John Anthony's channel taken down

[Schizophonia]

59 minutes ago, Alexop said:

So true man. The most dumb and unconscious guys I know got the most attention from women.

No intelligent women don't go with stupid men.
Unless in your opinion being non-neurotic is stupid.

I'm talking about neurosis because in neurosis, the "law of the father" isn't integrated/assimilated, which generates a repressed "castration anxiety" in the unconscious.
The personality structure, centered on the struggle against castration anxiety (unconscious), creates a kind of crypto-homosexual, masochistic, weak-willed behavior.

Normally, when you interact with a woman or another man, it's to be sensual; to lower your own vigilance/stress and that of others; particularly with a woman, it's usually the woman who transfers her anxiety onto the man.
You embody the law of the father, the phallus, which through its virility (physical, humorous, financial; it can be anything), will channel the woman's anxiety and even possibly your own, although this is more true with other men.

In obsessive-compulsive neurosis, there is an (unconscious) conflict with the paternal figure and the law in general; or at least this was the case at an early age, and the personality was structured around the fear generated by the law.

Because the neurotic does not accept the law, they are in a relationship of submission to the law (hence the prevalence of BDSM among neurotics), and their value system is structured around this phenomenon.

Hence the fact that many men, particularly those in self-absorbed niches (personal development, religion, nutrition...)—which attract neurotics—regret that it doesn't work to pick up women (or, again, men, in the case of friendships) by being boring, politically correct, uninteresting, bringing up tiresome topics, etc. The idea isn't to give pleasure and receive it, but to be so convinced that giving oral sex is good that I suppose it's seductive to show that I'm a good one.

"Oh look what I'm putting myself through, I'm a good boy."

But that's not intelligence, that's autism.
People (not just women!) like intelligent people, not autistic people.

Quote

It took me sooo long to accept this reality. I thought that behaving truthfully will attract the conscious women to me, but unfortunately not even the most conscious women want to hear you talk about sad truths and dry facts about reality. You give her a bad vibe, bad feelings and she doesn't want that. Most guys included, many just want to hear what they want to hear, not the truth that will break through their petty ideologies. The most juicy ideas that passionate me alot have to be kept for myself.

 

Oh it's the complete opposite. I don't know if it's still your "software" since you were criticizing Scandinavians for a lack of masculinity, but if it is I sincerely hope (and I include myself in this, if I'm talking about this it's certainly because I'm still more or less in a mirror; i only talk to myself) that reality will come and shatter this neurotic software so that we can finally be joyful and playful (and attractive 😏).

We're sick of "oh my god, I'm so powerful and a very self-aware good boy who tortures himself with psychedelics, if only women could recognize my greatness, blackpill blackpill, oh my god." ouf.

Me I call that good news

Edited 5 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Lyubov]

He legit came off creepy and was a massive liar. I watched his stuff once or twice. He was chopped....

[Alexop]

@Schizophonia yes I meant neurotic autisitic "smart". Dumb smart as I used to be. Saying stuff that just dont fit well even if they come from authenticity.

they go after vibe, now if they are conscious enough they can see your worth even if the vibe is off in the beginning and still choose you over a good vibes dude that is full of shit. But if you say really politically incorrect shit it is pretty much game over.

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexop

[Schizophonia]

I remember he made a video where he criticized Owen

[Emerald]

13 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

@Emerald

Unconscious behaviour attracts unconscious people. Conscious behaviour works as a mirror and no person wants to see how much of a devil they are. Having integrous and truthful conversations with women is the surest way to lose them. The more you feed them fantasies, the better.

Trust me, you aint gettig laid a lot if you behave very consciously and mature, even if you are physically attractive. I am speaking from a ton of personal experience.

Also, there’s a lot of good looking extroverts teaching dating out there. I find that more common (and more of a true issue), unless you are talking about behavioural attractiveness in which case toxic unconscious behaviour is a turn off for a conscious woman like you but a big turn on for majority of women.

That’s the black pill reality of dating.

I get almost proportionally better results with women, the more unconscious I behave. It is sickening, and heart breaking. And probably not something I am willing to put up with for long anymore. 

That's where a man has to ask himself... "Is it my priority to develop myself into a highly conscious man who will be a significantly more attractive and high quality man in general... but will attract a smaller number of highly aligned women." Or "Is it my priority to learn the tricks to have sex with as many women as possible?"

The man who chooses the latter will make himself significantly less attractive and less respected in the world. But he will get laid more.

And honestly, this is a huge bottleneck for men in terms of personal development.

If you are crafting yourself as a product to be consumed by the highest number of people possible... you're taking away everything about you that makes you interesting and attractive. And you're taking away your uniqueness as a person.

So many natural cult classics who would have a smaller percentage of highly discerning women with exquisite taste raving about them are trying to craft themselves into generic Summer blockbusters that the highest number of low-discernment women would feel lukewarm enough about to sleep with on a lonely or bored day.

I just think it's a really important thing for men who are actually looking to become an attractive and great man to think about.

How much of your Masculine greatness are you willing to sacrifice for slightly easier access to sex?

[Butters]

@Emerald that's not how it works though. In practice if you develop yourself more, your interest in 'attracting women' is lower or goes away. There's no reason to commit to any relationship, including sexual. 

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, AION said:

Pickup is overcompensating behavior because these guys aren’t picked by women as they are. No guy would study pickup if they were enough as they are. 

I know guys who are weasels but fit the archetype that women like and they get laid. So attractiveness is enough. But if you are not attractive you need to learn pickup to cope with the pickiness of women. 

Most of these guys who do pickup or joined the dark side is because they have seen the true nature of women. Some use their “wound” for good and others use it for bad and spread the evil. 

I think most of these guys turn bitter because they lack love in their lives and we have to show empathy for them instead of laughing at them. Otherwise these group of men will only get bigger. You might think Andrew Tate is bad but most of his videos nowadays are about self development , not about women if you look at his is instagram. There are some really wicked men and they are far worse than Tate. And yes most of them are ugly guys who weren’t picked. And these group of men are getting bigger because they are laughed at instead of being understood. 

The misread is that pick-up makes you more attractive. It really doesn't.

Becoming a great man who lives by his values and is an asset to the community makes you more attractive. And this will increase your options for romantic partners significantly because your social status will improve and you will be more respected in general by others.

But it won't get you laid at the volume that pick-up does. But it's way more efficient for finding a partner and other opportunities in life. 

Pick-up is about audacity and persistence... not attractiveness. 

Pick-up is about sleeping with women... not being attractive to them or admired by them more generally. All you need is go through he numbers game to find a woman who's looking for a hook-up out of loneliness, boredom, or horniness to succeed at sleeping with a woman.

And if you show up as an option and you're audacious about it without completely bungling the social cues, sometimes you'll get picked.

But it doesn't mean you're attractive. It means that you're good enough for the moment.

So, I'll ask you this question... "Is it more important to you to become a great man in your own eyes, the eyes of women, and the eyes of the world at large? Or is it more important for you to maximize your lay count?"

That is why I am breaking my rule about body-shaming and emphasizing the fact that these male "role models' that teach men how to attract women are not attractive men.

A discerning woman wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. And while there is a sizable percentage of undiscerning women, probably at least half of women are discerning women. 

So, these guys may get laid often enough... but they aren't attractive. They're just audacious and persuasive... and more willing to impose themselves on the situation.

[Valach]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The misread is that pick-up makes you more attractive. It really doesn't.

Becoming a great man who lives by his values and is an asset to the community makes you more attractive. And this will increase your options for romantic partners significantly because your social status will improve and you will be more respected in general by others.

But it won't get you laid at the volume that pick-up does. But it's way more efficient for finding a partner and other opportunities in life. 

Pick-up is about audacity and persistence... not attractiveness. 

Pick-up is about sleeping with women... not being attractive to them or admired by them more generally. All you need is go through he numbers game to find a woman who's looking for a hook-up out of loneliness, boredom, or horniness to succeed at sleeping with a woman.

And if you show up as an option and you're audacious about it without completely bungling the social cues, sometimes you'll get picked.

But it doesn't mean you're attractive. It means that you're good enough for the moment.

So, I'll ask you this question... "Is it more important to you to become a great man in your own eyes, the eyes of women, and the eyes of the world at large? Or is it more important for you to maximize your lay count?"

That is why I am breaking my rule about body-shaming and emphasizing the fact that these male "role models' that teach men how to attract women are not attractive men.

A discerning woman wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. And while there is a sizable percentage of undiscerning women, probably at least half of women are discerning women. 

So, these guys may get laid often enough... but they aren't attractive. They're just audacious and persuasive... and more willing to impose themselves on the situation.

While I myself am not the biggest fan of pickup in general and there are a lot of issue with it for sure I can't really agree that pickup does not make you more attractive.

Going out a lot and talking to a lot of people while sober and pushing your comfort zone constantly does help you grow you as a man and you attractivness to a certain points. Attributes like confidence, charisma, social skills, empathy and groudness and general masculinity are definitely attractive to woman and can be developed using pickup framework. Though along the way you can carry on a lot of bad habits and beliefs as well.

Edited 59 minutes ago by Valach

[Emerald]

15 minutes ago, Butters said:

@Emerald that's not how it works though. In practice if you develop yourself more, your interest in 'attracting women' is lower or goes away. There's no reason to commit to any relationship, including sexual. 

A man who develops himself and aligns to his greatness doesn't become more anti-social... he becomes more pro-social.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

I remember he made a video where he criticized Owen

That's his bread and butter. Haha 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Emerald said:

A man who develops himself and aligns to his greatness doesn't become more anti-social... he becomes more pro-social.

Contradicted by the fact that the greatest men have always been monks and hermits.

You can't be great due to group-think.

Edited 48 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Butters]

9 minutes ago, Emerald said:

A man who develops himself and aligns to his greatness doesn't become more anti-social... he becomes more pro-social.

You are projecting your own desires on this scenario. In perfect unity there is no desire to form any exclusive relationship with one person. 

[Emerald]

Just now, Valach said:

While I myself am not the biggest fan of pickup in general and there are a lot of issue with it for sure I can't really agree that pickup does not make you more attractive.

Going out a lot and talking to a lot of people while sober and pushing your comfort zone constantly does help you grow you as a man and you attractivness to a certain points. Attributes like confidence, charisma, social skills, empathy and groudness and general masculinity are definitely attractive to woman and can be developed using pickup framework. Though along the way you can carry on a lot of bad habits and beliefs as well.

Becoming better at socializing does make a man more attractive. So, talking to women is definitely helpful.

But the intellectual frameworks that men learn from male "dating gurus" end up making them less attractive. Like, I can sense when a man has learned pick-up as it gives off the same generic vibes. It actually gets in the way of his natural attractiveness. 

Honestly, the best advice for meeting women that one can give to a man is "Go and talk to women." But that doesn't sell courses.

So, you get all these not-so-attractive "male attractiveness gurus" who present a lot of other advice mixed in with the effective "go approach women" advice... and men will think "It actually worked. I approached women and acted like Andrew Tate. And I got a woman to sleep with me. I need to keep acting like Andrew Tate."

But it's a "Dumbo's Magic Feather" situation. The man could have just approached women and operated in a generally social way, and he would have had women attracted to him. But he implemented the other ideas and bits of advice and thinks that that's why he's successful.

Honestly, to be attractive as a man... talk frequently to men and women, build yourself a robust social circle with friends/family/acquaintances, develop a good reputation within that social circle, prioritize sticking to your values, and develop good social skills. 

And approaching women and talking with them is a good way to develop social skills. So, that will check off a box in the "How to become an attractive man" bucket.

But anything beyond the things I listed above is just developing more audacity. And that's the number one quality that a man needs to up his lay count. But audacity doesn't make a man more attractive.... even if he is getting more sex.

[Emerald]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Contradicted by the fact that the greatest men have always been monks and hermits.

You can't be great due to group-think.

I would push back on notion and ask you... "Are hermits great?"

[Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Butters said:

You are projecting your own desires on this scenario. In perfect unity there is no desire to form any exclusive relationship with one person. 

I didn't say anything about a man having an exclusive relationship with one person.

A man can be great and choose not to have a romantic partner. But he must provide value to the broader community.

What I said is that great men are pro-social... not anti-social.

So, the idea that great men become less social just isn't true. Anti-social men don't provide a lot of value to the broader community.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I would push back on notion and ask you... "Are hermits great?"

As great as humans get.

It's funny that Christians worship a hermit as God but they themselves all just social zombies.

Edited 37 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As great as humans get.

What is great about hermits, in your opinion?

It's a valid path, but it's definitionally not "great".

Conceptualizing of it as "great" defeats the purpose.

Becoming a hermit is about sinking to the lowest and embracing the path as the ultimate societal "loser" and to deny all greatness.

And from a human perspective, it is that. Hermits essentially neutralize their lives and don't contribute to the societal matrix. And it's important that there is nothing that distinguishes a spiritual hermit from a vagrant down on his luck.

That's the point of the path. 

So, it is not a path of greatness. It's very self-contained. 

And from a higher perspective, it's just a game that God likes to play with itself to recognize itself from the state of separation. It's one of many games that God chooses to play with itself.

So, it's a valid path from that perspective. But hermits don't have a greater purpose than the kindergarten teacher that shows up every day... or the person working at the grocery store stocking the shelves.

They are just people practicing self-nullification in order to play a very specific game in this reality. It's fine to play that game. But let's not put a value judgment on it.

It's really not valuable. And that's the point of the hermit game.

Edited 17 minutes ago by Emerald

[Alexop]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As great as humans get.

It's funny that Christians worship a hermit as God but they themselves all just social zombies.

They love to look up to a role-model, but they don't have the courage to do what it takes to become one. They will even ostracize and look down on people who try to become the role-model that they look up to. "God is only one"