sexual pleasure, aiming to carve as many notches on his d*ck as he can. But I won’t do that.

Full disclosure: I do some reading in the manosphere. I subscribe to Roosh’s newsletter. By the way, subscribing to the newsletter of another key figure in the manosphere at the time, David D’Angelo, played a huge role in getting me fired from the university. The university claimed that anyone reading the manosphere is both a pedophile and a rapist–too dangerous to be allowed innocent young college coeds. LOL.

I see a lot of race realism along with sex realism in the manosphere, including an increasing willingness to point to liberal Jews as enemies of the white race.

Although much of the thinking in the manosphere is morally repulsive, so too is “sex postive” feminist thinking.

Sex positive feminism is about on par with the manosphere, advocating that women consume porn, get laid promiscuously, and include lesbians and trannies among their sex partners, as well as nonwhites. Thus, women have their own version of the manosphere.

The good thing about the manosphere is that it MAY be able to help a young racially aware white man find a good wife. How? By teaching him something about what women look for in a man. The manosphere offers multiple insights into women’s psychology, helping a young white male better understand the object of his affections.

Young white people today reject family formation, which plays right into the hands of the enemies of the white race. But family formation is what we need to survive. Family formation works best in the context of marriage, in my opinion.

Perhaps the most important lesson we can take from Roosh’s critique of race realism is the belief that race realists are losers.

Loving the culture that your race created and that is a natural fit for you makes you a loser?

Well, Mexicans, blacks, and I suspect Persians love their cultures. They can love their race and culture without being labeled “loser.” Whites MUST be able to do the same. This loser label comes, of course, from liberals.

As Mr. Taylor points out, race realists are actually highly intelligent, well-educated, and grounded in reality rather than the destructive fantasy of egalitarianism.

That makes us winners. And we should proclaim ourselves as such.

(Source: saboteur365.wordpress.com)