Joel Davis errs absurdly on equality.

On cozy.tv, Joel Davis, in his stream titled Mass Deportation Now! says around 46:30 that equality goes back to white people resenting their genetics, those who have ailments of some sort, either mentally or, as he says, especially physically. Equality is how they get revenge on the—his words!—Chads and Stacys in the world.

Which means that he just projects his sex obsession onto other people.

Many geniuses were weak or ill physically—which some idiot even made fun of in Eric Orwoll’s comment section—, but did not entertain such thoughts. Nietzsche did not, Schopenhauer was of small height, Kierkegaard, too; Pascal, Kierkegaard were melancholic and hunchbacks.

I am too, and am in favor of eugenics so that I would have been spared having to live such a cruddy, awful and repulsive life. I only live because God forces me to.

Andy Nowicki, author of, among others, A Final Solution to the Incel Problem, Confessions of a Would-Be Wank er and Notes Before Death wrote (I roughly paraphrase) that even if he would have been more desirable to other girls duriog high school (due to different looks mostly), it would not have changed his critical view of sexuality as long as he keeps his brain and worldview.

I agree with this totally, because I can picture how I would suffer with someone I don’t have much in common with. I would rather be by myself then, since I am not some psychopath who wants to live like a beast.

Joel Davis is not a Cary Grant either—neither am I—and his whole weightlifting obsession and putting the meathead above intellectually-gifted people can be seen as a kind of revenge of the less gifted, too. After all, I don’t know his IQ, though he certainly is not a Kierkegaard.

(I am not making fun of it, but he did not know the french word arrondissement. I mean, we are intellectually inferior to the greats of the past, even when we only look at mediocre scholars. They almost seem like geniuses to the so-called public intellectuals of today.)

There are aphorisms of Gómez Dávila as well where he hints at such a view, though his worldview was richer and he certainly did not need a Stacy which is actually an insult for a woman.

Again and again I am going to quote Nils M. Holm and his book Bridging the Gap. A high IQ is a handicap as well, it alienates you from most people.

Says Holm:

[…]
Having a job that pays the bills helps to find your way in this world, and having a jobs that allows for some extras, like a new car, vacations in foreign countries, or maybe an own appartment, is seen as the ultimate goal by many. However, this can be a stale experience when you are always on your own. You may find a partner, but never feel any connection to them, because they do not share your interests, your values, your empathy, your sensitivity, etc. Many relationships of high-IQ people are uneasy compromises at best. The alienation they first felt at home and then at school and in later life extends also to their closest connections.
[…]

Chris Langan, too, never had much success with women and did not become a supporter of “equality”. Now, it may be true that some of the left are of such a mindset, I doubt, though, that its roots lie here. Further, “ugly” people exist who are nonetheless cheerful and so on. Some do not care much about this stuff or have gotten over it.

Differences of character and temperament have to be considered as well, not to speak of the difficulty of objectively quantifying beauty. The imbecile who called himself castle once unintentionally showed how laughable such claims are.

Regarding his partner Blake or whatever his name is, he said something along the lines of leftists parroting talking points like a Muslim or Christian parrots his Mosque or Church he defends and is attached to.

Last time I checked, Joel Davis said he is a Catholic. Not sure if this is just a charade, though he did not correct him saying this. Obviously, the Churches are broken, in a desolate state and not more important than Christ Himself. Further, [f]or where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20).

Blake does not question his stoicism, acts as if his views are neutral or correct. He also thinks that women “choose” a mate. This is not even wrong, it is so off the mark that this alone is reason not to follow anything they talk about. Even if they are right about a peoples’ right to self-determination, it does not mean I have to swallow their sex obsession.

Regarding choosing a mate, one has to ask anyway what this even looks like. After all, in Germany, more than two million so-called “single mothers” exists; this means they chose a man as father for their children who is most likely a psychopath and someone they themselves would not want to have as their own father. It is an irrational drive, there is not much thinking, i.e. choosing, going on there, and reality shows I am right.

It is also questionable what looks alone have to do with a hierarchical society. You can be ugly and still claim important positions due to other, mostly mental, traits and characteristics depending on the area you are specializing in.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila simply rejected modernity and did not care about your vulgar views:

The left is a collection of those who blame society for nature’s shabby treatment of them.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

By believing that the wax figures fabricated by psychology are alive, man has been gradually losing his knowledge of man.

The will is granted to man so that he can refuse to do certain things.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

The curve of man’s knowledge of himself ascends until the 17th century, declines gradually afterwards, in this century it finally plummets.

The most convinced reactionary is the repentant revolutionary, that is to say: the man who has known the reality of the problems and has discovered the falsenes s of the solutions.

What is “rational” consists in prolonging life, avoiding pain, satisfying the appetite for hunger and sex.
Only some such definition sheds any light on the discourse of the last centuries.