If I bother you, don’t let this comment pass. But if you permit, I may post a short response.
This person is thinking like an American civilian hailing from Gomorrah. His logic is sound in his limited context – yes, you can “preserve your genes” if you “better yourself” and procreate (with some whore). But that will not save your nation.
You know what will? Genocide. Why is genocide not the answer to him? Answer: because he’s a dishonest Christian rationalising his unnatural love and respect to foreign men. He literally admits the following on his blog – the Aryans murdered entire nations’ worth of swarthy men. But that is not a lesson to him! The Aryans were indeed better – at killing.
Murder is permissible for the laws of physics allow it. Murder is beneficial if it aids in the spread of the race. Murder is detrimental if it lowers the survival chance of your people, by sufficient physical death or by the pollution of blood.
(I am going to engage him on his own turf shying away from no issue.)
> “…Rogan suggests that men who identify as incel learn to become likeable.”
The Great Infallible Incel Theory suggests that height and chin bones are destiny when it comes to mating in hypergamous conditions.
> “When he says “man up!”, young men should listen.”
Establishing a patriarchal slave society is one way to man up. Are you suggesting so? Why and why not? I for one unironically support the foundation of a Communist order with state-mandated GFs. That would bring everyone loyal to the Party a goal to work towards in a regimented way.
And ironically, female submission is not even strictly my sexual fetish (I prefer gentle femdom). But when I ponder at societal issues, my honest mind gives me answers, and I accept them.
> “…by extension I had greater self-worth by sharing the genetic material of these groups.”
You are thinking like an atomised individual living in America. To me, it is obvious that any life ought to begin at belonging to a particular population. Look at history – were the Arabs not proud of their respective tribes and clans when conquering the world for Islam?
What is it with your denigration of this feeling of identity? Why do you despise it in the first place? Because it is not meritocratic… in the particular conditions of the chimaera that is America. But where else have you seen a comparable country?
Moreover, without ethnic religious identity, people will fall easy prey to foreign conquerors, either with sharp steel or with unfamiliar, pernicious ideas.
Your focus on miserable folks’ elevating themselves in a multiracial capitalist society, but that is a fringe and ephemeral case that is irrelevant to Asia. And yet you are talking with the sureness of a Christian preacher! The hubris.
> “Not only is this an example of fallacious reasoning, but it is also insulting to those groups whose cultures I tried to claim.”
Such cultural appropriation is natural for ethnic religions, and is observed in every country in Asia, from Armenia to Korea. You seem to oppose quite a natural striving found in normal people.
> “…below the surface they have a fear that women of their subrace may choose these other men instead.”
This is a testament to the feminism engrained in the whiteboi brain. I am not denying that neo-Nazis may think this way – the issue is that they think like cucks. Why do they even give the choice of mate-selection to their own women? And aren’t you aware of one thing men have an edge over against women – in killing?
> “…this logic why Nordicist men would obsess about the presence of potential competitors in their midst.”
Doesn’t it seem queer to you that Asian men exist among Europeans in the first place? Do you never ask yourself the question why the European men allowed the foreigners to come to their lands at all? And doesn’t it seem natural to you that at least a minuscule subset of Europeans would ponder at such a chimaera?
> “In actuality, no particular race or subrace of men is superior to another in any objective sense.”
The living are superior to the dead. The dead have no honour (unless they have descendants – but then they are not dead).
> “Rather, it is for these men to adjust to the realities of an increasingly pluralistic society and to simply make themselves more sexually competitive by bettering themselves.”
Why isn’t it obvious to you that one survival strategy lies in killing all the brown-skinned competitors? The laws of physics clearly permit.
> “I learned that in order to achieve my goals, I had to improve myself rather than put others down.”
Why not both? Let’s take a competitive computer game – you rise in rank by making others lose rank.
> “Now, looking back, I see that others who thought like I did have not achieved much in life, while members of other races and subraces are actually thriving.”
In 1914, the entire continent of Asia lay waiting for the mortal blow than never came. Thriving, my ass. All Asians live because the Eurocuck showed them mercy before promptly killing himself three times.
> “…embracing and improving oneself.”
You are thinking like a useless, atomised individual. The real question is improving your people vis-à-vis others. One way is genocide – the dead are weak.
> “…the self-degrading practice of finding self-worth in one’s racial group or lineage.”
Every nation under the sun has taken pride in its tribe and clan, from the citizens of Rome to the warriors of Tawheed. Critiquing the human condition is a habit of the Christians. So is the denigration of success the domain of the Amerimutt.