Parththakkar12

Here's what I'll say - find commonalities. Whether you're doing verbal improvisation or something else, find a way to include the other person in your life. I'd actually suggest you let her do the talking so that you'll be able to then make sense of that situation and come up with ideas for where you want to take it. How much do you want to talk? Just be honest. How much do you want to bullshit yourself and her that the talk is important? It's not! You just want to be taking it to where you want to.

I think a new system needs to be created to replace the patriarchy. This system must give women an empowered role in it instead of a disempowered, controlled role in it. While there is value in the old patriarchy and learning about how it works and what it was useful for which is why it's been such a prevalent system, it is fundamentally unconscious and must be replaced. She talks about 'European values'. There is value in integrating your cultural values in the new system, for sure. I think it will look very similar to the old patriarchy on a physical level, in fact, except that it'll be a lot more conscious and a lot less oppressive. As far as the whole trope of the 'strong, independent woman' goes, that's not going to fly in the new system at all. I can be sure of this. The new system will not overtly oppress a woman or stop her from doing what she wants. A woman will have the freedom to live her life however she wants to. However, it will not put up with man-hate, rebellion or holding on to being strong and independent for power. It will simply dis-include and cast out the 'strong, independent woman' and be like 'Alright. You want to be strong and independent? Fine. Do that. This system will not protect you, you are on your own. Good luck.' Here's one of the good things the patriarchy did - it protected women physically. The new system will only be protective towards women who want to be protected, who don't see protection as control. Fair and square. It is understandable why they see protection as control, because the old system did the protection narcissistically. If you want a new system, you have to consciously choose to be dependent, which is ironic. The difference is that in the previous system, women were powerlessly dependent and trapped in it. In this system, all roles will be chosen, therefore, all of them will be empowered. Independent people get to be independent, no new system for them. Fair and square.

I see this thing happen between the Left and Right that creates a lot of miscommunications between the two - The Left understands that ideology fundamentally is an attitude, a mindset that collectives use in order to take action. This ideology gives them a direction, it gives them a moral compass. Generally, Stage Green Leftists will be able to choose their ideology accordingly and stand for what they truly believe in. Whereas the Right will hold their morality as absolutely true. Their morality/ideology will typically be something that they were programmed with/conditioned with/learned in church. The Right doesn't get this yet, the Right thinks that the beliefs of the Left are held as ideologically true. The Right will get stuck in absolutism and project that onto the Left, which creates the ego-backlash. For example, if the government is more tolerant of BLM protests than a white supremacist rally, they will call the government racist against white people. They will project their absolutist thinking on the government and say things along the lines of 'the government believes that Black people are superior to White people, that is why it is for Black people against White people'. The root-cause of absolutism is lack of conceptual awareness or awareness of the point. This is why the Right will get stuck in word-games, moral outrage using trigger-words, identity-politics, etc. Thoughts?

@Fredodoow Don't get your hopes too high man. People are in denial mode about it right now. It's got to amplify for everyone to see it. I'd suggest we brace ourselves for it. Of course, it's not all bad. (Politically correct qualifier inserted ) I mean it though, it really isn't all bad. It is a necessary step forward for the mainstream to really fully question the concept of marriage for example.

I think that's where their invalidation of your hurt by what they're doing is coming from. They'll hurt you, then they can't admit that they did, they feel guilty about it so they'll project that outwards. Of course, on paper they'll poke holes in the narratives/agendas of MGTOW and RedPill and essentially be right about it. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the hurtful manner in which they will go about getting their change and bulldozing everybody else. The first step to solving this issue is to acknowledge that it exists. I validate the existence of this issue. Progressives may deny it all they want, I acknowledge it's existence. Do keep in mind that some progressives are not remotely as compassionate as they'd like to assume. Pretty merciless when it comes to their adversaries relative to the change that they want. Slightly more conscious than church-pastors, but nowhere near having genuine compassion for their enemies. (And they absolutely have enemies. They are nowhere near actualizing their love and light ideals.) It is important to note that their priorities are not to spread peace, love and light, it's not to be loving and compassionate towards everyone. It is to fight for and get the change that they want. There's good, bad and ugly sides to that struggle. There's collateral damage to that struggle. Unfortunately, the straight white guy is on the receiving end of that collateral damage right now. Not trivializing it, it's pretty serious.

@Fredodoow Well, what can I say. Only the guilty fear judgement, as they say. They're telling you to shut the fuck up about it because deep down, they know what they're guilty of.

I've been in the exact same position. Got out of education, into the work-force and saw that the system has screwed me over big-time. I was doing very well in college and grad-school, developing skills in technical fields doing what I loved doing, self-actualizing as a student. But then, the moment I entered the work-world, the moment I started to enter it, I saw the whole point of the education-system - it is to prepare you for wage-slavery. I basically got totally screwed over by the system. This system is meant to give you the tools to survive, not the tools to self-actualize. What you need to do is you need to find yourself as a professional. You need to find your professional niche, or as Leo calls it, Life Purpose. It has to be a field in which you feel driven to achieve results, like the result of your work itself is something that motivates and inspires you. For example, if being a warehouse worker would be inspiring to you, the thing that will inspire you is the result of putting the box from here to there! Or maybe, learning to operate a fork-lift. When you're younger, learning the skills may be enough to inspire you. The older you get though, the more important it'll be for the result to be inspiring to you. The reward-and-punishment system assumes that the money you get paid should inspire you, it doesn't work like that for millennials and the subsequent generations. That result goes in and meets some need for someone. You want that need to be something that you want to meet as opposed to something you're enslaved to meeting. You will be drained if it is something you are enslaved to meet. That is a guarantee. This is why you want to find your Life Purpose and the contribution you want to make! Finding your Life Purpose is no longer a luxury anymore. Those without a Life Purpose, starting from the millennials, will seriously struggle in the professional world. Our parents won't struggle without a Life Purpose because they have a lifetime of experience, but we will.

@Philipp My man, what you are asking for is a change in the very structure of how collective egos work. You are asking for a world in which the priority of the collective is growth, creation, expansion, peace, contribution as opposed to brute survival. This will require radical changes in the level of consciousness of mankind, radical changes in the metaphysical and epistemic control-structures of society. Wage-slavery is much deeper than working a job you hate. What it really is, is survivalism. A survival-strategy that is survivalistic, i.e. prioritizes survival above everything else. You can have other survival-strategies that are not survivalistic, i.e. that prioritize growth/expansion above survival. All you need for survival is a survival-strategy that works. It doesn't necessarily have to prioritize survival! Back to the point. On an individual level, getting out of wage-slavery and doing something you love and that contributes something meaningful to mankind is the equivalent of replacing a survivalistic survival-strategy with a growth-based survival-strategy. I'm going to give you a clue on what to do about this - If you want to solve the collective issue of wage-slavery, you want to look for a way to scale this up to the collective level. You want to create collective survival-strategies that prioritize collective growth above collective survival! You could start at home, in your relationships. That'll show you how challenging this really is. Say you're a wage-slave providing for a wife and you're wanting to break out of wage-slavery. How easy will it be for your wife to be on board with you escaping wage-slavery? Pretty darn difficult. Now, if the collective, that is the couple that is you and your wife, has agreed upon a growth-based survival-strategy beforehand, your wife will be all for you escaping wage-slavery and pursuing your dreams! But, that's far too uncommon. This is because the collective survival-strategy of the collective, which is the couple, is survivalistic. This is why there will be so much resistance to you escaping wage-slavery. This is why they will try to enslave you.

Hey everyone! Please post crazy/insane/merciless/dysfunctional/interesting examples of collective ego survival on this thread.

@soos_mite_ah I understand what you're saying. I'm going to show you the potential solutions and challenges from the male side relative to resolving these issues. Objectification - This is something that humans do to each other in general. The only real way I've seen to not objectify someone is to be enlightened and to see that the other person is you. A human perspective is fundamentally selfish and the only way to not see the other as something to be used to get what you want is to see that the other isn't actually an 'other'. Manipulative control - What you're talking about is shadow leadership, unconscious leadership. To change this strategy requires the male to step into a space of conscious leadership. Really tall order for most men. Most men do not know what this means or how it's done. You would need a man who is constantly checking in with you and whether you feel safe or not. (Which I think is a normal need for women, it's just not normalized because men don't know how to meet it) Most men do not have the incentive to do this. Creepiness - Direct result of objectification. Objectification gives you a free pass to not care about the other person's safety. Solutions you can implement as a woman from your side: Have more control over creating personal safety in general. This could mean creating a list of things that make you feel safe and doing those. Things like warm showers, watching Netflix, etc. You can step into your feminine power. This means you get to take full responsibility for who you attract, for what kind of guys are attracted to you. You then get to see what message you are unconsciously sending them that they see as 'asking for it'. I know, it's not deliberate, it's unconscious. It is really hard to face. This will help you see though what attracts guys to you. You can then use that as your strength when it comes to attracting guys you actually want, i.e. repurposing your 'assets' consciously. This one could be advanced - committing to the practice of sensuality. If you do this, paradoxically, guys who don't care about your safety will find it very difficult to approach you or figure out how to contain you. Maybe they'll be attracted to you but you will not be controllable. The only guys who will get with you will be the ones who have the patience to get to know you first.

This is no different from the church pastor telling you what 'good beliefs' are and what 'evil beliefs' are, what is 'healthy for the mind' and what is 'corruption of the mind'. It is no different from Nazis persecuting Jews for their religious beliefs. May not be the most convenient, but they exist. You would benefit from understanding what evil is and watching Leo's videos on 'the devil'. I will always have higher standards for progressives than conservatives because progressives are more conscious and they should know better.

I understand what you're saying. A lot of progressives, though, won't. They will call you a racist or xenophobe for saying this! This is the most anti-PC statement I've heard a progressive say, which will sound like it's against the progressive cause. If you try to mainstream this point, it will definitely stir up controversy.

Umm... I guess if doctors agree with the conspiracy theories, maybe there is some truth to them....? I don't know man, it's the doctors. It's the 'experts'. They have the facts that are necessarily objectively true because they're experts. This, my friends, proves that the conspiracy theories are true. The mainstream hasn't been able to debunk them and now the experts aren't taking the vaccine under the table. Hence, proved. I bang my fist on the desk and I make an absolute statement that the conspiracy theories are true, based on this absolutely irrefutable proof.

@Strangeloop You will come across as creepy if you are objectifying her. She'll be able to sense it and it'll feel creepy to her. What you can try doing is connecting with her without having an agenda to have sex. Make the agenda of sex secondary to connecting with her. If you pro-actively care for and take ownership of her safety, it's highly unlikely that you'll go wrong!

I want to share an insight about pick-up. Pick-up, in essence, is about social climbing and achieving social status. That's what the quest for the relationships you want is about. So, if you really want to do pick-up efficiently, learn to social-climb! Nerds, for example, are very smart and capable. But, they have lower social-status because they don't know how to climb. Pick-up tends to be all about teaching nerds to climb. What do you think about this? What do you think about the relationship between pick-up and social-climbing?

I have a few questions about this: What about the guys that have poor game but get laid because of their social status? They've never learned to flirt, women will complain about their assholishness but won't leave them. If you learn to climb, would that help according to you? I never really understood why flirting is considered a 'skill'. It kinda assumes that all women are the same machine, they come with a manual that you have to figure out and if it didn't work, that's because you didn't flirt well enough. Maybe you weren't compatible!

What I'm gathering from this situation is that the EU is wanting to remove the UK. The UK is getting isolated as a country. More separation in the world. That's what I'm gathering from the people who don't like the idea of Brexit.

Looks like you're into it. Let's do this - why don't you give me all your possessions and I will make sure that they're available to you whenever you need them. I'll use them when you don't need them. Sound good? Great! I love that you trust me with your possessions so much. Oh yeah, and don't be 'fearful'. That's mentally unhealthy and you should get ADHD meds. I'll give you those too, whenever you need them. (which of course, you'll really strongly need them only when I tell you that you need them and you won't need them when I won't tell you that you need them, convenient for me) You don't have to take on the burden of owning anything at all! You can be totally free.

Now that he is fully beaten in the election, he's like 'Let's behave like a decent person and actually care about the people!' I can only feel bad for poor old Donnie. If only he'd realized that this is the way to win elections.

Ah, what happened to the good old days when we could say 'This is wrong'. That's become too politically incorrect now, I guess. Serious question - Where would you draw the line? Or are we going to say 'Don't you know everything is One? Don't you know that there are no lines?' When is it too much? At what point do we say 'no'? Is saying 'no' politically incorrect now? I will advise you to contemplate these questions. This is cult-like. In fact, this is a cult. This is exactly what a cult does. They will brainwash you with a utopian fantasy, they will tell you to give up all your possessions and then be like 'Oh, you know. It's going to be all peaches and cream.' I will advise you to consider this.

This would require so much consciousness on the part of the corporation, it's ridiculous. The corporate CEO would need to see oneself as someone leading their collective, which is the corporation, to financial abundance and prosperity. It would require conscious leadership. This is not what we currently have. What we currently have is corporate bosses only thinking about filling their pockets. Same goes for their highly-paid employees. Everyone involved would have to be in their Life Purpose. All the employees, everyone. If your Life Purposes don't align, you don't get a job there. That would have to be the criteria for hiring! The government would have to be on board with this, the interviewees would have to be on board with this. If the interviewees aren't on board with this, they could sue the corporation for unfair hiring practices or something. The corporate culture would have to be willing to sacrifice a little bit of productivity for social consciousness. As a corporation, very difficult to do. You have a lot of mouths to feed when you're talking about a big corporation. The competitive playing field would have to be a lot more humane and a lot less cut-throat. I think this is precisely why it'll be so difficult to have a conscious monopoly - the playing-field is not a playing-field where everyone plays by the rules and is socially conscious, it's more of a dog-eat-dog battlefield right now. I think the battle will have to go on for a while before either we blow ourselves up in a nuclear holocaust, or the survivors are the most conscious ones and they create a more humane and co-operative playing field as opposed to the competitive one we have today. Winner-take-all competition would have to cease to be the way to go, people would have to be conscious enough to want to be fair and co-operate with each other. The problem with this is that even if one person's consciousness is low enough. they're greedy enough that they want to compete for everything, this lowers the level of consciousness of the co-operative environment significantly. In short, money can bring out the worst in people. Doesn't hurt to aspire to create one though. After all, in the long run, high-consciousness survival-strategies will out-compete and out-perform low-consciousness survival-strategies! You can turn this into a really nice Life Purpose yourself - to beat the corporate monopolies and solve problems created by them by beating their survival-strategy of winner-take-all competition using your new survival-strategy of genuine, authentic, trustworthy co-operation.

You will go to hell if you do this. I swear, you will. You will be fried in fire by the devil who has horns and a pitchfork and you will come out all black. I guarantee that you will. *Sermon ends*

Welcome to reality. (Analogous to 'Welcome to Jumanji' lol) I would contemplate these very questions if I were in your position. What is the government really there for? What is the history of politics? Why do they claim to care about the people, do lip-service in that regard but then do otherwise? Why isn't it reflected in their actions? Why is the definition of 'health' and 'what needs to be done to be healthy' defined by pharma companies? They're who funds the mainstream healthcare system. Allopathy lives on selling their medicines. We have been brainwashed with allopathy, to the degree that we don't know any other form of healthcare. I would look into why this is the case if I were in your shoes.

It's too complicated a task to pull back a vaccine that's already in the hands of people, confusing the masses about whether it works, whether it doesn't work, which one will work. That's too complicated for people. The government never says it was wrong, it will never admit a mistake because then, people will literally kill them and their brand will be permanently destroyed. Same goes for any big tech company, especially big pharma. Do you know what's easier than that? Deny that it harms people! Say 'My vaccine is the best vaccine. It is the best thing since sliced bread' (because that's what you have to say in order to sell a product) 'If you have a problem with it, you have every right to sue us in court. Good luck paying for your lawyers when you're broke because of the lockdowns! We have paid off our Justices, so good luck.' There will be too many people in favor of the vaccine, in favor of the narrative that it really is the best thing since sliced bread! In fact, if there are any problems with it, it will be blamed on 'the COVID-19 virus'. It will never be blamed on the vaccine. They'll be like 'We didn't know that the COVID also killed people in this way! We now know the myriads of ways in which people die of the COVID.' That will be the narrative of the mainstream healthcare system, the medical system. They are the authority on these things, because they are the credentialed people, so you can't come up against them. People will blindly follow what they said. If the vaccine harms people, you won't even know what just happened. Edit - I'm not saying that they're evil or malevolent people. All of this is well-intentioned but unconscious behavior. It's just that looking at the way things are going right now and knowing how unconscious/deluded people behave, this is what I foresee.

I'm not so sure about that. There are way too many lay people who want the vaccine to work at all costs. People want the lockdowns to end and life to go 'back to normal' desperately because the lockdowns and stoppage of business/economy has put them in that position. If the vaccine does show negative effects: Will the media show it or report it? Will the people pay attention to those details or will they confirmation-bias it away? I have a feeling people will accept anything in the name of a vaccine. Not because they're scared of COVID, because they want the lockdowns to end. They want the lockdowns, social distancing, mask-wearing, travel-restrictions, business-problems, problems with the economy, etc. to end. In such a situation, someone who has just lost their job will push for literally anything in the name of a vaccine! Especially when this vaccine is being shown as this magic bullet cure-all, you'd better expect that.