Interesting videos, thanks for posting these.But about what Varg said-Isn't the argument that only "alpha males" reproduce an argument for a solitary lifestyle, rather than against it? I have realized that I am not an "alpha male", I have no desire to participate in the myopic dick-measuring contest that is modern "masculinity." So what should I do? Spend all of my time in the gym, use steroids to get big, buy leg lifts to seem taller, work a ton to get richer, and devote all of my free time and energy to become "good enough" to get one woman to go out with me? (Personally, I think that ordering one's life and deciding one's worth based on whether women accept you is one of the most "beta" things that there is.)
Or should I go my own way, pursue my spiritual goals, and try to accomplish something useful for my Gods and my Race?
People who employ shaming tactics when arguing with men often say something to insinuate that the man isn't good enough for women, an insult which many men find very painful. For example, many people will consider an adult virgin male a "loser" even if he is very well-educated, hardworking, and confident in who he is. But if people evaluate worth based on an ability to get laid, what good are their value judgments?
Also, PLENTY of dysgenic losers reproduce. You can look up Richard Lynn's research on dysgenic fertility if you doubt this, I believe that J Phillipe Rushton and Marian Van Court also did studies on this. If anything, in modern society (at least in America), there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children people have. Yes, women today play a large role in mate selection, but this does NOT mean that they select for only positive traits. "Survival of the fittest" refers to those fittest for an environment, not necessarily those who possess what could be termed "general philosophical worth."