Emerald

Perhaps that's true for Andrew Tate in particular because he's a famous fighter and he can put on an aggressive show that some women would find interesting. And there are quite a few guys like him that exist. I've encountered quite a few. In the little redneck town I grew up in, there would be these emotionally blunted mildly attractive trashy guys with macho vibes. Maybe 1 or 2 out of every 20 guys were like that. And they'd usually have a few average to slightly above average looking trashy women getting into cat fights (and sometimes fist fights) over them because these types of guys are always cheating. Andrew Tate kind of reminds of the Platonic Ideal of that type of local yokel. He's what that type of person thinks they are and are trying very hard to be. And certainly these guys are misogynistic. And they get laid pretty often because their social circle is still partially in Stage Red and values what they are. And many trashy women are looking for a Stage Red petty warlord to turn into a Stage Blue trad hubby with the power of her love and body... which of course is a fool's errand. But these guys only account for a fraction of misogynists that are out there. And they only get saved from the awkwardness around women because small redneck towns are very social. And working class people are more communal in their ways of operating. And because they are somewhat proximal to the Masculine beauty standard, especially compared to others in the same environment, they can garner some popularity in that environment. So, he gets saved from the awkward social isolation and manifesto writing because he's a Stage Red/Blue guy in a Stage Blue communal setting where there are other Red/Blue men and women who see him like the villagers in Beauty and the Beast see Gaston. But I understand that, even men who are becoming emotionally stunted and unable to interact normally with women because of watching people like Andrew Tate, believe they're benefiting. And they believe he's helping them and that the misogynistic view of women will eventually pay off and they'll be getting tons of sex once they pull it off. It's what happens when people believe that the poison is the cure and that the cure is the poison. Here's an example of a (really accurate) parody of the type of guy that I'm talking about who does get laid more because he's misogynistic...

1) That's true. It's more about their perception. 2) I somewhat doubt that misogynistic guys (on the whole) get more sex than guys who aren't. My observation has been that guys who are more misogynistic than average tend to be obsessed with women and put women up on a pedestal, which is why they put so much energy into hating women and trying to tear us down from that pedestal. And my guess from what I've observed about misogynists and been on the receiving end of is that 90% of the time, that leads to lots of insecurity and difficulty approaching and communicating with women. The more hatred, the more obsession. The more obsession, the more desperation. The more desperation the more social avoidance and awkwardness. The more misogynistic a guy gets, the more he loses the ability to have a normal human interaction with women. It's only like 10% of misogynistic guys who go out and do pick up and can pull off the misogynistic macho man vibe that might get him laid here and there. And this is only possible if a guy is able to gain the respect of other men for his machoness. The rest just seethe in their room about alpha males fucking all the women and write manifestos. Like, look around on this forum (or other places on the internet where men tend to congregate) and you'll find plenty examples of your truly average middle-of-the-road misogynist. And these guys usually give me inexperienced awkward nerdy vibes. But I'm sure Andrew Tate himself is getting a lot of sex. But he's got a lot of aggression and the ability to block out all of his insecurities through emotional disconnection. So, even if it's clear to the trained eye that he's got tons of vulnerabilities, I can see a woman who hasn't developed that radar to fall for his macho man act. But that's why he's famous. He's an exceptional misogynist... an aspirational misogynist. Most misogynists are usually just guys with no social skills who believe like women hold the power to validate or invalidate the value of their existence. And they get resentful and catty about that.

These are generalizations based off of what I've observed. My perception is that men tend to be more lonely because they're less likely to develop social connections with the broader community in general and more likely to think of themselves as independent/loners. And there's this belief that men should be strong and not need anyone. And men might be less likely to reach out to others fro support. So, I think it may be the case that women are more likely to feel their loneliness and acknowledge it. But men may not acknowledge or share because they believe they shouldn't feel lonely or need anyone.

Certainly Fascism is all about appeals to male dominance and hyper-masculinity. But are men who subscribe to these things (excluding pickup artists who are specifically focused on approaching women) actually having more sex than men who don't subscribe to these things? To me, it seems like most of these guys are making themselves more socially stunted and nerdy through subscribing to these ideologies, and are thus much less attractive to women as a whole than if they'd never gotten into those ideologies. And plenty of young women are wanting to do the American version of the 4B movement because of young men's turn towards Fascism. So if anything, all of this is backfiring on men's ability to get sex and female companionship. Like... who needs problems, when you have solutions like these?

You already are mysterious... as are all human beings with all our psychological and emotional complexities. And if you want that mystery to be seen by others, you must come to know the depths of those psychological and emotional complexities of yours at such a deep level that the vast majority of people don't yet understand. And the first place to begin is total self-honesty and accurate articulation to yourself about your feelings, thoughts, and patterns.

No. That's the problem with the left. We become so strategic that we cede ground to the right. And then, it will become more and more taboo to support civil rights, trans rights, gay rights, women's rights, abortion rights, etc. That's the way the Overton Window works. They more you insist on something, the more normalized it becomes. And the left is always ceding ground to the right and trying to meet in the middle, while the right just goes scorched Earth and plays power games and insists that their view is correct... facts be damned. So, the right never goes "Should we stop hating on trans people?" or "Should we cool our language on immigrants?" They wear their freak flag out and proud, and tons of people jump onto their movement because they have a vision... a terrible hate-filled vision... but a vision. It's time to stop being strategic and start being honest and go on the offensive, instead of playing defense all the time. And the leftwing politicians need to have a vision that includes both human-rights and economic populist messages.

The main thing is that these Red Pill influencer guys are grifters. The vast majority of them are playing the role of misogynist alpha chad because it's lucrative. They are actually fine with dating single mothers. And they're not going to pass up on the ability to love and be loved by an attractive woman if the opportunity arises to have real intimacy. But they know their audience. And their audience will eat up anything that tells them "Don't worry. You're more desirable than single mothers, promiscuous women, etc. because you're a man and your value only ever goes up while their value only ever goes down." And then the guys who watch it throw their money and views at them as they revel is schadenfreude that the girl in their poly sci class in undergrad is going to be sorry that she didn't pick him when she's a discarded valueless single mom with a body count over 1. All it is is just profiting off of the shame, bitterness, and grievances of lonely men and showing them an fake but aspirational character of the strong alpha male that takes no shit from women and feels totally secure... and is in the role of selector and rejector of women, instead of women being in the role of selector and rejector of him.

It's not about hating Trump. I hope he lives lives his long and merrily... just away from the levers of power. He's a very immature and dangerous person to entrust with this responsibility. In his last term, there were more checks and balances on his power. But in this term, there aren't that many checks and balances. And it's possible that he could erode the checks and balances of the system away so entirely that America devolves into Fascism or simply into pure chaos with the aftertaste of Fascism. Anyone who's talking about Trump in a serious way is really just concerned about the consequences.

It's more about emotions than about intellect. Someone with a strong intellect can use that intellect to trick themselves into ignoring issues with Trump... simply because Trump hits some emotional button for them. My guess is that he's in this community of men, who are largely right-leaning. And that's who respects him and where he has status. And he's gotten influenced by his environment that's very pro-Trump. He also could just be kind of anti-Feminine in general. Anyone who hates the Feminine, will want to vote Trump because Trump and the right wing movement is about controlling and eradicating the Feminine from society in any and all ways.

100%

To be honest, I think it would be a bit dangerous for the receiving man to wear a condom during oral sex. It seems like a choking hazard. But you wouldn't be able to catch genital herpes from someone with mouth herpes unless they have an active infection. And you can usually see it when a person has a cold sore. But you can also ask the person if they have a cold sore if you're concerned.

When I think about human nature, I see it as an unfurling of new archetypes, inventions, and paradigms that already lay in wait in the recesses of the human psyche. So, I view all things that we invent, create, think, do, and subject ourselves to as part of that natural unfurling. And that will naturally take us into a state of opposition to our nomadic wiring as those are the stress tests necessary to bringing about greater changes as a collective. For example, we have evolved to be deeply immersed in community. And we have a profound need for connection. And yet, we have developed a society that takes us away from connection. And one might think. This is unnatural for us. And it's unhealthy. And on one level, that's true. It's very stressful to the mind and body of a human being to be alone. But on a deeper level, this age of Hermicism is also part of the unfurling of new potentials where we are driven apart for a time to help us come more into our authenticity and to experience freedom... only to coalesce again from a higher ordering principle that allows both social connection and authenticity/will/autonomy at once. And certainly, there is the possibility that we can be a stillbirth species, where we don't make it past the tipping point and we self-destruct before reaching the new birth. But in the grand scheme of things, I have a lot of faith in humanity to make it through these stress tests. We're adapting so quickly and so well to so many things. We're just way up close to the phenomenon, and so we can't see that we're actually sticking the landing. 97.5% of humanity's past is nomadic. And 2.5% of humanity's past is agrarian (which is where all the conservative values were technological adaptations to survival). And just a sliver of a percentage has been industrial and post-industrial living. So, the past 10,000 years is like a sudden peak of change and growth and evolution. And we're still in that 10,000 year growth spurt. And growth spurts are always chaotic with all sorts of stresses to the human system. So, it's quite natural that we be stress tested by collective dynamics that run in opposition to our nomadic wiring.

What are you defining as unnatural? Human beings aren't capable of doing things outside of our nature. It's just that our nature looks different than other creatures on this planet. One of the major issues as human beings is that we see ourselves as existing as something outside of nature and interacting with it as an outsider, as opposed to recognizing that we are just as natural as any other living organism on this planet. Can you see that cars, computers, and all the tools that we have created are just as natural as when a beaver builds a dam, or a wasp builds a nest? And when we are subjected to any conditions, we will have contrasts that arise... both positive and negative. And this creates both growth and decay. Regeneration and degeneration. Birth and death. That is the way of nature. And it is the weakness of the cell that is the vigor of the organism. Degeneration is what helps us slough off the dead skin and move forward. We're always moving 10 steps forward and 9 steps back as a species. So, usually when people start labeling out "degeneration" they are just pointing out the things that are naturally decaying that they wanted to hold onto. And then they start believing that the entire world is degenerating and going to hell in a hand basket because their personal squishy bears are dying. But in reality, there's stability, regeneration, and degeneration all around us. But this is just spoiled modern thinking. We take for granted how awesome things are. And we only see a fallen world. Also, I'm going to need a CREDIBLE source to show that boys who don't play sports when they're little have smaller brains and are less Masculine.

I never believed in the idea that strong men - good times - weak men - hard times cycle. That always just seemed to me that this idea comes about from a type of modern spoiledness and seeing the contemporary way of life only through a negative lens. It's clear to me that good times (where people have their emotional and physical needs met) produces less trauma. And that subsequently produces psychologically healthier people who are able to adapt better to the world, and who are less prone to self-destruction. It's evident to me that human evolution is both cyclical and progressive with a trajectory towards love, unity, and expansion... and an awakening of global consciousness. It's similar to giving birth... with its cyclical patterns of painful contraction of the pelvic muscles enabling the cervix to expand wider and wider and wider... until something brand new can come about. And I believe that we've collectively been in this process of labor and giving birth for the past 10,000 years as there have been many contractions and expansions over the course of written history compared to our nomadic past. Right now, we're about to go into a contraction for a minute. But if the pain is sharp enough and the contraction is deep enough, we will come back from that contraction more dilated and wiser and more able to step into deeper levels of consciousness and a more world-centric paradigm.

Very well said. I bolded everything that especially resonated. I see conservatism and its concerns about "degeneracy" and "sexual aberration" as operating off of the agrarian coping strategies for living in a mono-cultural village. I think this is why people in rural places tend to skew a bit more conservative as well, because it's closer to that agrarian village living lifestyle. And in an agrarian village, you need to control people's sexuality to maximize the society for growing as many children as possible to work the field and protect the village. But the issue with this, is that these are maladaptive coping strategies for living in a post-industrial society. It's like trying to stick a cassette tape in a cd player and then believing the cd player is fundamentally broken because it won't play cassettes "like it's supposed to". So, those in this conservative agrarian mindset always feel like everything is broken and working improperly because they haven't acclimated to the new societal technology. And it also leads these conservative agrarian-minded types to be very susceptible to demagogues who claim they will bring back the glory days of the past where we were just one people and one race and one religion... and people were all upstanding people who aren't sexual deviants... the man was the head of the household... and every woman was having 10 children to help the family tend the farm. But it's also difficult for someone with the paradigm of an agrarian peasant from 300+ years ago to adapt to post-industrial society. So, I have some sympathy for that feeling of disjointedness. But there's often this top-down kind of authoritarian control that they value in a leader because they want to believe that the leader will bring about an agrarian peasant paradise where women and women and men are men... and only the good race belongs... and only the good religion is practiced... and only the good kinds of sex are permitted... etc.

Thank you! I'm glad you like my channel! And yes, I totally agree.

I have done 5 out of the 7 of my Ayahuasca journeys at an Ayahuasca church. But the Ayahuasca church had facilitators that have learned from shamans, but who aren't shamans themselves.

@Joshe This strongly described me back in my teen years. I held a really strong contrarian way of being because self-differentiation had been one of my more effective strategies to (on the positive side) embrace my weirdness and cope with feelings of alienation. As a child, I really felt like an alien trying to figure out how to pass as a human... and constantly failing at it and being ridiculed for failing at it. And embracing my differences and leaning into them heavily was the only thing that ended up working. And as a teenager, I really found my place with people who appreciated my weirdness. So, I started feeling like extraordinariness and divergence was an unquestioned good. And there was a strong judgment towards those who are mainstream... because it was more comfortable to feel like I was rejecting the mainstream... instead of the mainstream rejecting me. And what arose from this was a very strong fear of being ordinary and blending in with the crowd, which manifested in increased fears of aging and becoming more average. And when I felt average, averageness didn't feel like I was enough. It reminded me of trying to conform to normalcy as a child and failing. Then, in my 20s, I really started to recognize the shadowier side of contrarian thinking especially when people were against good popular things (like the ice bucket challenge for ALS)... and I soured on empty contrarianism. Yet, I still felt this underlying sense of differentiation based off of "not being the type that falls into empty contrarianism nor the type that falls into patterns of conformity." The tendency to slice myself away from the crowd was still there, but I had just started to see empty contrarians as "a part of the crowd that doesn't even know they're part of the crowd." But in my recognition of this, there was a pride in being different and not falling into patterns that so many people fall into. So, these Shadow patterns have a way of becoming sneakier and more subtle as you grow and mature. So, I was still looking to differentiate and separate myself. I had just dropped the more overt symptom of reflexive contrarianism because I saw the "ordinary human foolishness" in it. So, I was still carving myself out from everything else and seeing myself as separate and differentiated from the world. But in one of my Ayahuasca ceremonies, it brought me back and forth between two states. One was my usual polarization into extraordinariness to the exclusion of ordinariness... and it was showing me how disconnected I was from everything. And it really emphasized how cut off it was making me. Then, it re-integrated me with ordinariness, and I felt so deeply intertwined with humanity, nature, and the universe at large because I saw the sameness in myself to all other elements of the universe. I was not distinct from anyone or anything at the core. And all this existential pressure was removed from me. And it brought me back and forth between the state of polarization into extraordinariness and the state of integration with ordinariness. And ordinariness was always a huge fear. But in this, it was everything I'd ever wanted to feel and the entire reason I was trying to differentiate myself in the first place. But of course, these coping patterns run deep. So, even in my realization of the value of ordinariness, I can use that as a means to differentiate myself because "Look how uniquely wise I am to understand this when most people don't."

From the "shucking the bearded clams" comment earlier, I'm sure your sexting game is EPIC... Like "Madam, would you like to ride the bony pony?"

He's always given me right wing vibes. But that's most men who are popular in today's independent media landscape. Yet again, it could just be a branding decision so that he can be part of the club.

I think those are all good note. I don't suppose that that will work for Democrats, as they really are just a center-right party. As long as there's no viable left-wing alternative, people will continue to move more and more towards populist Fascism. I sense that it will really have to come as a bottom-up grassroots movement.

Definitely Yes, it's just that the right wing propaganda machine is constantly churning out really memorable but false talking points. And people don't question them. And so TONS of people believe that Democrats really are for "open borders" because the right wing machine confidently lies on repeat.

She and Biden were responsible for putting out a bi-partisan border bill that would have given Republicans EVERYTHING they wanted for the border... in exchange for more aid to Ukraine. But Trump called up members of congress and asked them to vote no on the Republican wet-dream of a border bill so that he is able to run on the idea that "I'll fix the border" and that Democrats are for "open borders." And of course, that isn't true. Obama was called the "deporter in chief". And Biden deported more undocumented immigrants than Trump as a percentage and as a raw number. And Harris's campaign did a lot of appeal to moderate Republicans and ran on being tough on the border. That proved to be a losing strategy. But you can't say that the Democrats are for open borders if you look at the facts. But Republicans will always say that Democrats are for open borders... even if Democrats closed the border to anyone and everyone for the rest of time.

I see it as a bit different than the idea of a Masculine revolution, simply because revolution means embracing radical change. And this "Masculine revolution" is really about the idea of resurrecting the old order. With Feminism, it was all about breaking from long-held gender norms and embracing women's empowerment so that women can have political, economic, and personal power. With this new pattern in men, it's really about reinforcing what is and going back to what was. It's basically a counter-revolutionary reactionary movement against the revolution because many men believe that things would be better for themselves personally if we went back to a time where women were still beholden to traditional gender norms and men 'were taught to be men.' In reality, it's a coalescence of men who feel a sense of obligation to match up to impossible to reach Masculine gender norms, who feel a sense of shame around "not being good enough" or "not being Masculine enough." And in these online groups, men collectively channel the shame and rage at the illusion they hold around women's adjudicating power of how well they conform to the Masculine ideal or fail to conform to it. So, they feel women get to validate or invalidate their existence as men. Now if there really was a conferable men's lib movement, it would be around breaking the expectation of adherence to the Masculine gender norms and the ability to embrace one's authenticity and power outside of those narrow norms. But a key factor in the 'Masculinity pill movement' is the idea that one will create revolution and "escape the matrix" only by rigid conformity to Masculine gender norms. And of course, that's a catch 22 because you'd be attempting to escape the rigid expectations of society by hyper-conforming to them and policing others who don't conform to them. This is the issue when your revolution is about reinforcing and intensifying the rigidity of the status quo... and resurrecting the status quo of times past.

I don't get the sense that there's a need for a "savior" or strong figure-head that will truly move the needle. Of course, it's helpful to have good political leaders. And we want to avoid the situation we're currently in, if possible. But even the best leader will be largely feeding energy into the maintenance of the status quo... and the status quo will always lead to the destructive outcome we're in right now. So, I have the sense that having a great left-wing leader, like Bernie Sanders, will tweak things around the edges and largely preserve the status quo by making it slightly more livable. And a few years ago, I had this insight that arose that Bernie's candidacy was just a means of re-directing people's revolutionary energy back into the system that preserves the status quo. I have the sense that only communal grassroots movements will move the world in a better direction. It will never be a lefty Goliath versus righty Goliath situation... only David and Goliath.