Schizophonia

You can't win with hysterics by debating them or by backing down; subconsciously their egos want to feel persecuted or like they're on a crusade. This is the real agenda. You have to tell them to fuck off/snub them.

👍

Lifestyle and vision of masculinity. I hold a fairly conservative and naturalist point of view so I think it might contrast with what is usually heard here, in the personal development space in general, and what you’ve promoted yourself; so it could well be interesting. It could be politics too.

In a way you could call it a test by the universe.

We’ll debate which actualizer has the prettiest legs. @Yimpa with all that E2 he's having with her cornflakes is she going to dethrone the queen @Sugarcoat

@LordFall Do you want to have a debate in January or February. I need a reason to work on my English. edit I'm trolling below but I'm serious.

@AION There is no test it's an attempt to explain women's behavior through a male logic. Unless you vote for the left Being far less socially constrained than a woman thanks to your big hairy balls you naturally navigate your relationships with others and the world in general in a more "boolean" manner; true or false, like or dislike, tests, and so on because you have far less to deal with an "ambivalence" arising from the various sensibilities that come into play when a woman enters a collective subject even just a simple human interaction between two people. So when a woman does something weird you interpret it as a "test" because you fail to see just how much of a Terminator you are compared to her and just how twisted and stretched out she is. It looks like a test due to the enigmatic nature of the interaction for our logic, but there is no intention to test; it is the male mind that "gets straight to the point" and may indeed test. It’s like the idea that "you shouldn't be too nice". To the male mind it doesn't seem logical; one would naturally prefer someone who gives more after all, as my grandpa used to say what’s better than one cake? Two cakes lol. But for the female mind which is socially vulnerable "more" can actually be problematic, because there is a danger inherent in having power. When you watch a documentary about gangs women are usually aware of the dangers whereas men tend to show off. As a man unless you're hysterical you rarely block people unless they’re really spamming you, whereas women will block for all sorts of reasons. You’ll follow just about anyone on Instagram (or elsewhere) and accept their follow requests "might as well" while women don't. So you might interpret a positive response to keeping your distance as "don't be nice," but the real logic is that by maintaining some distance you give the woman room to breathe, a sense of control whereas being too "nice" can become overwhelming.

Lol "low-value males" Partnering with the people we prefer is already what everyone does. What is weird and neurotic is feeling the need to adopt a perspective that involves characterizing people negatively; focus on the people first, then qualify them. No one speaks like that in real life, and what lies behind it is a lack of sovereignty run through the projection machine. The more you replace "I like" or "I don't like" with generalizing language elements, that purports to be "objective", "ethical," the more you find yourself in a neurotic position. And this is problematic because in such a position you unconsciously are no longer pursuing your own happiness but rather the flourishing of the symbolic order that instilled this superego in you. Yes maybe but I was saying that the metaphor she constructed to serve her agenda didn't work. Because she cheated by lumping together under the term "predator" someone who wants to reproduce with you, which fosters your reproduction and the propagation of your genes, and someone who wants to kill and eat you which does the opposite; to lead you to this second conclusion. She also suggested that being inconspicuous or dull-colored in the water is the same thing as being unattractive. The two concepts are not linked; in fact if dull-colored fish are favored natural selection will also naturally select for fish that prefer dull-colored mates (since their offspring are more likely to be dull-colored and thus reproduce themselves). Consequently being "dull-colored" becomes the standard of attractiveness even if for some reasonit appears to be the opposite to her human eye. Nevermind.

Because they lack the means and it serves no purpose given their position. They didn't hesitate to invade Tibet because it was in their interest.

You are very negative.

We are constantly being hijacked by Maya. It could be dating, politics, or which Häagen-Dazs you’re going to eat for lunch; it could be anything. I just wanted to urge you to take a few seconds to reflect on how all these things have no absolute value and are dog shit. I’m not even advocating for asceticism; even if you’re more of a Nietzschean type and "just" want a life filled with nobler, holistic objects like riding a motocross bike bike or having a girlfriend and a dog named Cookie the main obstacle to manifesting these things (starting with the feeling of the flow of love itself; feeling that things are going well, that there is progress, that it’s fluid, that it’s pleasant [...]) is this bunch of stupid objects you’ve identified with and keep getting stuck in a loop over. Talking about Trump is bullshit, talking about politics is bullshit, talking about diets is bullshit, talking about the dating game is bullshit, talking about the neighbor's cat shitting on the rug is bullshit; most books are bullshit, TV is bullshit, video games are bullshit... everything is bullshit and hides God. You’ll say it’s important to care about politics because "it’s our future after all bla bla bla" as if you had the slightest bit of knowledge or power but that’s just another ego strategy to cling to this pile of shit. Even if you have the power to change, destroy, or evolve these things resolution can only come from love, that is to say from the movement of attention. Intellectualizing the object, becoming attached to it runs counter to resolution. You do not even need to be interested in non-duality or the Law of Attraction to see this; deep down you know all the time that the solution to problems comes from "common sense", "action" [...]; from love, never from reaction, psychosis, hysteria [...] what is not love, which are the ego, resistance to change, to love. You don't need "no-fap", drugs or whatever else to change your life or lead a more creative one, you simply need to reflect enough on just how shitty the objects you invest yourself in actually are. Clear your mind and ask yourself "Does this have any value or meaning?" Keep searching for that meaning until you conclude that doing nothing at all is better than consuming this. You will come to realize the consumerist idiocracy we live, you will progressively automatically eliminate compulsive practices and become creative again. Contemplating the vanity of maya is the path to holistic development and happiness, for happiness stems from a normal human life free from attachment to trivial things. This post is dog shit and you’ve wasted a minute of your life reading this instead of being cool. That’s the paradox of the cyclical nature of Samsara 😸: you have to pick apart the shit, the Kali Yuga, to ultimately break free and reach that state of coolness, the "Nirvana," only to eventually step out of it again one day for some reason or another; because the karmic logic. And I'm making this topic to talk to myself, and I'm talking to myself because I don't (yet) apply what I advocate.

@Judy2 You ask for help from the guy at the tax office counter. You tell him you don't understand anything lol; between the young or worse the old people and the migrants who are in the west, they are used to it

@AION I know plenty of girls (and pretty ones) who only want guys who are particularly nice. The more “lazy” a girl is/the more she is not interested in anything, the more she will give in to a coercive person.

No because the desire to have a relationship, to cuddle and kiss blablabla has nothing to do with the desire to rape, which is a sadistic delirium. Just because both involve the body doesn't mean that a "lack" of one will cause a lack of the other. If you really wanted sex there are escort girls.

@Emerald The people who want to rape/kill you because you are attractive are an extreme minority like Ted Bundy. Incels are no more likely to be rapists than anyone else; killing and raping are matters of sociopathy.

I love pork fat with bread and raw garic

This is the political state of France in 2012.

@Alexop I didn't know you actually have Swedish nationality now. I'd like to live in Sweden one day it's a cool country I enjoyed my road trip there. There is an atavistic attraction to this atmosphere.

40mg on empty stomach or nothing It mess up one's hair

Just because a woman is less attractive doesn't mean she is any less likely to be a potential victim of a sexual predator. On the contrary an attractive woman is more likely to attain a higher social status and when you have a higher status you are better protected against predators. The fact is that when you are more attractive whether man or woman you have a better chance of reproducing and reproducing with people who are themselves and more attractive. It is true that what is considered an advantage and thus ultimately attractive depends on the environment; however behind this "left-wing relativistic post-Darwinism" there is also a coping mechanism, a shadow. That is what bothered me and probably bothers her and makes her metaphor shaky, as it is forced in order to address a psychical contradiction; believe.

It’s good but never deep enough. Objectively the LSD is a cut above I’m keeping that one.

Each time the test says ENTJ but I have doubts

China is doing well that’s why it can afford to have a polished president; not the opposite (or rather both are true; to be non dualist ) American elites and the middle class feel threatened and perceive themselves as losing status; consequently they will vote for someone who whether consciously or unconsciously (which is what Leo meant by "vibe" when trying to explain Trump's election) acts in their interests. Trump’s character is well-suited to this situation of decline: he is uninhibited and capable of pursuing an imperialist policy. Leo and others here see Trump simply as a "lunatic" (I’m not saying whether that’s true or false; I’m moving past that) because you aren't enough part of enough of the collective subjets that favored Trump to understand the necessity of such individuals for their agenda. For the average family man to the Silicon Valley elite, passing to the Israeli/Jewish diaspora, Trump’s character is usefull, relevant to those people, relevance enough to propel him to power. Nothing happens by chance; randomness is an illusion. History is dialectical, a configuration of power dynamics between collective actors and if you limit yourself to viewing things through the lens of individual subjects, your worldview will be blurred and distorted. You will simply dismiss people as "stupid," "erratic," or what have you, without ever understanding why these "morons" keep coming back again and again. Trump's plan is a two-step process : 1) Maintaining the petrodollar by bringing key oil producers such as Venezuela or Iran into the fold. Essentially the United States particularly in the post-Cold War era has been the world's leading industrial power. It was able to pressure various oil producers and buyers (threatening for exemple to withhold Boeing aircraft, US manufactured goods, access to Visa/Mastercard banking networks; anything was possible) to mandate the dollar as the currency for trade. This boosted the dollar's value allowing the US to import goods and services from other countries much more cheaply, or alternatively to devalue the dollar here and there by running the printing presses. This devaluation reduced the burden of public debt: if your currency is worth less, everything automatically becomes more expensive but the debt (and the interest) is not inflation-indexed; thus it loses value, "weight"; i's a way to cheat the system. The issue is that the United States is now competing, naturally, with Europe (which has rebuilt itself since World War II), and above all with China as well as increasingly with emerging powers like India and perhaps one day Indonesia, Russia, and so on. This means that now that China produces its own aircraft, phones, microchips, and the like, it is becoming increasingly tempting for certain oil-producing nations for specific geopolitical or ideological reasons to take the risk to stop selling their oil in dollars and switch to the yuan (or the euro, or any other currency, for that matter), because in this instance even if the United States threatens you and carries out those trade threats, you can now still trade with competitors. You can even go so far as to threaten the United States with this kind of customer-base leverage. That’s exactly what Emmanuel fucking Macron did when he showed up at Davos in "Top Gun" mode: he tacitly invited China to step in as a trade partner. Trump once threatened to slap tariffs on French champagne and wine imports, but the issue as Macron knows is that this industry is becoming less and less dependent on American customers; the product can now be sold to the Chinese, even if it means making less money in a worst-case scenario. And as time goes on as China and other emerging nations grow wealthier, their capacity to buy champagne will increase, while the U.S. will lose its ability to exert pressure through its consumer base. Such a move so (to stock buying things in dollar especially petrolium) would lead to a depreciation of the dollar, resulting in a significant loss of American purchasing power abroad and by extension a general decline in purchasing power. 2) Bring capital back to the United States. That is the purpose of these tariffs and protectionism in general, It isn't just an idea of Trump he was advised to do this. Given that the balance of trade and capital flows are increasingly favoring competitors he is attempting to reindustrialize the United States and protect the dollar by restricting product imports. The logic is that if fewer goods are imported (from Canada for example), certain sectors will increase production thereby significantly bolstering the value of the dollar. The other strategy is massive investment in AI. The United States is investing heavily in AI and data centers less out of kindness and to cure Uncle Jaco’s anal cancert han to massively and drastically ramp up production/production-cost ratio. Oil as i described it before is the primary factor but it is not the only product that bolsters American soft power and purchasing power; printed circuit boards and computer products in general play a similar role. This is a key reason why the United States wants to protect Taiwan from being absorbed by China. Taiwan is the world's largest supplier of printed circuit boards; if it were to be absorbed by mainland China an entire sector vital to soft power would fall under Chinese control, a sector whose products would btw then likely be sold in yuan or other currencies specifically to spite the United States, creating the same problem as with oil. You are right to suggest that the project looks like a trap and doesn't seem to work. It will be a make-or-break situation, depending on the motivation of the various stakeholders.All I mean is that from a historical-materialist perspective it was to be expected.

Lol in this last case “predator" means the possibility of reproduction, not the possibility of being killed and prevented from reproducing. That's the most dishonest reasoning I've ever seen.

Indeed my Nemra Saturday is Shabbat in Jewish tradition. This seems logical given Armenia's proximity to the Near East. Armenian must have borrowed from ancient Semitic languages such as Aramaic or even directly from Hebrew.