In his video Is Western Civilization Dying?, he, around the end, says he is not a reactionary, not one to dissent against this process. He wants to be part the remnant of humanity, the “life boat” or whatever. This is, he concludes, the origin of Judaism and Christianity. Which is wrong, not only because Judaism and Christianity are different, but because Christ Himself taught that we ought not to survive at any price. Bios is actually the least valued in the Gospels as opposed to Zoe; further, the New Testament does not even recommend marriage. This shows that surviving at any cost is not what is at the core of the Christian faith.

Also, especially as a Christian one has to oppose modern society, otherwise one is supporting wicked and evil practices. Even a pastor I listen to accepts that never before has man been so powerless. In the past, you at least had a dictator or king you could attack or replace.

He is biased against negativity, but I do not care at all, given that some of the best minds were pessimists. Apart from the fact that he cannot, as I wrote above, defend life over death without God. And by accepting Holy Scripture, you would have to completely change your life and morality. Which he will not do.

I was also correct in seeing him as a narcissist, because he actually admits it in one video about internet friendship. It is also far removed from reality to think that we all can by land (homesteading); especially not in central Europe. He may want this because he needs a small community that worships him. He is also very obsessed with sexuality, as if we had not enough worshippers of this nonsense already.

To denigrate the reading of books, as he does in a video where the title already attacks Keith Woods as a liar, is insane and obscene. Also, calling people liars and then praising a commenter for having a gracious attitude is horrific. Why would it be of importance anyhow if someone on the net thinks I am gracious?

I will not watch more of this nonsense. At around minute 14:00 (Liars on the Right #2: Keith Woods), he calls him a pseudo-intellectual and puts people who pay for his content on the same level as those who pay to see women undress themselves. The latter is worse, of course, even though I do not support the former much either. However, it shows his lack of morals.

In the case of Keith Woods, he may at least introduce some to thinkers of worth like Schopenhauer, others have even converted people to Christianity. This is not something you would get from paying a girl to prostitute herself online. No, the latter is sad and horrible, but it seems to suggest that Kenneth Brown may even be a psychopath. (I personally hardly know much about Keith Woods except that he appeared with Joel Davis on a few streams.)

He likes to denigrate and put down people, because he said, in the above video, that these same men (who pay for seeing women naked online) will pay people like Keith Woods. It is similar to the atheist who rags on Christians for their double standards, when in fact they do not have any. They are following objective morality laid down by God and fail, which is what the Bible even teaches. What makes Christianity unique is repentance and the sacrifice of Christ, being saved by Grace.

As Bruce Charlton writes in Addicted to Distraction:

This capacity to perceive and acknowledge one’s own faults and failures, to take responsibility and repent, is surely near the core of the Christian life, and far, far more important than the strength of armour or will-power.

I would rather suffer physically, for example a muslim whipping me, than to follow such people and comment on them. This nonsense, this dirt will now stay in my brain for a long time. It makes one feel horrible, whereas even reading a thinker like Schopenhauer, who, unfortunately, was not a believer, lifts me up. Same goes for Spengler and his personal notes.

Further, denying that depression and other ailments of the mind exists is immature and obscene. As if Pascal, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche were too dumb to be happy. He does not suffer, will not suffer, cannot suffer.

Certainly, I would support the abolishing of social media (he is against it too). And it is apparent that a fixation on race or ethnicity is too narrow, given that the globalist elites and their minions are destroying more than just nations and their peoples. They also destroyed traditional sexuality and marriage, which cannot be denied; in Addicted to Distraction by Bruce Charlton, Charlton writes:

Indeed, the demonic perspective could be taken as a brief definition of ‘modernity’ in the media – that phenomenon which got a grip in the first decades of the twentieth century, and which finished-off the centuries long traditions of visual arts, classical music and poetry.

Further, classical education has been abolished as well so that the connection to the past is broken or at least damaged. Latin and Greek are no longer mandatory.

In a discussion with Joel Davis, he seemed somewhat saner, especially his gloomy view of genetic engineering via CRISPR/Cas9. I do not quite understand why Joel Davis, as a Catholic, seemed to endorse it. To me it sounds like a nightmare, ending in Frankensteins. Also, as someone who is genetic dung and pro-eugenics, it is an affront to me. Imagine if I had been born without all my physical and mental defects! All the suffering I had and have to endure—edited away! Gone! But not for me, right now!

Wow. This sat and still sits with me, increasing my depression. It is a horrible topic and issue, this genetic engineering, especially since I question, with regards to God, if my suffering is not even necessary? I have a hard time believing anyway that God would curse children with illnesses, and He, Christ, heals the sick, raises the dead. However, if my genetic makeup is more due to chance than to God, why do I have to go on now? It is horrible to think that man has so much power that he can have a child and therefore force it to live, no matter how sick his parents are; however, that our bodies could be subject to the whims of some scientist is a horrifying thought as well.

I feel as if I have to kill myself now; CRISPR makes me feel as if I am just floating around now, not participating or being part of this world. What is the point? If I had been born several decades later, when all this may have been available, then I would have lived a different life. Now it is questionable if such a thought makes sense, since I may have been a completely different person. God somehow tortures us mentally with questions we can never find an answer for. And in times where hard physical labour is becoming rarer, we have plenty of time to ponder such questions and suffer accordingly.

Genetic engineering certainly changes the way we see ourselves, and for the worse, no matter what the freaks at lesswrong may think. I was not aware of how advanced it seems to be, at least according to some articles I read online. I hope that I die as soon as possible now to end this mental torture, I do not think that I will be able to endure it for much longer. Even if it is more complex and, for example, intelligence most likely does not hinge upon a single gene, it sure is an awful future that is awaitung us.

Two times now did I read that he has deep or good knowledge of history, but this says more about the person writing it than Ken Brown himself. Brown even admits that his source is wikipedia, which can hardly be taken seriously. He knows a little about Germany, knows how to pronounce Goethe (at least better than most) and this is enough to impress many online.

(That he denigrates Goethe as a real estate oligarch—in his video about mediocre and true geniuses, where he hardly talked about genius, even using an analogy about MacDonald’s!—is another proof that he not only does not know what he talks about, he also hates art and will put down some of the greatest artists that ever lived since he envies them, resenting high culture, good breeding, excellence. [“Goethestadt” would be in Weimar anyway, not Königsberg.)

He did not explain why we ought to start businesses and why this would free you from the system. Times of high culture were times of little economic activity. Work is a curse from God, just like sex. His analogies are usually not apt and should be dismissed. Crude, too.

Saying he won all debates he had, laughing loudly and singing on camera is just more proof for his narcissism. He is another one of those who denigrate the life of the mind. Yet another reason for heeding Charlton’s advice and tune out completely.

In his latest video Can the Elite survive Hell?, he was more to the point than in the videos I saw before. (Granted, the ones I saw were mostly long livestreams; the video here in question is around twenty-two minutes long.)

However, apart from the fact that I actually do not even disagree much with his view that the elites may be able to live in their gated communities while the rest of the West turns into Brazil, I do have to disagree with several other points he made. (And he would likely not accept peak oil or similar arguments, knowing that here, too, those he terms elites will be better off than most. And I would also not term it utopia, at best if compared to the rest of our deranged society.)

At around the sixteen minute mark, he says that pain is not something to be dismissed, being part of as in the same way our brain or liver is. (He believes in evolution which I, of course, reject.)

His example, though, is back pain, which is a horrible example! He says such pain would indicate that one would have to do something about it, like having spinal decompression or back surgery. Which is nonsense! I have a hunched back (Scheueramann disease), there is no way to fix this except through eugenics. So what is he talking about? The pain I experience is completely useless and often enough drives me nuts; it is the result of awful genetics.

Further, around 19:45, he is defending a position similar to that of aarvoll. (That the elites are better than we are.) This may be true in individual cases, but even here, they have a vastly better environment to grow up in. (I do not know how much healthier they are.)

That there are many online who have high IQs on the internet but are just pontificating is obviously meant to denigrate them. I am not sure what such insults are trying to achieve. It may be true that some are lazy, I would not be able to defend myself against such an accusation.

Then again, however, I am genetically-challenged, and this does not necessarily spur me on to achieve a lot in life, for suffering from constant pain and chronic depression is not really a reason for me to continue living. Nay, were I not a Christian, I would try to end my life.

I guess Deep Left Jokl would not even accept certain accomplishments as an achievement: for example, Nietzsche was the youngest professor in Germany (twenty-four years old). He ended in the gutter. Further, if I am interested in philosophy, it is to be expected not to be successful. Schopenhauer wrote this himself, quoting Plato. I do not necessarily denigrate businessmen, but it is quite harsh that time and again, young guys on the internet look down upon intellectual pursuits. As I wrote above, he shuns the reading of books. Yet in this video, he calls others uneducated (about certain topics). This is not acceptable.

That they—those with high IQs on the internet…—apparently claim that elites are holding them down for not having achieved anything is certainly an oversimplification. People with IQs above 145 are rare anyway, and we know that there are quite a few of them who did not achieve much in life. Chris Langan, for example, does not seem lazy to me; neither did the Unabomber. Here, Langan seems correct that IQ and wealth do not (necessarily) correlate positively.

While I do not think he equates success with decadent wealth, it seems unlikely that he sees learning Latin and Greek as a success. Most likely it revolves around having made money without being a complete shyster.

At the end, around 21:00, he says we should all confront our fears and become better people. But this, too, is an assertion. He would try to back it up with a very long argument that I have no interest in hearing. I will claim that only God can force us to live, and I would end my life—which only exists because of wicked lust—immediately. I do not need to live only because my horrible father could not contain himself. It is God, Christ, Who does the forcing, Who forces me to not kill myself. Full stop.

Since I was bullied, which derailed my life just as much as my genetics and horrible absent father did, I am sure that elites are less prone to such fates. Further, high IQ people often suffer in life, at least in terms of “making it”. Cf. what Nils M. Holm wrote about it.

Also, his view that populism is right is wrong. Where does he get that from? Ernst Jünger (?) wrote that after the Dreyfus affair, a Right no longer exists. The right did not romanticise the people, this is Rousseauian.

As (reactionary) Don Colacho wrote:

The people that awakes, first shouts, then gets drunk, pillages, [and] murders, and later goes back to sleep.

The people is sometimes right when it is frightened; but is always wrong when it becomes enthusiastic.

The people does not elect someone who will cure it, but someone who will drug it.

A certain disdainful way of speaking about the people reveals the plebeian in disguise.

In an older video, I forgot which, he claims that when you are on your deathbed, you will regret not having made lasting connections with people because this is what life is all about. Which is just another assertion. As a Christian I would argue that life is about finding your way to God and to live according to Christ’s commandments. (He also repeated that old adage about life being short, which I reject as nonsense.)

As I already wrote, I would otherwise end my life. Hamlet: … or that the Everlasting had not fix’d his canon ’gainst self-slaughter!

I was an atheist myself, therefore I am still aware of what a drastic change becoming a Christian means; my suffering is at times worse now than in the past, since I am no longer able to kill myself. At least as long as I am able to believe in Christ. Having to believe in eternity can almost lead to madness, I think. At times I feel as if it is too much to bear for a human being; which is why Kierkegaard is so important to me, who suffered similarly.

That he rejects a pessimistic outlook on life I attribute to his character and temperament, it has no objective merit in any way. I could rather make the case that all the great and wise men of the past were pessimists, as Schopenhauer himself wrote in the second volume of his World as Will and Representation. There is even a whole book about it in the Bible – Ecclesiastes.

His advice regarding the online Right may be sound; putting too much energy into it may be harmful. However, he also denigrates the reading of books and the reclusive life, which is, again, subjective and to be explained by his character and life experiences. I was bullied and am mentally damaged, I rather side with Petrarca.

In a comment to his video titled Can the Elite survive Hell?, he wrote:

If you have a beautiful face and you have an active social life pornography is less tempting. I hypothesise that rich men select for beautiful women out of the general population resulting in children with higher social attractiveness ratings meaning that they have an easier time gaining access to social resources.

You can have a “beautiful face” and an otherwise ugly body; there is no law that such a face—subjective anyway—would result in an overall beautiful person. Lord Byron suffered from his clubfoot.

Rich men do not marry women out of the general population. This hardly happens, maybe in the past. Further, there obviously exist more important characteristics than just looks alone. What if the rich man marries a good-looking but unintelligent woman? One who is mentally unstable? It is highly genetic, highly heritable.

And porn is used by all kinds of people, even guys like Vox Day’s friend The Kurgan. He had relations with forty women in two years accoding to one video, yet also was consuming pornography. That the upper classes are less overweight may indeed be the case (Fussell wrote as much, nay, Ernst Kretschmer already wrote about it regarding mental illness); but then again, how interesting is all this shallow socialising and wine-drinking for high IQ people? It’ll bore you out of your mind.

Given that IQ does not correlate much with wealth, as I wrote above, there are other traits and maybe even factors like the class one was born into that are more important for climbing the social status ladder—which is not really interesting to high IQ people. The Unabomber even cynically remarked, in his manifesto, that some people never get bored with that game. His IQ was 169 or so. Chris Langan’s is 195-210.

Thomas Wolf, a german computer scientist, has an IQ of 190. Wolf is member of the Giga Society. He led projects in the finance branch, if I recall correctly (German stock index, DAX). He voiced critical opinions regarding how COVID was handled, but I do not think he is part of influential elite circles. I could be wrong, though an IQ of 190 is certainly not necessary to work in his field.

(Without doubt, the intellectual elite, the geniuses, were almost always not part of high society, and if they were, shunned it.)

Another gifted individual is Maximilian Janisch, a mathematics prodigy. Son of a mathematics professor, would he be able to become part of the elite? Born in 2003, it is still hard to tell. He does work in the field of AI. However, I guess that such people, who are mostly interested in intellectual pursuits, would rather choose a quiet life of the mind than an overly social one, having to suffer going to pool parties.

Jack Kevorkian, despite his rather evil deeds, which I have to write as a Christian, but otherwise can understand where people who want to end their life are coming from (the Christian is someone who is living according to someone else’s will, as Kierkegaard once wrote) — Kevorkian lived mostly alone, once breaking up an engagement because the woman lacked self-discipline.

So to get back to that beautiful face nonsense, this may at best help women; my face is the least horrible part of my body, and it does not help me much either because of autism and depression. Men rather need high status and a shallow personality, then you will have success in life.

Schopenhauer’s father, who most likely killed himself, was said to have been ugly, yet he was a successful businessman who even spoke English and French, which was rare at the time. Schopenhauer himself was not as attractive as Lord Byron, of whom he seems to have been jealous (both born in 1788; they once met in Italy). Still, Schopenhauer, though a professor, lived a reclusive life in Frankfurt (Main) for thirty or so years.

Therefore, I question the motives of those going to get PhDs only to become part of the elite. In the past at least, you would simply go to university because of your high intelligence and your intellectual inclinations that could not be satisfied anywhere else in such a manner (access to a large library alone was highly beneficial.) What kind of degrees do the “elites” have? PhDs in Classics? Physics?

Nicolás Gómez Dávila, for example, rejected the offer to become chief advisor to the state president in 1958, or ambassador in London (1974). For Gómez Dávila, contemporary politics lacked interest because not much could be achieved politically, especially regarding today’s vulgarity. And indeed, our situation is so dire that only a miracle can save us. (Which is, I guess, why he wrote: “How can anyone live who does not hope for miracles?”)

Pascal, too, was a hunchback, though prior to his conversion to Christ, he was part of French high society, which he found repugnant in the end. Which leads me to another remark, because Kenneth Brown further wrote:

Also proximity to wealth is correlated with proximity to networking opportunities outside of sportsball and smoking weed. Think ballroom parties wine tasting pool parties etc.

Such events are, as I wrote above, of little interest to those with high IQs; this is the large problem I see here. Would you suffer through all of this nonsense to get access to elite membership? Langan could not, in one interview he said—I am paraphrasing—“why am I not filthy rich, working at Wall Street? Because I want to live a meaningful life and this (he points to a scientific paper on his computer screen) is how I get it.”

Another claim he makes in a comment:

Also people with PhDs have more kids than people with college or highschool degrees so their fertility is higher.

At least in Germany, forty-two percent of women who have PhDs do not have any children in their whole lives; one-third of all female professers do not have any either. Such claims are highly problematic, and we know that smart people have less kids. Also, those with PhDs do not necessarily have the highest IQs. While they may be above average, those with IQs that are three deviations above the mean often enough drop out. I suspect that this may be even more common among those with three+ sigma IQs who grow up in lower class families, no matter how smart the parents themselves may be. (Even Vox Day, IQ 150, had to be forced by his friends to complete his economics bachelor; his father has a PhD in engineering from MIT.) Granted, he admits that some may drop out not because of their (lacking) intelligence, but maybe due to depression.

I was born out of wedlock anyway, grew up with a stepfather and dropped out of school at age fifteen, so my life was broken from the start. Add to that a genetic predisposition to depression, becoming corpulent and general ugliness—hunched back, not that tall, disproportionate extremities—, I‘d rather side with the eugenicists to get rid of such genetic trash like myself. God, however, now forces me to live.

What Kenneth Brown, Deep Left Jokl, does here, is not much different from what the Alternative Right, Dissident Right did when it came to questions of marriage, where men were egged on to wife up someone and marry her, else you are a horrible loser.

In a similar fashion, by always telling us, as Eric Orwoll/Aarvoll did himself, that the elites are better than you, which may be true in certain cases, wrong in others, they create a pressure on us who live average lives, coming from average or even below-average families, and do not have much to look forward to. Only because you may know Latin or Greek does not mean you get access to elite circles. A degree in Law may be more helpful. Here, too, though, without being top of the class, you will be just another cog in the machine having little to say in important matters.

(And even if I were “great-looking”, an awesome, absolutely awesome individual (…), who made it — as long as I do have the brain I have, as long as the way I think and feel is the same, I would not feel any better than I do now. This is what they do not understand: Nietzsche was not too dumb to be happy, to be not depressed. He, and Kenneth Brown even agrees, was someone who did have a very good grasp on human psychology, but it did not help him in the slightest. His brain was wired to have a gloomy outlook on life.)

You need to understand this: I would commit suicide immediately because this world has no value without eternity, which, as I wrote a dozen times now, He, God, Christ, forces upon us. There is no mercy, He forces you to live no matter how much you hate it. I am different from most people in that I have no trouble in killing myself.

I understand that this is a lot of text already, and Kenneth Brown is not an important figure, except that he is obviously intelligent and not a mere bully; still, I would rather follow the Bible, or even heathens like Schopenhauer, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca and so on when it comes to life advice.

Even though he wrote in a comment of his video Can the Elite survive Hell?, that maybe some are intellectually able but depressed, and therefore drop out, this kind of depression may also be induced by our horrible culture. For in the past, society was simpler, not as chaotic as today, mass culture not as advanced, if it at all existed. So even then, someone with a slightly depressed mood may still have been able to complete his studies and get a degree instead of dropping out. (Nietzsche, for example, while extremely gifted, was depressed as well.)

Further, in the video whose title I forgot, where he answered someone who was defending Dutton, he said that maybe not in all universities—so he admits that they have been dumbed down—but certainly in some there are still very smart people who will run circles around us. Well, even if this may be true for some, we know that even elite universities like Cambridge or Oxford (I forgot which) did not have anyone there who scored higher than 139 (or so) in terms of IQ.

(See Nils M. Holm’s writings on high IQs and suffering.)

But enough of this now, it is wasting too much time already I would rather spend reading high literature or fearing Hell. People on the net, as smart as some are, still have some really idiotic views and ideas. Dixit Don Colacho:

Great stupidities do not come from the people.
First, they have seduced intelligent men.

In a video titled Against Genealogical Binaries, he, Kenneth Brown, Deep Left Jokl, ends this overly long and not that interesting video with his usual and arrogant superiority over others. Saying that he does not do this or that (video chats and so on), a quick five minute Telegram video chat (I do not know if this is the correct term, I do not use social media at all) will suffice for him to decide.

After all, he sees a lot of beautiful faces on a daily basis. Now this is again the typical shallowness of the online Right, online people in general. Not only is this a genetic lottery, but it does not matter in the slightest what you look like when it comes to the arena of ideas. (As I said, I would never have chosen my life. It is a horrific experience.)

Such men think like women. YouTube and internet talkers are mostly a waste of time. Also, many who want to chat him up would be men anyway, so why would you care how they look like? Is he homosexual?

This video would be another reason to kill myself; his lack of knowledge regarding the Early Church and sola scriptura was almost stomach-turning (Vox Day rejects the Trinity, for example, and is still a Christian who believes in Christ.)

He is an atheist for sure, even believing in evolution. Further, the so-called Wirtschaftswunder was not necessarily linked to Germany’s economic prosperity; at least outside Germany, it had more to do with the pace at which Germans rebuilt their country. A country destroyed like none before in history. In the mid-1980s already, 1/3 of all architecture got built after 1945. Never before in Germany’s history did a single generation have so much power over shaping its cities (making it uglier in the process, of course, thanks to their Gropius worship).

Again, and again, I would rather kill myself. Kill myself. Yes kill myself. Than suffer through this horrible world. He even joked he could get hit by a car, so he does not know how long he will be able to do this online. Nonsense! Someone who jokes about death this way is not a serious thinker at all. At all. Serious thinkers worth their salt were always perplexed by death, to the point of almost going insane.

If you do not have this kind of attitude towards existence, you need to do something else. This stuff is too serious for hedonists and other cretins thinking they can impress people with their shallow worldview.

(It may be because of his over-the-top worship of women and sexuality in general. Too much love for women turns every man’s head into mush.)

I would kill kill kill myself if God did not force me to live.

In a video regarding The Anti-Authoritarian Personality, he claims that testosterone decreases after thirty years of age, so that if you marry at age twenty (!!), you have ten good years (as he shallowly phrases it) of marriage. After that, divorce becomes more likely because men will no longer be able to be dominant towards their wives. The reason for this, of course, has nothing to do with our culture at all, or the fact that women usually earn money, too, now …

Men already married later in life during the 19th century, as Schopenhauer already noted; in Germany, a Hagestolzensteuer was discussed, a tax on unmarried men as was the case during the times of Augustus. I noted this already on my page on Edward Dutton.

Yet, divorce rates did not skyrocket, as they did during the sixties and seventies of the 20th century. It is insane to think that modern technology, especially birth control and the mass media, as well as the relaxation of laws regarding divorce and pre-marital intercourse, had no effect on the many divorces we are seeing.

What kind of faces women find attractive is of no importance and completely idiotic. I was born as well, after all, and am genetic trash. There is no sexual selection, there is no survival of the best genetics. What he thinks women are attracted to is nonsense: being able to fight or being a bit narcissistic. Even if this were the case, it shows how nonsensical such criteria are. Nay, harmful. (That height seems to be important prooves the vulgarity of this drive; think of hothead Klaus Kinski and the many women he head! They did not care.)

He further claims they would prefer those who were able to initiate the relationship, courting her, talking to her father. Well, this shows how clueless he is: you had to ask her father for permission in the first place. Schopenhauer has already written as brilliantly as no one else could on this obscene topic; he, rightly, thinks little of it and would have wished it all away if he had been able to. (Being able to talk to women, or people in general, has nothing to do with testosterone anyway.) He made fun of Schopenhauer in a comment, asking if he was a so-called incel, putting his intellectual calibre on display.

If women would rather have children with men high in testosterone, more so than with someone who is lower in it but earns more, then why would single mothers exist? Apparently, such men were not masculine in the first place, which is also true for my father (I grew up with a stepfather then.) Or more likely, women do not prefer such men, they actually prefer nothing special; some have been said to have fallen in love with a man’s eyes!

It is an affront to even suggest that women are more selective, implying that they do some sort of calculation of who will become the father of their children (many do not want any children anyway). As if they have a DNA scanner on their retina. Eugenics only exists when men implement it. Full stop.

He also linked the alleged selectiveness of women—I would not live a promiscuous life either—to the pool of marriageable women getting even smaller. This is rather nonsensical, because only an idiot would marry a women because he likes her hair. I have already linked to Nils M. Holm and his writings on high IQ and loneliness. I would not be able to live with a dumb woman. No matter what she may look like.

Well, I would not want to live at all, of course, hating this place.

(From a godly viewpoint, i. e. the Bible, Christ, there is no gain in having children, the Bible even teaches it is best not to marry at all. Showing how little God thinks of this sorry place. Indeed, the outcast, the loser would be closer to God, as Kierkegaard already noted. Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity often enough revolved around this fact.)

That women nowadays prefer men with beautiful faces because of dating apps, and that such men are low in testosterone is a baseless claim. Schopenhauer was jealous of Lord Byron (both born in 1788) because of his looks (see this remark.) Also, why would their biological mating criteria (or however you would call this disgusting nonsense I am writing about here) change, though that of men would not (if we assume that men are after so-called beauty only, which is, in part, subjective anyway)? As F. Roger Devlin wrote, most women in the past never saw a man like Cary Grant; then in the 1930s, millions saw him weekly on television.

Saying men do not care that much about a woman’s personality if she is attractive is a generalization that I do not care about. It is as if I have to cater to the mean of a bunch of sex-obsessed imbeciles. Why would I do that?

Further, while he admits women are not aware of what they seem attracted to, he still thinks he can decipher or rationalise what they seem to be attracted to. No, this is a wholly irrational drive, there is no rational thought going into it. It has to be this way, as God knows, because otherwise no one would be so stupid to force anyone into this messy and horrid world. It is a result of the fall, sexuality is a curse that will not exist in Heaven anyway (because it is awful dung, depressing trash.)

Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, Lord Byron, Gómez Dávila—many great minds saw it this way as well. I say it is in fact the acid test of the depth of a thinker.

This topic is highly vulgar, nothing one could talk about without getting upset, as Chesterton knew. After all, it is the reason I have to live in this awful world.

Idiots.

He also seems to believe in meaning separate from God. In Life and Struggle, he thinks there is some grand version of you that most are not realising in their lives because of laziness or so. A lack of struggle is what defines death, so we ought to embrace struggle if we want to become a “Prince in the kingdom of life”.

Apart from the fact that a turd is alive (or full of life, at least) too, this is so over-the-top and naive, I do not even know if he is really serious here or not. Nietzsche went insane, yet he was part of the “elite” in terms of verbal giftedness.

In the above video (Life and Struggle), he even suggests that we ought to confront our fears and weaknesses head on, as early as possible in life, be they physical, social or intellectual. If you suffer from autistic traits, it is actually harmful to wanting to become a kind of socialite; the same goes for many people with three+ sigma IQs. His advice is dung. If God did not exist and forced me to live, I would end my life, because without eternity and eternal life, it is meaningless. Dixit Don Colacho:

If one does not believe in God, the only honest alternative is vulgar utilitarianism.
The rest is rhetoric.

I would not live for even a fraction of a second if I stopped feeling the protection of God’s existence.

The way he cooly references statistics at least suggests, to me, that he is somewhat of a psychopath. To quote Don Colacho again:

For a society that lives among statistics, to suspect that each unit is a unique person with his own destiny turns out to be troubling and alarming.

Each day people are born more suitable for being boxed into statistics.

Confronting any social difficulties head on is imbecilic drivel. Rather, in a world where most people are idiots (Vox Day), it is best to not have too much to do with most of them.

Then in another video, he claimed in the past Christians had songs like Dies irae, where—I paraphrase—God comes to kill you because you are a horrible person. Again completely crude and superficial, as is to be expected from this guy.

He believes that this world has meaning without God. That we ought to become elites, even though in the past almost all were peasants. And as Schopenhauer wrote, the many early deaths of brilliant men, who could otherwise have gone on to live and produce more works, shows that whatever it is that reigns this world, it certainly does not care in the slightest about intellectual matters. Nietzsche ended in the gutter! As did Kierkegaard! (As a Christian I believe that this world is ruled by Satan, so early deaths of geniuses makes a lot of sense.)

He does not even believe in Christ! Why does he not shut up? Read the Book of Job or Ecclesiastes. Is this not part of the Bible? Were they not pious men? Yes, they were; even Paul almost lost faith in God (II. Corinthians 2:18), wanted to be in Heaven already (Philippians 1:21-23). This world is horrible dung which is why we do not enter it via contemplation but sheer lust, an irrational drive. We enter the world via our sexual organs, whose main purpose is to micturate. Take that!

Last remark on his, Deep Left Jokkul’s, remark that testosterone also decreases due to lack of sleep. First, I do not believe this, especially since he bases all of this on statistics that are most likely not very credible (cf. Not even trying: the corruption of real science.)

Further, vigils are common practice in monasteries, and I do not believe that monks have less testosterone (until I see a really good reason to believe the contrary.) Vox Day, for example, sleeps only around six hours or so. One may not have to like him, but he does not seem as if he lacks testosterone.

I therefore doubt how useful his book is; he has shown some of it in his streams—he types it into Google Docs, apparently … Does he really want to base a worldview or political theory around questionable studies? His view on sexuality and marriage is skewed already.

It is also indecent and disingenuous to suggest someone like Jack Black—I did not know him before—is somehow comparable to us average Joes. He is an actor with money, fame, status. You would have to be pretty stupid to think that if you strip him of all this, his attractiveness would not suffer.

The interview with some average black Joe called Christopher Neal or so was horrible; I only tuned in around 01:25:00, where they were talking about obesity (a great disgrace to the Jokl for some reason, unlike promiscuity). That you would die at the age of fourty-five because of obesity, as Neal suggests, is too far-fetched and irrelevant. This guy even wants to live for a thousand years; an immature wish and worldview, transhumanist hogwash. He further said he does not want children, though he does tell others no, you really should have children.

Listening to such waffle is worse than murder; you have no right to tell anyone what to do, the Bible even teaches it is best not to marry. The internet has allowed crazy persons to spout their opinions online, irrelevant figures who would have worked the fields in the past.

Worse than murder! Worse than murder. Yes worse than murder.

This really is worse than murder.

Also, regarding his claim that testosterone decreases at age thirty which will make a divorce more likely because of whatever stupid reason he came up with: women usually marry older men, at least somewhat older than themselves. A woman aged twenty-four will usually not marry someone who is nineteen years old.

Since this can easily be verified in many cases—without much doubt, there surely are more (somewhat) older men with younger women than vice-versa—, he is wrong and his book will most likely be of little value if it presents us with such poorly reasoned views.

He is a nasty, arrogant and psychopathic character. He feels superior to most, makes fun even of mental illness by saying he does have compassion for people trapped in mental illness and trapped by stupid ideologies, but he will not be moderate (but call people names or so.) The video in question is almost five hours long (Nabta Playa and Atlantean Civilization(s), Past and Future).

Who listens five hours to such a horrible voice, let alone arrogant and uninformed views? My voice is not great either, but I am not the one making videos. That he wants Mexicans to learn English and Americans to learn Spanish is irrelevant; who cares what he wants? By starting a sentence with I want this or that to …, you are giving away that you are a narcissist, maybe even a psychopath.

Having children has nothing to do with being mentally sane anyway, and no one chooses such illnesses.

He recorded himself responding to comments, showing that he, like most people, simply makes up percentages. What is the point of this? Saying that one does not need to be a genius to learn languages is besides the point; verbal intelligence is certainly required. He is even in favor of a creolisation of English via influence of Spanish, showing that he is a philistine.