Consept

Did none of them have the past tense for read? Sorry bit mean but funny Good selection of books btw

Travelling around Colombia, I would see it's predominantly blue, most towns have a church as the main center point in the town square and the people in general are quite religious and try, although sometimes fail to follow a God fearing path. Obviously there's a crime element as well but I wouldn't say it was the majority. Another thing I learned doing a tour in medelllin through one of Comunas, is that when it was very violent and crime was high, there weren't many opportunities for people, there were also issues with the farq guerrillas who would pressure people towards crime. The mayor invested heavily in the Comuna, which encouraged more tourists to visit and in turn gave local people a chance to make money from the tourists and then crime rates dropped. So essentially peoples level is impacted heavily by survival, I guess we all knew this but seeing it in action in this way was very eye opening.

I agree, the reality is its hard to allocate wealth in a democratic society even if everyone has good intentions, let alone when you bring the inevitable corruption or people in the system having allegiances to their particular group. I would say the government has probably improved in allocation, currently its not great but over the last few hundred years people are definitely better off overall. I wasnt saying its insane but yes utopian. Essentially what it seems youre advocating for is that the individual when enriched with wealth, can do a better job then a government at allocating wealth. Its not impossible that one person could make better decisions but theres also the possibility of them making disastrous decisions even if they have good intentions or even worse decisions if they are actively trying to attain more money and power. Its almost like a monarchy but of rich, powerful people, an oligarchy if you will. Some would say we do live in this reality now, if you think about campaign donations, lobbying etc, rich peoples interests are the ones that are being met and they choose to spend their money however they want. Its even more of a reality with people like Musk who has been put in charge of government spending. The reason why your idea is utopian is because you're assuming that someone who only cares about the betterment of the human race and is high in consciousness, will get that money and power and then make amazin decisions that work out for society. You're not taking into account that in a society where in theory, anyone can get rich and powerful, most people will not be like this so you're opening the door for these people to make societal decisions. The government is specifically setup so that there are checks and balances in decisions and so its not one rich man that has all the power. In practice its definitely not perfect but I would make the argument that its better than just playing lucky dip with rich and powerful people allocating wealth.

@integral Why are you not solely focused on making money in the first place so that you can make the world a better place through resources? Maybe you are doing this I don't know, but if this is so effective in terms of saving the world, why dont you go down a career path that makes you crazy money and then use that money to accompish the ideas you lay out? You could do sales or create some course that people need. In theory if you're not trying to get rich then your not trying to feed your family. You think people who are disagreeing with you are idealistic and at stage green but you actually come across as idealistic and utopian in that you think a billionaire can just decide to raise the consciousness of the world and it would happen.

True but we were talking about this Robbins guy, he wanted to make impact on the consciousness of people not just make money selling ice cream and not be burdened with unearned fortune. It could be argued that he made more impact with his books than he ever would've done with his fortune. I agree though technology and survival needs are important for society. However I would argue the balance currently is way off where we are completely focused on growth and innovation and the expansion of our collective consciousness is being hindered because of it. We can't actually handle the innovation, look at what has happened with social media, for all its good points it's caused chaos in terms of making sense of the world, as well as division. Throwing more fuel on the fire doesn't necessarily help consciousness grow

@integral Real talk though the people who have had the most positive impact on society throughout history are those that have either disregarded their opulent wealth completely or not used it. If you're talking about high consciousness individuals, which you are obviously it's hard to find one that wealth has been the main factor of their impact. Another way to look at it is how many people who had great wealth have actually been completely shackled by it and not been able to reach their potential high consciousness levels? As Jesus said its easier for the camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven. I don't take this as a celebration of poverty and hatred of wealth, it's just a recognition of the unseen difficulties of having wealth and how it limits your spiritual growth. To reel off names of course Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Eckhart Tolle, Marcus Auelius is one of the most revered and remembered roman leaders because he didn't succumb to wealth and power and was able to be a leader in stoic thought centuries after his death. How many super rich people throughout history have increased societies consciousness? If anything most are just lessons in how wealth and power corrupt or excesses of wealth and many have actually brought a lot of suffering. I'm not saying money itself is evil but it's not the easy answer people believe it to be.

OK so you were dating 8-10 rated girls, when you say dated are you saying that you had relationships with them, you slept with them, ONS? What we talking about here? If youre saying theyre hypergamous and for you to have seen that im guessing that either you were in a relationship with one and they left you for a higher rated dude or that they were in a relationship with someone and left that person for you, but dont let me put words in your mouth, how did it go down? I think theres scolding against the black pill because it doesnt actually improve your situation it just takes up a victim mentality, which in any domain doesnt help you. People dont like to be around negative people and black pill are very negative, at the same time their rhetoric doesnt really penetrate into mainstream consciousness so its really them that suffer their mentality. Also I'm not sure that theres not some form of BDD (Body Dysmorphic disorder) going, because they are hyper focused on particular body parts to the point that they do surgery in extreme cases, this is actually a symptom of BDD. Well yeah this is the antidote to the black pill

@TheEnigma Thanks, next time I'm wherever you are ill take you out for a drink But yeah I obviously agree with you and it was good to hear your perspective. A lot of guys including me when I was younger, do believe that they just need to get money and power and then girls will come flocking, but really theres a lot more going on than that. If most guys just sorted this out they'd get so much more success. This is an interesting idea to think about. Does power automatically corrupt people or is it case of those who have an insatiable appetite for power are kind of corrupt anyway? Theres some statistics that theres a high amount of psychopaths high up in blue chip companies, if you think about it to get to such a high level you would value career and material success more than you would relationships or other aspects of life. So i think success in this realm does attract a certain type of person, of course not always but a higher % than the population as a whole. Mostly i think people just want to find a good match, if you look at powerful celebrities or even just rich people, if they settle down they usually go for someone from a similar background, similar education, similar career etc. Jay-z & Beyonce, ASAP Rocky & Rhinana, Ryan Reynolds & Blake Lively etc etc. These guys literally can choose any women and would most likely have more power over a 'normal' woman but they still choose someone nearer their status or even above their status sometimes. haha OK bro, not gonna repeat myself again, if you dont get it you dont get it. I liked your personal power idea btw thats the one thing i said i agree with

In the story doesn't Buddha decline all his inheritance of a kingdom to pursue enlightenment?

Again this is a strawman, I didn't say I asked my mum and dad(they have a terrible relationship anyway lol), I said, this is the third time I'm saying this, I don't know if I'm making it clear enough - my direct experience firstly, relationships I see around me and statistics on dating trends. You said you were using your direct experience to form your opinions, which I can accept although of course this will be anecdotal and based off the type of women you were going for which would be the case for me in my relationships also. I would be interested in what experience you have with hypergamy, so what I asked which you didn't answer is "did someone you were dating leave you for someone better or did someone who was in a relationship leave them for you?". If you could explain this it might round out your points. The other thing is if you were basing your opinion only on direct experience it wouldn't make sense for you to make a general statement on all dating, such as its changed massively. It might have but it could be your specific dating life has changed for reasons specific to you. OK I like this as a more rounded interpretation of power. However how you phrased the initial statement I wouldn't agree with, I think these are traits that can be attractive to women, I don't think they're trading sex for it, they're just attracted to it because of how they feel around these traits, for example his ability to control his emotions would make her feel safe or his funniness makes her enjoy herself, these things trigger positive emotions in her. There still has to be a sexual attraction of course. Also all the things you mentioned can be worked on, if this is the case, it effectively debunks the black pill.

I'm just asking how he formed his opinions, otherwise it's not really based on much. I am open though, I'm not really tied to my opinion, it's just I've read up on a lot of what he's saying and it's easily debunked, as well I don't see it in my personal experience. What points would you say are good advice? Would you agree with him that men generally just want to get sex using their power and women generally want to get power using sex?

Right OK you don't want to engage in statistics that put your point of view into question, cool. I'll disregard that you said a couple posts back that stats say people are dating less, I guess it's only applicable with your points. Forgive the sarcasm, it's just you're contradicting yourself, but we can move on from that. So we'll go with your direct experience, you didn't actually answer this before btw. Have you dealt with many high quality women? What was your experience with hypergamy if this was the case, did women leave you for a higher status man or did they leave their men for you? Feel free to be as specific as you like. As all your opinions are based on this experience, it seems quite crucial.

Youre strawmanning my point, i said im getting my information from direct experience firstly, then looking at real relationships around me. Where are you getting your viewpoint? You didnt answer this in the first place. Secondly you didnt engage with my next point which was from pew research - "Some 86% of household heads with a four-year college degree – and at least one parent with a degree – have a spouse or partner who is also a college graduate" How can you explain this stat if guys date anyone they think is hot? You say this but then you dont actually engage with points contrary to your own point.

Have you dealt with a top shelf woman? Where do you derive your opinions from, is it experience or online? Not attacking you but pretty much all youre saying is exactly what is said in red pill content, when i speak on this its from either direct experience or friends and family. I'd also be open to stats of course. People tend to marry people with the same education as themselves - "Some 86% of household heads with a four-year college degree – and at least one parent with a degree – have a spouse or partner who is also a college graduate" (Pew Research) This kind of affects your point, your idea would be that rich guys would go with any hot girl regardless of her status, but this just isnt true according to this trend. In general people want to marry people around the same level, its also more likely because of the circles they may move in, for example a lot of people might meet at university or at their job etc. Again, i'm not saying that there arent transactional people who would marry exclusively for looks or for money but its not really the norm.

Nah bro with respect this is a very basic surface level view. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, yes maybe in certain industries this game gets played ie entertainment industry. You also get men who just want to fuck as many women as possible and women who want to extract as much money as possible. But in general day to day relationships not everyone is transactional in this way. It's kinda like saying in all friendships it's about what you can get from the other person in terms of resources, yes it happens but most people would prefer genuine friends they can connect authentically with. Women are attracted to guys that make them feel good, it's pretty much that simple. If you talk to a woman for 10 mins and you have an amazing vibe, she's not thinking about how much money you make and how powerful you are, she's just enjoying the vibe. She might think about the practical stuff later if/when it comes to that. Homeless guys get girls, broke guys get girls, fat guys get girls, yes their charisma has to be high but it shows that confidence and charisma is probably the most important factor. No matter how much money you got, if you make a woman feel uncomfortable she won't want to be around you, unless she's just trying to take advantage of you. One thing I'll agree with you on is being 'nice' doesn't work but that's because its inauthentic, women can sense this and it makes them feel uncomfortable. Main thing if you're grounded and authentic in who you are, you will have your best chance with women, doesn't mean they'll all like you, you'll just put yourself in the best position you can be in.

Here's the thing, women want to meet and get in relationships with men, the issue men are finding is that women's standards are higher than before, when guys just had to have a job because women couldn't earn nearly as much. We now live on a more free society, which is what everyone always wants, so women are free to work and don't 'need' men in the same way they mightve previously. Does that mean the end of relationships? No, it means we've all climbed up the hierarchy of needs as a collective society and so things like, love and belonging and self-esteem are what people are after. Which means that men who previously weren't encouraged to show emotion and have emotional iq, can not provide these things to a woman, so women are not choosing these men. Most of the black pill and red pill content is designed for these types of men, instead of teaching them how to elevate and become complete people, they teach then that it's the women's fault for wanting more and that women are hypergamous and are just going to leave you if they get a better offer. Nothing about how to have a healthy relationship, just about maintaining the victim mindset. This gets clicks cos it hits on pain points of men that have been rejected or been in bad relationships and it keeps them there because there isn't actually a solution, so they keep consuming the content and feel validated for not improving their situation.

I like him, his youtube content is really good as well

@MarkKol

@MarkKol Their content is designed to resonate with you. If you think about a con man, to the person theyre conning, theyre great, they say all the right things, they make them feel seen, they offer hope etc and sometimes even if you see red flags you ignore them because of all the 'positive' stuff. A con man gives you the promise of what you want but never really gives it to you and takes what he wants from you the deeper you're drawn in. Think about the girls he groomed, when they met he gave them passionate love, understanding, an attractive presentation, promised they would get married etc, to these girls this is what they've always wanted. Because of that when he asks them tp gey on camera and make money for him theyre willing to make that sacrifice because they've bought into the lie. What I would say is Tey and fi d role models or mentors that don't wish to exploit you and don't slip in toxic advice with the good advice. Also never follow someone fully just take what is useful.

Yeah it was wild back then, some would even get a camera in the room when they got backed. Imagine the girl watching and theyre breaking down everything your saying, how to counter your points, escalating etc you just thought that was an attractive guy with charisma

It's a bit gray area because you can't really film without consent if you're going to publish, you need release forms otherwise you could get sued. Usually in-fields blur the faces which in theory I guess would be on the right side if legality but it's still a bit morally dubious as their voices are usually clear as well as any identifying marks, they have no idea they're being filmed and in some cases they could be quite compromising situations. So it's not completely clean hence the backlash

You would know better than me, but public facing the optics weren't as bad for rsd as others, behind the scenes it was probably different

The Julien thing was bad but i think what put the nail in the coffin was really bad, unscrupulous PUAs. RSD definitely had its issues and maybe just the idea of training guys to roam the streets trying to talk to girls looks really bad inherently. Some PUAs just took it to another level and were actually scumbags who would push it too far with girls. Youtube just didnt really police any pick-up content but the backlash against these guys was too much for them to ignore. RSD actually survived Juliengate but they just couldnt have survived the onslaught on the whole industry, which wasnt necessarily their fault but they were part of it. It seems like it affected Owen a lot but if he was being honest and took responsibility, he wouldve seen the changes he needed to make. Leo called him out in the pick-up rant video and i think Owen responded as well so he was aware. Anyway this Vice doc about Justin Wayne was really the final bullet -

I dont think all of them really support Trump but they do know most of their audience does, so if they dont speak too much about politics they probably didnt vote Trump, I saw a Jeffy video the other day that made me think that, Not sure about the rest, Owens def on the Trump train though

Racial segregation and jim crow is a bit much, anything close to that will cause a civil war. I think the most damaging thing that will happen is the mass deportation, that will destroy families, jobs the economy, sentiment toward the US. The other thing is if he actually does the tariffs that could mess up a lot of things as well. The US will be set back immensely, even if he does 10% of what hes saying, but the segregation stuff would be a stretch, thats a really fringe issue.