In yet another video interview the world does not need, these two clowns cannot but talk about women and how they know it all.
You know nothing, or at least very little. Saying things like you want a woman like that is vulgar and not anything someone of good breeding would utter.
Further, I have linked to Nils M. Holm who writes about people with 145+ IQs and how they suffer in life. This can also be applied, I guess, to people with tastes and interests that are not “mainstream”—i.e. a clash of interests and values—, or those who are of a high or higher than average sensitivity, a topic Holm is interested in as well (net thinkers are brutes, usually.)
Further, most people’s girlfriends is nothing someone who is truly on the Right would say. There are only concubines or wives, not “girlfriends”. That is ridiculous.
If, as they seem to rightly understand, women follow men, then the reason we are living in this awful deranged society is because of … men! At least men who do not want to shoot degenerates teaching how to fornicate even better. So-called “PUAs” have to be shot.
Unlike what Nils Wegner thinks, these guys are not “sexually successful” – this is nothing more than using euphemisms for men whose lives have gone to seed; shabby, lewd and repulsive lives.
Granted, I try to waste as little time as possible with such vulgar freaks, but so far, the only two who did reject this deranged “picker upper” nonsense were Aarvoll (Eric Orwoll) and Joel Davis (joeldavisx) (for example, in his ImperiumCast with imbecile Edward Dutton.)
(Aarvoll believes that this “works,” though, whatever this even means. Since we are talking about human relations, it is ridiculous to believe that there is some kind of “mechanics” regarding this topic.)
While Faust at least criticizes this Dimes imbecile for using a movie reference – though he calls it gay, which is vulgar as well –, he believes in Darwinism. Saying that women will choose men who are of high status, and that this is rational, is false. Most people are not born to CEOs or presidents.
Langan thinks so, too. The richest are not the smartest either. Langan agrees.
This talk about a Darwinian struggle is nonsense; my genetics are dung, they are worthless trash and I’m glad when I’m dead. Many women choose absolute morons as fathers for their children – men they would not want to have as their own fathers. Which is what Aarvoll remarked once as well.
Most marriages of high IQ people are uneasy compromises anyway, as Nils M. Holm writes.
For example, I am a reader, and prefer to read. I don’t watch movies and Dimes’ laughable defense—he describes himself as a “visual thinker”, which is nonsense—is to be rejected, of course. Read history and high literature, learn Latin and Greek and shut up.
You sex-obsessed imbeciles. There are enough fathers who abandon their children. They are vermin and should be shot to death by a Bismarck or Moltke. Further, how is this Darwinian? They don’t even care about their children!
As I wrote a dozen times on here, our origins are irrational – they have to be, as God, Christ Jesus, forced sexuality onto man as a curse which did not exist in Garden Eden. No one in his right mind would choose this life and bring someone into this world via an act of pure reason alone; Schopenhauer knew.
Schopenhauer’s Metaphysics of Sexual Love is still one of the best works on this subject, especially since this is free from the pest that is “evolutionary” thinking. Those believing in Darwinism, “evolution” and so on are shallow thinkers that go with the flow.
There is no sexual selection, nothing rational about it. Neither men nor women have a DNA scanner on their retinas to check someone’s health. People even have children and don’t want anything to do with them, as the many broken families in the West show.
Back to the awful movie references I reject as well: the reason you do this is because you are not a reader. Can you not quote from Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe? No? But then why puff yourself up as a kind of “thinker”? You aren’t – most likely not fluent in Latin either. Not to speak of Greek. Wow …
Read! You guys need to read more high literature and the canon as a whole, something Eric “aarvoll” Orwoll rightly mentioned several times.
I would kill myself were I not a Christian. It’s God who forces me to live in His awful creation that I reject. Just like Kierkegaard, who suffered as well. I quoted this before, will quote it again:
ABOUT MYSELF
From very early on my life has been tormented in a way that must be hard to match; this is how I have differed from the common run. But I have differed from the common run of sufferers in turn by its never having occurred to me that there might be help to seek or to find among men; no, suffering was my distinction.
Faust also wants to go to Mars and thinks Musk can be taken seriously. Musk’s apparent calm and rational attitude towards transhumanism is to be accepted. How can you take someone like Musk seriously, who has ten or eleven children with multiple women? A deranged way of life that leaves little room for work – he is a puppet. And a horrible father, like Musk’s own father. He also has a hot temper, not calm at all.
Faust sees transhumanism as inevitable, even though he accepts that it is satanic – despite not being a Christian, saying his worldview is materialist. Yet he wants people to have a kind of religion, otherwise they embrace liberalism and other decadent views.
We will not go to Mars, and there is little reason to go there anyway. To quote Christopher Langan:
We were given a perfectly serviceable self-renewing planet to inhabit. To go anywhere else, we’d need to rely on complex machines. We can design and build these machines, but not when our resources are all being diverted to the priorities of the global Welfare/Warfare State. They certainly would not save all of us even in the short term, and our complete dependency on them would certainly diminish our survivability and resilience on the whole. Disaster by mechanical failure would be absolutely inevitable, defeating the purpose of moving off-world. We’d also have to answer the following question: “Why does a species which cannot manage a perfectly good self-renewing planet merit survival in space or anywhere else, using fallible machinery which is non-self-renewing and at best provides a very poor imitation of the natural environment in which that species originally developed?” (This question has no satisfactory answer.)
One prefers a self-renewing planet to artificial machinery because when one’s machinery breaks down, as it inevitably will, one wants to keep breathing, stay warm, and avoid evaporating into the thin atmosphere of Mars or the vacuum of space. And if we’re really serious about lifting ourselves by our bootstraps, the first thing we must do is properly set our priorities, one of which is NOT pandering to overpopulating groups which can’t even live sustainably within their own boundaries despite their secure borders. Western technology and innovation are second to none, yet the borders of ALL AND ONLY the Western nations have been ripped open so that they can serve as relief valves for less adaptive, reproductively incontinent groups. To have any chance of lifting ourselves by the bootstraps, we must develop technology far more sophisticated than we now have, and if we continue to let parasites squander all of our resources on the filling of bottomless pits, we never will.
This is crude sci-fi stuff anyway.
In an interview with Robert Stark, he said he is in favor of eugenics. At least, here I am able to agree. Though I don’t know what he means with eugenics, his view being that the welfare state is dysgenic. I linked to Langan above, where he rightly calls into question the view that money-making ability is a good indicator of health or even intelligence.
Nils M. Holm wrote about people with IQs above 145 that are suffering in life, dropped out of school, are unemployed—suicidal even!—and so on.
He rejects the Right in the US, calling many of them degenerate and dysfunctional, which they indeed are. However, we don’t know how slow the collapse will be in the end. Certainly, this is not good news, because even children suffer due to broken families that Faust rejects: he seems to be in favor of having families (instead of today’s fornication).
Therefore, saying that it will be a—I quote—“sloooooow collapse” is nothing to look forward to, is rather stomach-turning. I hope I die soon.
That the US may have had positive influence a hundred years ago is a view I reject. Further, as a self-proclaimed rationalist and materialist, he is unable to even explain why I ought to live. Were I not a Christian, I would simply end my life.
I don’t even know how to live another five years, let alone several decades that I am most likely forced to live. Yet he is in favor of life extension! Another shallow imbecile, what else! Maybe if I had the faith of a priestmonk, or with gallons of schnaps.
Obviously, I reject transhumanism and any “enclaves” for those who reject it. The Bible teaches that in the end, even the elect would fall from the faith – this is how awful the world will have become because of man. Enclaves won’t help here, as even now, living in a remote area does not mean you won’t suffer from today’s decadence. It’s everywhere.
Gómez Dávila was a mature thinker, unlike all those men online who lack good breeding:
The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.
Sex does not solve even sexual problems.
Not intelligence but vanity reproaches “intellectual isolation.”
It is not primitive cults that discredit religion, but American sects.
The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.
The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.
A woman has the intellectual temperature of the medium in which she lives: vehement revolutionary or dauntless conservative, according to the circumstances.
A reactionary she can never be.