Schizophonia

Not at all, I mainly want someone to have a good time with and share love with. The libido is there but it's only a few times a week at most. The easiest thing for a man is to "let himself be seduced". The woman dictates the shape of the "hole" and you respond to it. When you simp there is in fact a refusal to submit to this imperative (the proof is that otherwise you would not give "too much" interest, you would give the interest requested; in quality and quantity). Because of the ego.

But you're still in this fucking "game". Have you considered how strangely counter-intuitive all this is? It makes no sense for something as primal as seduction not to unfold smoothly. High-performance software is frictionless software. What I believe is happening is that people are so mentally colonized by certain ideological, cultural, and religious egregores that they are abnormally anxious. Everything is already there inside you within your reward system; from how to reply to a message to other issues like what to eat, who to be friends with, or which career or activity suits you best. There’s no need to learn the "game" and end up being lunatif/hateful because of the sheer burden of that point of view on life/relationships, or to take psychedelics to figure out what to do while lying stoned in bed with your mind full of "machine-scapes." But because of conditioning we’re convinced that if we don't watch ourselves, we’ll stop being loved; and paradoxically that actually leads to communicating in a less-than-ideal way. That’s the main reason why I know, and I’ve told my crush this several times lol, that I dislike texting; because fear makes me write too much or say weird things, whereas if I just let my reward system take over I’d come across as much more "normal" and certainly more pleasant. There’s a discussion in another thread about poor Ed Sheeran; if you injected him with some pure testosterone and maybe a bit of a benzodiazepine, he’d tell them all to go fuck themselves. "I’m a nice guy maybe a bit awkward but you’re clearly doing this on purpose so please just leave." For the polite/well-mannered version lol. But like everyone else, he was told to eat his broccoli and think the kind of politically correct thoughts I won't get into here, so his first instinct now is just to roll over and take it. That is where I part ways with traditional masculinism; I believe that "wanting to appear masculine" is a mistake, and that it mostly just makes you moody and self-centered. What I’m aiming for is a return to basics listening to the body and intuition, what my brains would love to do. What I notice in myself is that it makes me both harsher and more judgmental, yet at the same time more loving in my desire to take care of my affairs and of others.

Yes

But how will they sell their products if people no longer have the money to buy them? Buying the products requires a salary, a salary that is being lost due to the increased productivity brought about by AI. So they will have to lower the price of their services/products anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall

About a year ago I think, I can't remember, there was a memo from the French domestic intelligence services about a "strange" increase in the number of French engineers marrying Chinese students. They suspected the Chinese of sending women to marry them in exchange for informations.

To be imperialist one must first have the means, and China has often been divided/in civil war or directly attacked by foreign forces. Qing dynasty China was late in the industrial revolution and was crushed by a coalition of Europeans. Now that they are in a position of strength they are plotting and advancing their agenda like everyone else.

He means to his opinion

No given what you say about Trump I’m sure that if you had the power you would at least be tempted to rationalize rigging the election against him "because he’s a lunatic," and so on. Just like Musk admitted to doing everything he could to help him win because he was afraid of the Democrats' immigration policy and other things. And once again you constantly make choices that aren't particularly intuitively "ethical" according to our collective unconscious; you almost certainly own electronic devices made by Foxconn a company that has anti-suicide nets on its buildings, you eat meat that might come from a bad factory farm, and in the summer you don't hesitate to swat flies and mosquitoes, even though they are sentient living beings, and so on. The problem is the idealist bias (if you are truly non-dualist then you must also acknowledge the other materialist polarity at the same time; the historical materialism, materialist dialectics as marxists say). The materialist basis of morality lies in the subconscious internalization of the superego of the written and unwritten laws (taboos) of your culture or even just your immediate social circle. One might even imagine that your body’s biological needs influence your concept of morality; thus, rather than speaking of the superego, one could just as well speak of the "symbolic order," as Lacan did. The problem with idealism is that it generates what some Marxists would call "bourgeois morality", that is an ethic that serves not so much your own interests as those of the class that dominates you. If you fail to see that the "bad" things are actually at an unconscious level injunctions or necessities imposed by the agendas of others, of collective subjects that dominate you, then the very idea of rebelling cannot even occur to you. You can do "emasculating" things like becoming vegetarian or buying an ethically sourced phone, but anything that involves imposing your agenda (and by extension that of your social class) will quickly be deemed "bad"; for this concept of wrongness is relative and shifts significantly throughout history, rooted as it is in the balance of power between collective subjects.

Because you dont have the power to/because it's not particularly in your interest.

Sometimes 8-year-olds are right; they have far less conditioning and a very strong metabolism. The concept of hypocrisy is a judgment external to the realities of power dynamics. He uses his money to seize power because it serves his agenda, yet refuses to let the same thing be done to him for that very reason. You eat ribeye steaks and swat mosquitoes that bother you in the summer, even though you wouldn't want a giant doing the same to you.

Precisely i would say a relationship is truly dead only when you let the person simply occupy their own space like a funeral urn or a keepsake photo. This implies for starters not blocking them; there is something immature and sordid about deleting someone with whom you shared a chapter of your life’s journey, a "chapter of samsara" because "it makes me feel good and proud right now." Everything he might have done to please you and conversely, the "relationship artwork" just to avoid some pain? But it also implies this because the act tacitly signals that you haven't actually let go of what the person represents. Ultimately this risks driving you to repeat similar relationships over and over again because you condemned the signifier (the person themselves) rather than the signified (the underlying reasons why you were attracted to them, why you sustained the relationship, why you acted the way you did, and in reality, why it ended). To address those who draw a comparison with food do you want a healthy relationship with food or do you want to remain a compulsive eater who has to hide food.

No.

I have never seen the point of blocking anyone except for spam. I don't know how someone can dynamite a relationship with a person they've shared good times with just for a bit of personal comfort and feeling of pride. Even if it is painful or even humiliating it goes against my nature.

You never cooked/ate garlic ?

Musk reacted the right way when the Disney boss tried to blackmail him.

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.