His mistake is he is referring to the conscious and overtly measurable traits of the female, but the female hypergamy manifests in insidious facets such as for example being agreeable to socialism/collectivism because it funds their (the females’) hypergameous R-strategy reproductive preference. The female shit tests a man in indirect, not overtly confrontrational ways. She is apt to leverage the collective to confront on her behalf, e.g. the laws. (He also alluded to this near end of his video where is acknowledge passive aggressive techniques for female bullying)

Thus I absolutely do not agree with his assessment that women are “undeniably more reliable than men”. He needs to enumerate his criterion for that metric so we can break it down with deeper/holistic analysis.

Women are higher in all emotions, not just negative emotions. They live and breath emotions. They are like a child. Some may have a very rational and even very high IQ prefrontal cortex, but their true driver is their biological hindbrain.

His “interested in people versus things” distinction is I think missing the point. Men are interested in engineering solutions, and some men such as myself are extrovert and also interested in people partially because of the fact it requires people to accomplish goals. Women are interested in people as a dog is interested in legs to hump and kids are interested in toys that make them feel good.

He is placating that female while pretending to have an intellectual exchange. Come on, debate a man from the DE movement if you really want to have peer review.

Btw, I agree with his point that men interact in somewhat confrontational manner when there is disagreement. This is because men instinctively need to follow or be the alphamale who is going to insure them success. They must not be following some idiot who will lead them to failure. That is a positive and necessary trait of men. Men are all about goals and achievements. So we will not automatically give respect to other men, it has to be earned via meritocracy. Women are about nurturing (because they need happy chemicals because they are all about emotions) and hypergamy. That is why men bring conflicts to a head to resolve it asap (because men are essentially doing active free market annealing for fitness and maximum resilience), and women will pretend-and-extend as do the central banks (and the ZIRP) that funds the female hypergamy and destruction of Western civilization, because women are not leading society, they're parasites unless properly managed (counter-balanced by the control) by men.

I agree with his assessment about the dynamics of competition between men and women are nonsense. But he does not cut to the root of it which is that women are not competitive in a way that can lead society effectively. And thus men who are castrated by the society via laws w.r.t. to females, will mean they defect and the society will collapse. All this BS about egalitarianism is destroying Western civilization.

He mentions highly successful female attorneys but remember they are successful in a society that is not a meritocracy and aided by affirmative action. They would likely not be successful in a male competitive society and I contemplate that their success is at the cost of the demise of Western civilization.

Again I had written on the prior page of this thread that although it is true that females can be very smart (surely there are even females who have a higher IQ than I do), we do not need them for the roles of leadership, because it messes everything up. We need them for the biological role they’re designed for. He refers to the elite females as benefiting, but I think he fails to note they move the society further to the left thus exacerbating the destruction of the Western civilization. Btw, he absolutely nails this point in another video and I suggest all men with daughters listen to what he said. My father has a higher IQ than myself and he was head attorney for West Coast Division of Exxon and he told me the same thing that a female after age 30 until menopause is totally unreliable. Btw, that linked video I just cited is excellent. I like him much better when he is in confrontational mode. He nails so many points correctly. Respect earned.

In another video, he starts off speaking truths but then he correlates egalitarianism with prosperity and fails to note that such a short-lived spike in prosperity is irrelevant if it means the civilization is collapsing because of egalitariamism, yet he does start to enumerate some of the ways egalitarianism has harmed society. Btw, I had seen some of his videos before in the past.

He echoed more DE themes on Fox News interview about his new book.

Note he claims that the reason successful women don’t marry down is because they don’t want to support the man, because they want someone to support them. I think that’s not quite accurate. They don’t want to marry down because biologically (subconscious hindbrain) they’re driven by hypergamy. A woman is not sexually motivated towards a man she perceives to be below her status. This was already explained in James A. Donald’s blogs which I cited upthread. And the evidence is that their hypergamy can be fooled by PUAs who can put them on the fuckboy carousel, thus not achieve marriage. Those ultra-confident women he refers to can be entirely broken down to a salivating animal by a bad boy which her ancestral environment hindbrain perceives to be alpha. The men who are afraid of rejection is because they give a fuck. The bad boy doesn’t ask for her fucking number. He doesn’t need her number, because he has more girls after him than he can handle already. He will be a bad boy to her and not give a shit what she thinks or does. Her pussy will be dripping wet and she will give chase to him. He’s making the mistake of presuming the females are responding rationally with their prefrontal cortex and I think that is where he fundamentally doesn’t understand female biology and thus psychology. Female life purpose is ruled by the hypergamy of the hindbrain, not the rational part of the mind. For those women at the very upper echelon of status and who do not get married when they’re young, they may not be able to easily find someone of actual status that is interested in them (and who would bother to ask for their phone number), and thus they are very vulnerable to being picked off by a PUA if they’re social environment doesn’t shield them from exposure to PUAs.

I suppose the most excellent outcome would be a society which could leverage the intellectual talents of these very high IQ females yet also provide their hypergamic needs are met. Really high IQ females need to bear children early and then incorporate their study/work into their life as mothers. Having women try to fit a lifetime of a career into their 20s is just destructive.


Bravo! He states much of my philosophy. But I do not agree with the interpretation of his video being that is why we can’t see God which presumes that God must exist (he mentions that only in passing and is not the main point he is making). Again God is a personal matter (and religion and God are distinct concepts), please STOP JUDGING OTHERS BY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR GOD!

How would you know why and what others see or can’t see w.r.t. an issue of faith. Elevating a personal matter to one of social commentary and judgment, is evil and potentially very dangerous as he points out in his video. I think you’re missing the point of his video, which is to look inside to yourself. If you find God there, then fine, but it doesn’t mean that his video is about the necessity of finding God and judging those who don’t find his God as failing to look inside themselves.


He captures some of the reasons that I dislike CoinCube’s presentation of God.

Stop boxing me in, and presuming your interpretation of a theological question is correct. God is a personal matter because it is always based on faith, not on rationality, logic, or reason. Allow me to do it my closet as Jesus said in Matthew 6:5.

We can box each other in on measurable phenomena. But God will never be measurable in our current understanding of spacetime.


P.S. On healthcare, I totally agree with this.

---

EDIT: I was listening to another of his videos about relationships, and agreed with him up to the point where he recommends blaming yourself for why another person doesn’t meet your needs in a relationship. Fuck that. Leave the relationship immediately and never come back!

Do not stay in relationships that do not work. Do not try to mix oil and water. They will never mix. Move on. Do not waste your life trying to accomplish futile things.

He is correct that humans, as is the case for all animals, are trainable in some cases. But you have to recognize when the training process has become futile. But do not train a person by pretending to blame yourself. Train them with incentives which are honest. I’m speaking from experiences. Personalities matter. When I finally found someone more compatible to my lifestyle and personality, it is like night and day compared to the prior relationships which were attempting to force a square peg into a round hole. Btw, in that last video link, he looks similar to Pat Riley the NBA coach.

Anecdotally, I can counter his claim that a disorderly person will necessarily fight with an orderly person. I’m a person who doesn’t care about cleanliness and orderliness which has no significant functional benefit to my productivity (or which reduces my productivity because of the time cost of doing it). My current gf is very much into cleanliness and orderliness even to the degree of reducing productivity such as mopping the floor everyday with bleach. I had to convince her to not mop so frequently. But this works for us because I do not make huge messes continuously (meaning I also appreciate some orderliness) and because I give her appreciation for the effort she expends on it. We’re both extroverts and conscientious so our similarities outweigh our slight differences. And we both enjoy observing/interacting with expressive animals and people. For example, she initially was disgusted when I licked my plate clean but I made it sort of humorous and then she laughed (so her appreciation of human expressiveness outweighs her desire for cleanliness). I also have this introvert side that likes to work on engineering challenges and art. She does too but so far hers in more in the arts and crafts area, because she is not as mathematical and analytical. She is more into language and natural science.