Either my observations and Roissy's observations are true or they are not true. That is the sole relevant metric. They cannot be undermined by racial preferences anymore than they are undermined by sports team or ice cream preferences.
My only objection to the above would be the lack of the qualification "personal" in the statement. "... by personal racial preferences ..." and "personal sports team or ice cream preferences."
Many people (though Vox Day does not number among them by my reading) fail to acknowledge that the American Revolution of 1776 was a political revolution only. Indeed, considerations other than the strictly political were rather ruthlessly bargained over to keep proceedings as narrowly focused on the political dispute with Britain as possible. The phrase, "all men are created equal", is an explicit declaration of political condition, and no other. This has resulted in most of modern America being dominated by attempts to resolve social and ethical perceived injustices by the political process developed as a result of determinedly ignoring those same social and economic inequities. That the political shoe pinches is only to be expected really.
Arguably the fundamental precept of the United States of America is that everyone has "rights". Government is the means by which we by-and-large agree to regulate the means and manner in which we each get to express those rights equilaterally. The Men's Rights Movement is the response to the modern assertion that women have greater claim to government support of expression of their rights than do men.
As can be seen, we can and do quibble and remonstrate with each other over when, how and to what degree we get to exercise our rights. To the point that we effectively deny expression of rights entirely sometimes as a means of entrenching expression of the rights of some over others. Government exists for the sole purpose of guaranteeing the expression of rights by the individual through the collective mechanism of partial regulation of the means chosen to express those rights.
The foundational viewpoint that underlies classical strategy is that the concepts are explained hierarchically, but they are exercised as a closed circle of actions that must be balanced in the totality of their individual expression.
Much like human/civil rights in the modern world.
We discuss our rights in a hierarchical fashion because that's just how language works; point A is supported by point B and etc. Actual expression of those rights is as part of a balanced whole of actions taken. Individual preferences influence how and with whom we choose to exercise our individual rights, but that fact cannot deny us the exercise of our rights at all, except as we allow it to. Actively denying someone the ability to express his rights makes you the legitimate target of his efforts to do so anyway. If you insist upon hanging a target around your own neck, don't cry when the inevitable happens afterward.
"War On Women" indeed.