Good points and bad.
Greg Johnson has written a critique of Middle Eastern PUA gamester "Roosh" that is worth reading. As someone who is highly critical of the whole PUA/game stupidity, I find myself in general agreement with Johnson's theme.
I laugh at the stupidity of some of the critical peanut gallery commentators in the post thread. One idiot taunts Greg with "if you think Roosh committed rape, why don't you report him to the police" - and that after Greg clearly stated that the brownster's ranting is likely not anything legally admissible; further, why does one need to "report" something posted online and that has been read by, likely, thousands (including leftists. feminists, etc.)? Another moron states that the "Third Reich" would consider Roosh to be "Aryan" - as if the pathetic racial ramblings of Old Movement cartoon figures should have any meaning for us today. Newsflash: "Aryan" in the sense used by the "Third Reich" is a fantasy, it does not exist and has never existed. "Aryan" as a group that includes Persians and Hindus with Europeans and excludes Jews is a fantasy. Population genetics tell us that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Germans than are Persians and Hindus. So, if you exclude Jews, why include camel-faced monstrosities such as Roosh?
A great comment, in contrast, is this:
Who cares what feminists say? It’s not relevant. Roosh is trash and a profoundly contemptible piece of filth. As a father of daughters with enough to worry about already when it comes to the possible influence of the wider culture on my family, I find it really demoralizing to see leading figures and a good number of rank-and-file on the dissident right embracing this Asiatic rapist. It’s a symptom of the alt right’s growing incoherence.
Where I disagree with Johnson is what he writes here:
It pains me to write this, because I have long regarded Roosh V as something of an ally. No he’s not a White Nationalist, because he is not white and does not identify as such. His father is Persian and his mother Armenian. But an ally is not one of us. He is someone with whom we share delimited common interests and with whom we can fight common enemies. The manosphere is part of the larger reactosphere. It performs an important red-pilling function on human biodiversity. And it shares a border with White Nationalism that is as long and porous and the US border with Mexico. Roosh, moreover, is highly intelligent; he has promoted Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique to his readership; and in our limited email interactions, he has always been prompt, civil, and helpful. Beyond that, I despise moralistic ninnies and shit-stirrers who advance the premise that we can’t cooperate politically with anyone if we wouldn’t want to share a pup tent or take a shower with them.
First, I am a complete opponent of the HBD cult, and to the extent that the "manosphere" promotes that Jew-loving Asiaphilic Derbyshirian crap, then that's a negative.
Second and more importantly, I disagree about the "ally" part and, to the extent that "moralistic ninnies and shit-stirrers" applies to people like me, then I obviously disagree.
I take the complete opposite view: one important reason why the "movement" has failed for decades, why it has always been compromised by defectives, traitors, trolls, infiltrators, agent provocateurs, etc., is the "big tent/ally" idea, this urge to accept questionable people as "allies" to obtain some sort of short-term advantage, or because these "allies" cleverly advance memes that feed your ethnic ego, despite the moral, ethical, cultural, spiritual, and racial reasons to reject these allies. The "movement" grasps at allies and these are usually the wrong types of people (I find it interesting that, in general, people like Roosh, Roissy, Hart, Derbyshire, etc. have been better received by the "movement" than I and my message).
Am I the only one who finds it pitiful that Revilo Oliver talked about 50 years of "movement" failure...back in 1969!
Johnson's own post proves my point. The attitude toward Roosh could be described as: Group One says he can be a useful ally and let's not be moralistic shit-stirrers and oppose this useful alliance; Group Two says that a Middle Eastern PUA who targets White girls in Europe is part of the problem, not an "ally" and not part of the solution.
And now a member of Group One is basically accusing Roosh of raping White women, or at least fantasizing about it, publicly online. So, whose judgment about Roosh turned out to be correct?
Isn't it better for a weak "movement" to be prudent and take the chance of rejecting an ally rather than embracing a destructive influence?