Unlike the many other confounded imbeciles I've covered in the past, this gent has opened up discussion. As such, I've taken it over to his blog. Nonetheless, I'll get everyone up to speed...
Hoo boy, where to start...
"First, allow me tell you about Robert Howard, if I may. Robert Howard (RH from here on) was a writer born in the early 1900's who wrote pulp stories for whatever publication would buy his stories."
His name is Robert E. Howard. You don't say "John R. R. Tolkien" or "S. E. King." Therefore, it's Robert E. Howard.
"The world is unnamed, but I'm assuming it's Earth thousands upon thousands of years before history began to be recorded - not that I've done extensive research into this."
It's definitely earth. Howard says as much in "The Hyborian Age" essay. It's clear this isn't the only thing you haven't done any amount of research into.
"And though the setting of every story is different - sailing across the sea, crossing a wasteland, battling across a frozen Tundra - Conan is a warrior, so every problem he faces he attempts to solve with decapitation and death, which normally produces great results."
The Gordian Knot solution is something critics of Conan always bring up, but it simply isn't borne out in the stories. Conan only uses violence when it's necessary, or when he's been seriously provoked. Conan tries to talk his way out of capture in "The God in the Bowl," and it's only when his employer betrays him that he realises talking won't get him out of this jam. He shows remarkable restraint against killing a boorish idiot in "The Tower of the Elephant," and only attacks after extreme provocation. In "Queen of the Black Coast," Conan gives the judicial process fair dues, and it's only when he's sentenced that he makes any attempt at violence.
"But swinging a sword's not all he can do: he also steals whatever treasure he can get his hands on, drinks more alcohol than an oppressed Soviet citizen, and plows every scantily-clad woman he comes across."
You seem to have missed out "speaks dozens of languages, philosophizes on metaphysical existentialism, is a great commander, statesman, historian and charismatic demagogue..."
"Now I'm sure you're thinking to yourself "Man, these Conan stories sound like immature works of escapist fantasy, obviously beloved simply because they speak to the carnal, childish desires in men. Also, Luke is an extremely sexy and awesome person.", and you'd be right on all counts."
I can't comment on your sexiness and awesome quotient, but you're entirely wrong on every other count. Dozens of books have been written about the "deeper meaning" within Howard's fiction over the past seventy years, even if the most serious work has only been done in the past two decades. Unless they're all suffering from some shared delusion at symbolism and themes that aren't really there, Howard's clearly more than just escapist fiction.
"However, before you decide to read these rip-roaring tales of adventure, know this: they're extremely racist and extremely sexist."
For an author from 1930's Texas, Howard is practically progressive.
"The women fall into two categories: either they're heartless viragos or meek, subservient does. There's no in-between."
Apart from Valeria, the sword-woman who comes closest of anyone, man or woman, to Conan's equal. And Belit, the dominant pirate queen who's the scourge of the western seas without being a "heartless virago." And Zelata, an intelligent, powerful witch who aids Conan without wanting to jump his bones immediately. And Zenobia, who put herself through great danger to save Conan's life. And Yasmina, the imperious queen who is anything but "meek and subservient." And... well, let's just say there's a hell of a lot of "in-between" in the stories.
"Of course, they have one thing in common: they all want to get plowed by Conan."
I sure don't recall Yasmina, Zelata, Belesa, Tamaris, or half a dozen other exceptions to this alleged commonality wanting to leap on Conan. Nor do I recall Conan having sex with them anyway.
"But seriously, every human opponent Conan faces is ethnic in some way (described as either yellow, red, or Negro black) and the only heroes are those who are whites."
Now I wonder if you've actually read the stories, since the vast, vast majority of human enemies Conan faces are white.
"The Phoenix on the Sword" - several major villains, all white.
"The Tower of the Elephant" - two villains, all white.
"The God in the Bowl" - several villains, all white.
"Rogues in the House" - several villains, all white.
"Beyond the Black River" - armies of villains, all white.
"The Frost-Giant's Daughter" - half a dozen villains, all white.
"The Scarlet Citadel" - several villains, all white, save one minor villain.
"The Hour of the Dragon" - several major and multiple minor villains, all white, save four minor enemies.
Others are described as "dusky" or "olive-skinned", really just variations on white. Howard, like most people, viewed Middle-easterners such as Persians, Afghans, Indians and the like as white.
As for "only heroes are white": Sakumbe, Ajonga, Yasunga, Laranga, N'Gora and N'Yaga are all black, and all friends and allies of Conan - ergo, heroes. His black Corsair crewmen would naturally count as allies, as would the Bogondo tribesmen he lived with for a space. There isn't a single foe Conan faces that Howard describes as "red."
"But unless you have a swastika tattoo on your chest and consider yourself part of the master race, it still gets a little uncomfortable in places."
Anyone with a swastika tattoo and an Ubermensch fixation would be most disappointed to learn of Howard's complete and utter hatred of Hitler and the Nazis, as he revealed in his letters to H. P. Lovecraft (who was initially an advocate).
Overall, I'm afraid to say this is a rather shallow, facile discussion of the racial and sexual themes in Howard's work. It's fair to say that Howard has been unfairly categorized as particularly racist and sexist for his time, with misconception and misinterpretation, even misrepresentation, running rampant. This article doesn't do Howard any favours, nor does it shed any particular light on Howard's views on race and sex, which are far more complex and ambivalent than you suggest.
But then, if you view Howard's work as little more than adolescent escapism, perhaps I can't help you. All I ask is that if you're going to talk about REH's relation to such subjects, I at least ask that you be accurate.
EDIT: Looks like in actually engaging in polite discussion, the silly people there are waving off my criticisms as the all-too-serious blustering of a delusional virgin fanboy stuck in his mother's basement, and saying I'm butting in on a "private conversation." As such, I'm sorry I wasted my time on their nonsense, since clearly they don't care for honest intellectual discourse in favour of what can generously be described as 'comedy'.
Oh well. Maybe after this they'll make their blog private, and we won't have to put up with their imbecilic blitherings.