, ,

The controversy surrounding Roosh has been agonizing. All parties involved—Roosh, the media, and feminists—are despicable, dishonest, and disingenuous actors.

A week ago, Roosh had to cancel his international meetings with Return of the Kings’ readers, which were organized in venues in various cities around the world. He was forced to cancel because he had received death threats and feared for the safety of his supporters at these meetings. These were private meetings, where these men would chat, so it imposes nothing on outsiders. It is harmless and benign. And yet, being the feckless tyrants that they are, the meetings were successfully targeted and destroyed by feminists under the allegation that Roosh is “pro-rape.” The international media was totally complicit in this allegation and repeated it. This allegation is made by citing an article that Roosh wrote that satirizes rape by advocating that it be decriminalized on private property; that, to someone of more than a 60-point IQ, is obviously not the same as advocating rape.

The Alt-Right’s reaction to this has been logically lazy. Richard Spencer has written that he stands “in solidarity” with Roosh. In spite of Spencer’s usually longwinded style, the blog post that he writes that in is very short, and nowhere does Spencer come up with a better argument than the fact that feminists hate Roosh. It should be perfectly apparent to everyone how flawed that argument is. If guilt by association is a logical fallacy, then the contrapositive (i.e., innocence by disassociation) is also a logical fallacy, so the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Rather, sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy. As Greg Johnson points out, feminists have cried “wolf!” far too many times, but that does not mean that there is no wolf. Roosh is a non-white degenerate who has profited from manipulating and sexually humiliating white women. Roosh’s Bang Poland contains one such passage:

I got down her bra and panties, but she kept saying, “No! No!” I was so turned on by her beauty and petite figure that I told myself she’s not walking out my door without getting fucked. At that moment I accepted the idea of getting locked up in a Polish prison to make it happen. I put it in. I put her on her stomach and went deep, pounding her pussy like a pedophile.

Another passage:

It took four hours and at least thirty repetitions of “No, Roosh, No!” until she allowed my penis to enter her vagina. The sex was painful for her. I was only the second guy she’d ever had sex with. … She whimpered like a wounded puppy dog the entire time, but I really wanted to have an orgasm, so I was “almost there” for about ten minutes. After sex she sobbed for a good while, talking about how she had sinned in the eyes of God.

These acts are not rape, even if they are extremely rapy, but the far more disturbing part is they glory in the sexual humiliation of white women. Bragging that he “[pounded] her pussy like a pedophile” sounds like horror story out of the Middle Eastern brothels of Rotherham England. The bit about the crying Polish girl sounds like the drunken boasting of a conquering barbarian, telling how he subdued the native women. It is clear from these words that Roosh has very little respect for white women and enjoys degrading them. Since Roosh is not white, it puts his “neomasculinity” writing in new perspective. It looks, then, like a weaponized polemic against white women by convincing white men that white women are their enemy.

These are sentiments that are immoral for an Identitarian because we seek a society beyond this weaponization of culture. And Roosh is indeed no Identitarian, but it is still immoral to ally with him because he holds and has not rebuked these sentiments. That does not mean that we need to ally with feminists against Roosh, and nor should we ally with Roosh against feminists. To choose Roosh or feminists over the other is to choose an answer in a false dilemma. The answer to how to deal with Roosh is neutrality at very least.