Confidence is flamboyantly faggish. Have Justified Arrogance

Bash the pick-up art community. Challenge the assumptions and techniques used by pick-up art, discredit the effectiveness of pick-up art, expose ripoff products, and reveal secret info of dating gurus.

I again can't tell if you're trolling or you're deliberately misrepresenting my clarifications and taking an ounce of what I say, as if it in of itself is the wholeness of my statement. Or just pleb'd. Even though it only stands on its own because I expected someone with even a modicum of intelligence to take what I've stated as self explanatory, in of itself, or because I said things previously that clarified the construction components of the context. For some reason idk. Probably to defend your own PUA shit as it gives you some kind of cope to an insecurity somewhere. You don't wanna just let the floodgates of your anxieties open.

It's more like "emotional / experience capital" and just to let you in on a secret, it's the reason why everyone does anything in the first place.
When I talk about primality capital, I'm talking about the format by which emotions/ experience are compiled/ arranged/ understood. Everyone has their own model. When I talk about primality I'm talking about the fashion of mind/ a pattern of mind that takes all of the values of looks, money, status, competence, game, etc. There is no such thing as emotional quality that isn't vacuous because emotions are so varied and situational. Measuring the intensity of emotions can be summed up in a linear one channel scale. But it's too unspecific if you just use one scale of "emotional intensity" without explaining away the components/ sorts of emotions. Even saying that the "emotional capital is high" is kind of vacuous because what is the hierarchy even measuring ABOUT emotions? When I talk about primality capital, I am saying that it is in relation to people's experiences/ emotions. And so it is. But those are mere subjective scales, as there are so many different sorts of things that can be taken from two of those resources of information reception. But it's still vacuous to say that experience/ emotional capital, because it doesn't clarify what kind of stimulus there is. If you say flesh capital that can have some merit to understanding idk, how much human a cyborg is. But for this scenario we need to have a certain clarification of what kind of emotional/ experience capital. We can talk about how emotion/ experience are just colloquial phrasings of "game" but still, it's too vague. And it doesn't column the sort of emotional/ experiential stimulus women truly value.
It would be like saying molecule capital comprises things. Okay, but what kind of molecules?

It's to feel a certain way and have a certain experience. And that is not "cultural marxism" it's simply a objective fact.
Don't know what you're referencing. I'm just saying cultural marxism puts a belief system in people's brains that's ultimately plebby. Makes them unaware of the biological basis they live by. Just broad brush strokes of fairy braided bullshit. Makes them without the drive to opt to be objective, it just makes them more trendy/ coddlesome/ willing to help the oppressed and be euphemistic with their sense of socialism/ humanitarianism/ egalitarianism/ etc.

The objective facts do matter, but only insofar as tools to manipulate that subjective reality. We only care about them for that reason in the first place, not cause of actual truth or objectivity.
uh

Why the fuck else would you do anything to begin with?
Baseness is the biological basis. Hunger for power, to manipulate subjective reality? of course. No one feels whole in just examining the universe. So either what I say to you holds merit here and now, or zilch. I've already gauged that from your retarded frame of mind.

Truth itself is a feeling and experience, you cannot disconnect the two
You're so retarded. Truth is the concept concerning a thing having an indeed valid existence. It's through feeling and experience that we humanity glean validity/ invalidity. A Fact is just a truth without any medium of perception available to validate its invalidity credibly. (Which is why I often believe that not all facts are invulnerably verified). (Because credibility of validity is not always so easily disseminated into the conscious minds of mankind, as some things are irrevocably ascertained in our subconscious, like the sun being hot, the deserts being dry, the snow being cold and the trees being wooden. But there are some things, like Islam as a whole casualties 200 million people, or the fact that Karl Marx created communism, these things do not so easily enter the conscience of mankind. There is no evolutionary incentive in our animalistic cerebrum to remember facts from history. And history is built upon record. It's foolhardy to say that any event in history is an ABSOLUTE fact, but is likely an irrefutable fact for no one exists to contrast it, and if it's plausible enough from the observers of the record to have nothing to go on in denying it. Unlike Jesus and multiplying loaves and fishes. And Muhammad who ran from Arabia to Jerusalem on a donkey in the middle of the night. That's definitely bullshit.

I am theorizing that human beings have deeply wired social emotional aspects to their brain and that these aspects are also able to be influenced and manipulated by cues from other human beings relayed through the senses by behaviors of other humans.
Durr

To the extent that emotional / mental states and beliefs (which influence the former) are even transferable between humans.
Durrr

I also believe that these social emotional aspects are deeply wired together and have a intimate relationship with the aspects of attraction, such that to separate the two is ridiculous and ignorant.
And you need to tell me this why?

Saying looks is all it is, is essentially saying that these systems of attraction are totally controlled and manipulated by physical visual cues exclusively.
Never said that. Again, you're showing your idiocy.

After all attraction is a complex process that encompasses both visual sights but also a whole entire mental and emotional experience, and that includes with men too.
Durr

I think the "primality" matters but I think you should also consider the subjective emotional social experience as well, and how to manipulate and influence it, both in others, and in your own self.
HAHAHAHA. You don't get primality. And duh, that's why this information is valuable.

Primality is supposed to be the mental state of all mankind. At least, the most animalistic/ natural course of mankind.

Sex and attraction themselves are a social process, it's not just a matter of looking at something and finding it visually appealing. There is a whole social system to it.
Yes, but it is not just physical, but primal.

So what is that social process? How does it work? And how important is it?

And how do you know how they feel about it? Clearly they are attracted from these other factors in some cases, otherwise, why would they spend time with and fuck these guys?

Aside from clear cases where the girl is using sex to get something like money or status, rather than actually enjoying the experience itself, how does either of you explain this? Cause so far you have not.

I would argue that it comes down to the emotions and vibe of the moment and that most certainly is something that can be affected alot by behavior
Contemporaneous or Futural are both considered. Though sometimes again it varies. Depends on the value compass a girl holds. Hormonal hungerings are indeed capricious, and more fickle depending on every girl.

Primality capital is what I believe is what humanity desires from its primal instincts/ natural animalistic course/ the id. And the id is the root motivator for most of the thing mankind does. Edificality is the super ego, but it is my belief that it falls to the id in so many occasions. A lot of the time you need to understand what a woman hormonally hungers for. And there are indeed ways you can change it. But you need to do thorough studying of the way to do how. I'm just telling you that looks/ status/ money/ the primality capital inborn mold you come from is stained onto your existence. It will limit the bar of your primality capital. Which in turn makes girls like you less.

Primality is consisted not just of what people seek, but also what they like to feel. There are underlying primal reasons why people like funny guys, because humor is critical, only done in an underlying way. But I'm not talking about overextensive obnoxious sarcasm, but just subtle ironies explicated that make people's mindframes latch on to the insistence of a flaw. Insistence that seems inspirational/ uplifting/ etc. but is really the dead opposite. Indicating the manipulation of a positivity only society.

Primality is also consistent in everyday discussion/ swagship/ swagshow/ being cool (swag is indicative of someone having a cool/ chill vibe and just gains things right while maintaining the vibe of not giving a fuck... which can work and expicates value but remember, it's still on a scale. Some girls will want solid substance, others will want a fucking good time, which again, is conducive to being somewhat of a desperate fallback of ppl with low LMS. For ppl would rather get by being that which takes little effort/ always dominates/ what people are naturally drawn to/ the simpler it is for you the more things are checked off. You're not so weak in every field/ area that things are needing analysis and concentrated action/ meticulous focus.

In my mind swagness only really works with girls if you still have something to present. It's like you showcase/ shadowcast your value through your actions/ words/ behavior... and while it is still pitted against those who have aesthetic/ genetic/ competitive primality game, like a darwinian form of attraction where women predicate their lustings/ hormonal hunger primarily on who succeeds in all of the essential lines of survival/ power, the solid substance, there are certain perks to this verbal/ behaviorally artful form of dominarchical/ moderation primal capital. (Remember it falls under primal capital BECAUSE you can often sway women only with their primal instincts. At least the vast majority will have a Darwinian Primality capital game, and some will have a more emotional caprice, because remember this comes from hormones. There is Hormonal/ Capricious primality which MAY verge into edificality but it's not intrinsic to our hormones. Darwinian Primality/ Ideologized Primality... is like the Nazis/ Eugenicists who take our Nature as an inevitability/ a divine purpose and decide to work towards fulfilling the goal of perfecting our genes, while being instinctually in control. It has various forms as well, but it usually surrounds the notions of "let serve or let die", "one for all and all for one", etc.

But remember, that most will probably have some kind of edificality/ selection based on high moral standing and high minded/ tasteful considerations. Not just sluts who like LMS). It's multifaceted. But either way you will only be of value to them if you have what they desire, and teh definement of desire is still hierarchical. Personarchy, highly capricious also. Hormonarchy is usually who ranks highly on her everyday set of hormones/ her hormonal pull. And again, is usually very much laced in primality. Maybe edificality sometimes, but given human nature, probably rare. Personarchy is more of a blend sincep eople are indeed indivudals. Even still, you have to be of some distinctional idenitty. Distinctionarchy for example. Distinctional value on a girl's scale of intimacy value.

In conclusion being a swagfag can give you some game. But a lot of girls are hormonally absent enough to focus on a clear set/ scale and although swagsnagging their psyche can help out a little, it won't give them everything they need. A lot of girls are thinking about compatability/ not being a douchey swagfag/ thinking about the value that can make you win in a value v. value slugfest instead of what some machiavellian guy can offer. The notion that PUA can offer a skillset that can swagsnag their hormonal hungering is horseshit. It can work to some degree, but it's just one of the perks of a greater set.
Image

Image

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin

"A prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over the period of only six hundred years, would not only free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune, but would lead to a recovery which today seems scarcely conceivable."
― Adolf Hitler

"The way of nature has always been to slay the hindmost, and there is still no other way, unless we can prevent those who would become the hindmost being born. It is in the sterilization of failures, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."
― H. G. Wells

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
― U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Buck v. Bell, 1927



Ronald McDonald wrote:
Eugenicist wrote:pm me and we can discuss it in depth. You should follow my posts to understand how I delineate my ideology/ terms.

I can plebbify it here soon, give me a day.

plz plebbify it kek
By primtive I'm talking about their animalistic impulses, not a primitive form of attraction. You can be attracted to a effette guy for primitive reasons because his body/ sleekness/ effetteness subcommunicates his display of value being eccentric/ not typical... which comes off as an eerie dominance. But it's still essentially primitive in the "reason" that it usually is with neanderthal/ lunkhead build kind of guys. Still essentially valuable because of the things which we primitively desire. Hot, Powerful, Dominant, Wealthy, Prominent, etc.

Hot is often used as a term for sex because it means strikingly/ burningly different, and can pierce the veil of human coldness/ aloofness/ difference. Because that person plugs into the primality triggers (the format of attraction which wants primacy/ dominance/ superiority over others/ manifests itself as superior to all).

PussySlaughter wrote:
People pool themselves to whatever is better/ more impressive/ partial to their tastes. Whether edified or not, people will lean in to what they want to do. You need to be distinguishable high on the scales of favor people have.


So first it's "primality" now it's their "tastes"?


I can't really even say that you are really saying anything in these posts Eugenicist, it's literally just a bunch of words without even saying anything.

Alot of it is even contradictory.
Dumbass can't even contextually infer what I mean. Even if my definitions are veyr reminiscent of what htey imply. Still can't tell if trolling.

Primality is a form of their taste... Edificality is a form of taste that is rare and isn't predicated on dominance/ superiority/ strength/ etc. The things our native ancestors/ survival mechanisms don't overwhelm in our attraction. Edificality such as humor, wits, compassionate charm, religion, artistry etc. But both do converge. A girl could want a good looking guy because she has a taste for seeing people rally to him because he could be inspiring to other people, as opposed to being dominant. And a girl could like humor/ an immaterial quality so that they can use it to mock others.

Often I categorize the two by things that are initially conventioned as qualities under a certain group. On name/ conventional nomination. But the contexts usually coincide with one another. We have both primality and edificality within us.

Essentially Edificality is someone who doesn't have the traits plug into the innate Darwiniality/ Elitism/ Oppressionist/ Self worth being connected to power in some relation aspect of the human race. And thus the hormonal hunger in that case calls for someone who is more on an Edified list of traits. Primality is attraction ultimately centered around them.

But no matter what kind of girl you'll find there are still barriers/ restricitons on her criteria. To be defined by her personal criteria, her intimatarchy's stipulations, you'll have to be definable by the rest of the stimulus on how they dimension reality. And definement usually trickles over to something "special". Which typically, primality or edificality will result in someone being unique in some way. The matter of being unique in some respect is something a lot of people DO NOT HAVE. And if you don't have it, then there's a likely chance you'll be a sharp/ shining stimulus enough to even be worthy of having any kind of intense emotion to.

Edificality/ Primality both need something of high value in some regard. They are both just attributions we have towards a relationship. But hte machanics around having a relationship are about being uncommon, special, different. It's not a matter of having the term "attractive" attributed to certain traits then, it's about the ingrained mechanics of the attraction system itself.

You don't just feel whole in love looking at a clump of dirt. You want something that is special, different, gives you warm unique refreshing stimulating engaging feelings. Even a good gold hearted person would want to keep sex sacred. It's just conventional rationale. Rational altruism. Irrational unhealthy altruism would just give sex away as a pity prize, which is essentially also being a hoe. And most hoes don't hoe out of altruism.

Attraction systems revolve around primal attribution ascribing mechanisms most of the time. Edificality has various, but often very noble ones. Peculiarity is a form of being off the primal grid (rare) but having things that aren't essentially virtuous. Spontaneity is usually constantly fickle across the board.

But no matter what. The deeply ingrained system of attractiveness goes towards unique paragons of what we find pleasure in. It's a default/ basic human function in our biologically inbuilt structure of esteem to view things that are rare, unique, special as of grandeur. That's almost always across the board as the 99.9999% to other contrasting features. It is the root for all these branches on the tree graph. Which comprise 99.9999% of all these branches. Exceptions are immaterial in this case.

You two are a very good representation of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect

You really just say a bunch of stuff without saying anything at all, Eugenicist.

Other than constantly repeating the idea that the world is not a nice place, with a hierarchy, and that ability matters.

As if this is some sort of huge revelation, woo, tell us again for the 100th fucking time, jesus christ.

All your words and ideas are basically completely useless too. What can you do with any of them? Name one thing?

You two are so off base and yet so arrogant about it at the same time, it's almost laughable.

For some guy ranting about power all the time, your social understanding is very piss poor.

Sorry but just saying "primality" 24 / 7 is not the same as social skills or ability.

It's points that are bad enough that it feels wasteful to even respond to them.

And I'd also seriously throw into consideration the high success of either of you with women. Neither of you really strikes me that way based off how you think and converse.

I'm actually interested in learning and developing things, not getting myself off writing long winded pretentious nonsense all day and being a "intellectual".

You are way more obsessed with that than anything that is actually functional in reality.

It's grating really to even have a discussion with either of you.

Since we are talking about objectivity, there is a big difference between feeling correct, and actually being it, something the two of you should learn sometime.

Imagine being so stupid that you really think that the whole world functions off looks.

That's literally how dumb you are.

And lets stop the pretending, that's literally what you both believe.
Loose Goose

100+



PussySlaughter slow down a bit. I'm not used to posts making sense around here.
When due process fails us, we really do live in a world of terror.

AstroPill wrote:PussySlaughter slow down a bit. I'm not used to posts making sense around here.
Satire

You really just say a bunch of stuff without saying anything at all, Eugenicist.
Sad, well if that's all you can really gauge I can't conclude that you literally might have some form of not able to being able to contextualize abstract concepts like reading into things. I've already made my case clear, and have more to substantiate it than anything you allege. Honestly, it's kind of sad. You would have been a good example of truth pilling someone honestly so delved in stupidity and cope.

If there truly are people out there who don't recognize what water is even when I pour a bottle over your head then I can't really do anything more than just be amused.



Sorry but just saying "primality" 24 / 7 is not the same as social skills or ability.
Not even talking about primality being that way. I'm just talking about how mankind leans towards a primal system of discernment by default. It's the branch of social interaction by which all the twigs and leaves about social interaction for 99% of most people stems from. It's why swag is less essential than things of the LMS nature.

They want a feeling, but you can't turn everything into a romantic comedy morale that hollywood wants to project onto people. That essentially it isn't just that "looks matter". Where it's how a female prioritizes something more than that under the right circumstances of edifice. But you wouldn't have to push that if the primality predicated discernment/ attraction system wasn't COMMONPLACE.

Social skills/ ability can be helped by PUA but ultimately producing that vibe by words/ behavior becomes irrelevant once a female is observing things deeper about you which will happen with almost all girls down the line. Some girls are very feelistic and will fall into the swagtrap. But ultimately women will hitch their hormones away from it to the hierarchical/ prominence essentials the closer you have to get. Because we are hierarchical creatures. Plus women get tired of male/ people energies. You need to have lasting value and honestly women and male personalities are so peripheral that they can train themselves to enjoy the peripherals so long as the essentials are in check. Which are LMS, power, prominence, prowess, competence, achievement, glamor... not charms, wit, charisma... because 99% of women have a primality judgment/ discernment system.

Women are also very hierarchical with their sense of discernment. People who are elitists by heart/ nature are also elitist by self-conception. Sometimes dude... the feeling isn't predicated on playfulness, but power/ solid substance. Women can't enjoy themselves even if they're getting laid on a beach in the middle of july if they're old and fat because they want to be reminisced/ loved for the right reasons. We all ahve a scale of self worth to deserving an emotion. We pendulum our emotion if we are deserving of feeling it in most cases. And we do that dimensioned off of darwinial hierarchies of esteem/ ability/ substance.

If we do not meet that criteria then we hurt ourselves and our primal justice system stops us from going out and being happy. Our happiness is based on an abstract/ mental landscape/ abstract realm only accessible to the most achieved/ best able. We are darwinial/ primal in our self evaluation.

You truth pilling me?

About what?

What do you have to teach me about anything, exactly?

I've listened to you, I gave you a fair shake, I paid attention to what you had to say, you are simply wrong.

Now you want to have some autistic argument about "swag vs LMS" in some sort of 1 on 1 comparison.

Who gives a fuck?

It's like saying "what part of a car is most important? Surely, the engine".

I don't give a fuck which part is more important, all I care about is a fully functional car and driving it and enjoying it.

And yea buddy, there is alot more than looks, it doesn't need to be a either or.

You both tried to derail this by saying I meant that looks didn't matter. I have already said they matter alot. I just said there is more to the story, so why not complete it.

It's so stupid for you to even say that, that I realized I was dealing with two morons, who it wouldn't even be possible to have a actual discussion with.

Because you don't actually want to in the first place. You just want to ramble about looks eternally, and try to "prove" it to me, instead of actually get to the bottom of something.

It's just like normies, no useful discussion to be had there. And yea it's actually pretty common in the red pill community too, surprise surprise.

You don't even know enough, to know how much you don't know.

I just told you the fucking facts bro. A few of them being yea there are guys out there tagging smoking hot chicks, without looks, who are just fun cool guys.

And that status is huge and it's a perfectly legitimate route for even sub human men to get a bunch of hot girls.

What do you even think status is? A large part is personality and social skills. Looks can give you status, but how do you think all the guys without looks do it? Sometimes a person's status is solely or largely their personality.

And that wheter you are good looking or not, you still need social ability, sometimes more, sometimes less, especially with the hotter girls.

It's essential and not something to be removed or minimized.

And by the way what does pointing out the fact that looks matter do?

After the initial realization, who cares? It does you no good after that, aside from improving it, which is limited in many cases.

It doesn't help you whatsoever, if anything it hurts you by lowering your confidence.

Max it out and then focus on how you can actually win and succeed at the highest level you can.

Not writing autistic "primality" posts over and over.

Sorry but that's just the truth.

Who gives a fuck?
Doesn't clarify reality in announcing rebukement. Just explicates that you think it's irrelevant but you haven't specified why. You wanna juxtapose my clarification of reality in this wittily arbitrarian spin to divert by swag instead of ride the impartial clarification train of obvious objectivities with me.

It's like saying "what part of a car is most important? Surely, the engine".


I don't give a fuck which part is more important, all I care about is a fully functional car and driving it and enjoying it.
And yea buddy, there is alot more than looks, it doesn't need to be a either or.
Already clarify this.

You both tried to derail this by saying I meant that looks didn't matter. I have already said they matter alot. I just said there is more to the story, so why not complete it.
But you also put the locus of attraction in the wrong places because you're unable to budge yourself into the true evolution/ darwinian primaility into it.

It's so stupid for you to even say that, that I realized I was dealing with two morons, who it wouldn't even be possible to have a actual discussion with.

Because you don't actually want to in the first place. You just want to ramble about looks eternally, and try to "prove" it to me, instead of actually get to the bottom of something.
What bottom are you trying to get to?

I just told you the fucking facts bro. A few of them being yea there are guys out there tagging smoking hot chicks, without looks, who are just fun cool guys.
This isn't something that I disagree with you about. You can be a swagmaster and get laid. But it depends on how much is propelling you. Game doesn't exist. It's a vacuous platitude riddled with flare for people who are taken ignorantly by their arbitrarian ride of the mind. Everything logically/ rationally dissected can't be broken down with RSD tyler going "dude bro bro dude bro".

And that status is huge and it's a perfectly legitimate route for even sub human men to get a bunch of hot girls.
You're always platformed and pillared by something. Nothing is independent from a system and women do have a TON of colluding commonly congruent patterns to what they like. This is why insofar as someone can estimate, that there is objective truth to what is attractive per every species under certain conditions. And that which hits most of the mark can be approached more. And it does depend on the inner and outer constraints of the big fish getting laid by women. Or women getting laid by the big fish. Depends on who approaches.
Such things that pillar getting with them as perosnality congruence, finance, her availability/ freedom/ time constraints/ family/ religious conviction/ her anxiety levels with all these considered/ what emotional state or line of factors makes her able to approach him/ etc. It's just that looks are so essential that a woman highlights looks in her ideal man as a permanent/ stilled factor because it is something in our "primal" system of selection that is valuable.

It bleeds into why people will find certain men attractive. Because a guy with high status/ high swag has many prospects. Ultimately go I think girls will pick what they hormonally hunger for. And most of them go alpha. Chad/ Primal Prodigy (since again, people perceive them as the obvious winners.) It's a belief system. There's Primality Materiarchy (Somatic). Then Primality Immateriarchy (i.e. inner game). Both being kept in check are primality prodifiges.

Edifiedarchy. And that depends on the way the person is enlightened/ transcends primality. And no one really does. Not completely.

Moderatarchy. Someone who is typically anxious/ uncaring/ just wants to find someone who is hierarchically available in proportion to their resources/ lives/ low stress/ befits their low inhibition. White men with Asians for example.


A swagmaster beaner nigger or something who is a rap artist is someone who implements the swagmaster/ thug suave master game. Gets an abstract/ immaterial vessel for primality material capital (money) and primality immaterial capital (status).
Like a mix between musician and bad boy. pretty much all black people can do, since they can't be defined by their bodies to get laid/ build a civilized medium of being distinct they then turn to music since that's a visceral medium of primality value as well.
So he can get laid fine. But he sucks on a pure primality material level, so he needs abstract notions ot back him up. Like if a really ugly pig was the only pig a male pig could fuck in 1000 miles, the abstract pressures of hopelessness/ aloneness/ sexlessness would make a princess out of that pig to that pig. But the repulsion factor would work against it.

That's a good metaphor to explain nigger rappers. BUt if they're ugly enough, well, the counter capital to that will prevent the pig's incenting to the girl pig. Typically that's what happens when yo uget a nigger so ugly tha the jews/ msm can't use him as a vessel for their agenda.

What do you even think status is? A large part is personality and social skills. Looks can give you status, but how do you think all the guys without looks do it? Sometimes a person's status is solely or largely their personality.
No. It's the power that is abstracted from their place they're in right now. Stephen hawking has high status. He won't get laid. But the reason that a rapper would get more pussy even though less people would know his name is because he is super powerful/ dynamic in the social arena. Has high primality dominarchical capital. Rap is essentially acting like a jungle gorilla and bombastically flaunting your success by showcasing your resilience/ skills against the issues/ weardown of life.

It's just that social skills/ swagmastering is a good way to spread connections. Again the correlation (to high power/ status) is not causation. A correlation/ component is not causation. It isn't even a complete component because high status can come without swag. Some Russian psycho can be stone cold and get laid because he has a shadow predator demeanor that girls are turned onto. Becuase someone who is that ruthless and powerful controls the balance of life and death. He is able to compel all. When a girl is with someone like that, she abstracts its because she's elite. WOMEN get their happiness from relationality of what the reasons are, that a woman thinks is between her position and other women's position, or other people. That gives her great pride and joy. It's what their searching for.
Moderationists want a certain type of joy with both primality and elitism, but they just end up with what's easiest and convenient usually/ usually the most common case is having a moderational primalitist. Not a primal moderationalist, because a lot of people put their ambitions before their moderation, not their moderation before their ambition. Ambition takes time and stress and often dies without oomph to supply it. The less you care about something the less you're willing ot make sacrifices sustaining it. A lot of people want oth ave ambition ebcause it makes them feel primal pride in having one part of them dipped in the competitive primal realm of relational power. They don't want to just be pure plebs. But often they're not primally predicated enough to sacrifice instant gratification/ comfort to gain real power.
Primality is elitist in nature. Only true edificality or some degree of it can bring people to be humble and not primal.



And that wheter you are good looking or not, you still need social ability, sometimes more, sometimes less, especially with the hotter girls.
Mostly true.

It's essential and not something to be removed or minimized.
You can make more bridges with social skills, but you can't have more latent potential and opportunity more than if someone is good looking. Someone who is completely defficient in social skills will never get laid. Even if they are good looking. But someone who is deficient in looks might. But still, if you have higher amounts of looks then you will get laid far more than someone who goes off personality without the primality immaterial bonus of status/ power.



And by the way what does pointing out the fact that looks matter do?

After the initial realization, who cares? It does you no good after that, aside from improving it, which is limited in many cases.
Biological basis. Are you retarded. You think my paragraphs just talk about NOTHING?

It doesn't help you whatsoever, if anything it hurts you by lowering your confidence.
Lol

Max it out and then focus on how you can actually win and succeed at the highest level you can.
You have no idea what this is all about lol. And you might never will. :twisted:

I already know about looks and attraction.

You seem to be speaking to me as if I am someone who has not yet encountered this and needs to learn about it.

I used to tell PUA's about it all the time and do the same thing I'm doing with you except about looks instead of status or social skills or vibe.

Although admittedly that was alot more exciting since it was during PUA's heyday when it was actually a big discussion and there was alot of people involved in it.

This forum is just so dead that it usually just feels like a waste of time. It's just extremely lame trolling and shit posting left, of the lowest degree.

You think my paragraphs just talk about NOTHING?


Mostly yes.

Unless you know a ton of things that you don't say, which I find doubtful.

And the way you talk about it and explain it is just strange and unnecessary.

You think my paragraphs just talk about NOTHING?


Mostly yes.

Unless you know a ton of things that you don't say, which I find doubtful.

And the way you talk about it and explain it is just strange and unnecessary.
If you can't delineate why you doubt it, when especially I could, then you're not on my level of articulation and insight which should be clearly indicative of you not really knowing what you're talking about and your bravado is a defense mechanism.


How can something I don't say give any more meaning to the things I do? If you can't tell about their existence which is implied in saying "unless" -/ except if conjunction then how are they even relevant to what I've already said? They wouldn't make my current statements right or wrong in of themselves if you don't know. Information that you speculate may or may not exist wouldn't give what's currently said more truth or untruth unless by reading my mind it somehow makes more sense. But if you have the right information anyway you should be able to gauge the possession or absence of sense/ substance about from what I'm saying.

You've said nothing I've already known btw. I think you're trying to disguise your loss with pomp.

Delineate why you doubt my integrity. Delineate why you think it's strange and unnecessary. Thing is, I am someone who likes to have thorough discussions. You're exhibiting dismission and that a lot of what I've done is below your level of interest/ logic/ insight/ etc. but based on what I've gauged about what you say, it's pretentious of you to think that about me.

People like you make me think that stylish satire isn't an uncommonality anymore. Typical low bow social stringpulling technique is responding to one single thing... like what I said about me inquiring as to whether or not you think I know thing as an exaggerated rhetoric. Like when a tae kwon do sensei hears a question that implies that the questioner is without the axiom of the basics and the sensei responds "HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING"?

Questions are often a platform to exhibit a quickness of mind. For example, it's probably more polite and intrinsic to the nature of humanity that analyzes much to take everything into account. You take a rhetorical exclamation and cut only to that as a way that acknowledges the lowest/ quickest possible dismission possible. Again, to pomply conduit. It's witty/ sarcastic/ underlyingly disparaging and latently displaying how you gauge me, which in turn sets the bar of what people ought to think of me.

Typically the less you exert, and the more you judgily periodically critique, then you'll create the ominous overcast of the value of your ability/ power/ prominence/ etc. I.E. everything that you're examining in the person/ victim of the criticism, and making a vague disparity known between your ability, and theirs based on the way you're judging it/ your impression of value vs theirs, when you haven't "apparently" exerted yourself. I call this the faultcall upon the exerter obscurely overcasting vaguevalue upon the reserved.

Even if what I say may hold some merit, you overcast yourself as being the one of higher value even though you are only reservedly displaying yourself... but this subcommunicates another chillaxious trick. You wanna use your fault call even though you have no substance to really see it as fault to project to others that it's faulty and you'll use your primality momentum (which needs to be aided by some latent value to give the right impression, this wouldn't really work well for a 5'2 tall spic in all average cases anyway) to speak for itself instead of exertion. You'll just remain reserved and people will have the underlying notion that you're of higher value and the person who exerted themselves sucks and needs to be a tryhard.

This is of course if the situation isn't bridged in with someone being obviously retarded. If someone comes out with intelligent propositions then you need to use chillaxer tactics/ swagster social stringpulling. If someone is coming out that he thinks pigs are sexy, and that you can make babies with pigs then it's self explanatory. What you're doing is a competitive tactic. If my speculations are confirmed.

Also depends on the general morale of the people. Even if you're saying something entirely valid about marxism. And someone who is taller/ good looking says stuff about how it's shitty in a 3 word sentence without giving thorough analysis why, then people will perceive that he's right just because he has the body proportions/ anecdotal aura of being a winner. Again, it's the vaguevalue and letting self-explanatory albeit impression centric evidence be the selfexplanatory indicators of right and wrong... from the arbitrarian animalistic angles... not of raw truth/ fact.

Where the faultcaller descends upon the exerting person with a criticism, and even if the person doesn't delineate why, they'll try to make a contextualization on their own (with the primality mentality with low edifice) on why this person believes that the explaining exerting person is beneath the interactionary activity of discernment and explanation. Maybe not becuase he's stupid. But it's based on what he's projected.

Taking one thing I said, instead of tackling it at all, one thing which questions my competency as a figure which flags your witty brevity. Showing your swiftwitted/ minded nature and diligence to make use of your time and open no consideration/ task that constraints your nature being consonant/ heavily predicated on excellence/ productivity

You could have delineated more instead of displaying your dominarchical capital or flaunting your faculties.

Define what knowing is. We're not two rappers verbally clashing. What you define as "knowing"? What volume of facets must be grasped and in what regard/ module of understanding/ realizing/ informational cognitive codification do you think comprises what "knowing" is?

Delineate what things you think I don't know. This is a good platform to do so. Let's say eveyrthing I say is already established, so based from that, delineate what you think I'm totally lost on. So go on, do it.

If you can't delineate why you doubt it, when especially I could, then you're not on my level of articulation and insight


That's been my whole point to you. That it's lacking in articulation and insight. At a sufficient depth that it can actually be applied in a actionable way.

How can something I don't say give any more meaning to the things I do? If you can't tell about their existence which is implied in saying "unless" -/ except if conjunction then how are they even relevant to what I've already said? They wouldn't make my current statements right or wrong in of themselves if you don't know. Information that you speculate may or may not exist wouldn't give what's currently said more truth or untruth unless by reading my mind it somehow makes more sense. But if you have the right information anyway you should be able to gauge the possession or absence of sense/ substance about from what I'm saying.


I just meant that if that's the extent of your knowledge and understanding, based off the entirety of your posts, then it's not something you will be able to do much with.

You've said nothing I've already known btw. I think you're trying to disguise your loss with pomp.


"Loss" is just a personal egotistical conflict.

It's only that way if that's the mindset you take to it.

There is just the truth and what you can do with it.

Delineate why you doubt my integrity. Delineate why you think it's strange and unnecessary. Thing is, I am someone who likes to have thorough discussions. You're exhibiting dismission and that a lot of what I've done is below your level of interest/ logic/ insight/ etc. but based on what I've gauged about what you say, it's pretentious of you to think that about me.


I am perfectly capable of being totally rational and objective with you.

In fact I'm surprised I should even need to say that, since I already made multiple posts criticizing the hyper social nature and function of humanity, including women.

I actually really have nothing but contempt for it.

But I still understand the reality of the world and it's importance, both with women, and in a social world based off relationships. It's just the way things are, I don't pick and choose how they are, they just are.

Just because I talk about social skills and vibe and status doesn't mean I think those things are ideal. But they are the nature of reality, so they matter.

Needless to say though my critique of what you are saying has actually been exactly that.

Of it's objective value.

That's something we could discuss in more detail but to do that we would need to talk in a way that would increase the clarity and utility of our views by deepening and clarifying instead of simply going in circles repeating our view points to each other.

Sometimes a conflict can even lead to a better understanding or a greater whole, but that depends on how it's done and how the discussion is handled.

If you could give me straight questions and expect a answer and I could the same with you, then I would hope that would be beneficial for both of us.

People like you make me think that stylish satire isn't an uncommonality anymore. Typical low bow social stringpulling technique is responding to one single thing... like what I said about me inquiring as to whether or not you think I know thing as an exaggerated rhetoric. Like when a tae kwon do sensei hears a question that implies that the questioner is without the axiom of the basics and the sensei responds "HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING"?


I don't really care for any exaggerated rhetoric here, lets just talk about the specific facts and details.

Questions are often a platform to exhibit a quickness of mind. For example, it's probably more polite and intrinsic to the nature of humanity that analyzes much to take everything into account. You take a rhetorical exclamation and cut only to that as a way that acknowledges the lowest/ quickest possible dismission possible. Again, to pomply conduit. It's witty/ sarcastic/ underlyingly disparaging and latently displaying how you gauge me, which in turn sets the bar of what people ought to think of me.


That is not an inaccurate analysis.

It's actually funny because it ties in with what you usually say about how girls prefer when a man is born with it instead of works to achieve it.

But what I would say it that they care about the appearance of effortlessness, not actual effortlessness, which is not something that can accurately gauge anyways.

And people do in general because of what it says to the "primal" mind.

A person who is care free and relaxed, the primal mind is assuming there is a objective reason for why they are. Same with a person who seems stressed or expending lots of effort. That there must be a reason for that as well.

The thing I pointed out to you is that sometimes some guys have that, even for no good reason. And some guys don't have it even when they should.

But in a women's mind she doesn't realize that. In her primal brain it's just that the guy who is care free and relaxed, must be successful and dominant, and that is why he is, rather than that he just is for no good reason.

It's kind of like a evolutionary loophole in a way.

There is most definitely alot of social appeal in a perceived lack of effort, and also alot of lack of appeal to trying too hard or taking something too seriously.

I don't really find that as a valid criticism of effort though, but something that is good to know about and use socially.

Typically the less you exert, and the more you judgily periodically critique, then you'll create the ominous overcast of the value of your ability/ power/ prominence/ etc. I.E. everything that you're examining in the person/ victim of the criticism, and making a vague disparity known between your ability, and theirs based on the way you're judging it/ your impression of value vs theirs, when you haven't "apparently" exerted yourself. I call this the faultcall upon the exerter obscurely overcasting vaguevalue upon the reserved.


Yes you are correct.

Although it wasn't really necessary to put it in the words that you did.

What value do you see them as serving? I don't use them and I can still communicate the same ideas.

You really could explain it as simply as "the emotional appeal of perceived effortlessness".

And yet again since you are asking me to be more specific in my criticism, what makes you think you could have that vibe in a real time social situation under heavy pressure?

Do you actually believe that this realization translates to that?

Because it doesn't. How to actually do that is another discussion entirely, than just you worded linguistic understanding of it.

And also even if you could do that, could you teach someone who could not to do it?

Now that right there is an objective value, is it something you can provide?

How so?

Even if what I say may hold some merit, you overcast yourself as being the one of higher value even though you are only reservedly displaying yourself... but this subcommunicates another chillaxious trick. You wanna use your fault call even though you have no substance to really see it as fault to project to others that it's faulty and you'll use your primality momentum (which needs to be aided by some latent value to give the right impression, this wouldn't really work well for a 5'2 tall spic in all average cases anyway) to speak for itself instead of exertion. You'll just remain reserved and people will have the underlying notion that you're of higher value and the person who exerted themselves sucks and needs to be a tryhard.


This is not a trick really, it's actually a very common behavior, even on internet forums, much less in real life social situations with girls.

And yes there is more to it than just not caring, but that overlays certain underlying factors to create a certain vibe.

And by the way do you think it's funny when people try to troll you about social skills and vibe, using social skills and vibe?

This is of course if the situation isn't bridged in with someone being obviously retarded. If someone comes out with intelligent propositions then you need to use chillaxer tactics/ swagster social stringpulling. If someone is coming out that he thinks pigs are sexy, and that you can make babies with pigs then it's self explanatory. What you're doing is a competitive tactic. If my speculations are confirmed.


I am not trying to compete with you at all.

I just think it's better to keep the discussion in touch with reality and not wander too far off from that.

Instead of becoming too caught in only analyzing.

Also depends on the general morale of the people. Even if you're saying something entirely valid about marxism. And someone who is taller/ good looking says stuff about how it's shitty in a 3 word sentence without giving thorough analysis why, then people will perceive that he's right just because he has the body proportions/ anecdotal aura of being a winner. Again, it's the vaguevalue and letting self-explanatory albeit impression centric evidence be the selfexplanatory indicators of right and wrong... from the arbitrarian animalistic angles... not of raw truth/ fact.


There is a way around this for social influencers.

It's called a "front man".

Basically someone who has good visual optics while someone else is the real master mind behind the scenes.

The people who control the world are oftentimes not actually especially good looking, just very intelligent.

Is this a position you disagree with?

I've never seen anyone be able to present evidence that it wasn't true.

Where the faultcaller descends upon the exerting person with a criticism, and even if the person doesn't delineate why, they'll try to make a contextualization on their own (with the primality mentality with low edifice) on why this person believes that the explaining exerting person is beneath the interactionary activity of discernment and explanation. Maybe not becuase he's stupid. But it's based on what he's projected.


Why do you think feminists favorite thing to do is say "you don't get laid".

Taking one thing I said, instead of tackling it at all, one thing which questions my competency as a figure which flags your witty brevity. Showing your swiftwitted/ minded nature and diligence to make use of your time and open no consideration/ task that constraints your nature being consonant/ heavily predicated on excellence/ productivity


In social situations there is always a the surface and a social shadow.

The shadow is the underlying dynamics. And there are always many underlying dynamics beneath what appears at the surface.

You could have delineated more instead of displaying your dominarchical capital or flaunting your faculties.


I have been delineating to you.

Define what knowing is. We're not two rappers verbally clashing. What you define as "knowing"? What volume of facets must be grasped and in what regard/ module of understanding/ realizing/ informational cognitive codification do you think comprises what "knowing" is?


That's actually a good question.

What does it even mean for something to be true or false?

I believe that true or false is just a matter of feelings and experience. In fact what else even is there?

Can you tell me something else?

Of course there appears to be certain laws of reality, or of this experience, but yet again we do not care about that aside from the experience and feelings itself.

In fact really it's false to say that there even is anything else, cause what else is there?

It's kind of like seeing the forest for the trees.

And not getting so wrapped up with "objective" reality that you forget why you had a interest in it in the first place.

Delineate what things you think I don't know. This is a good platform to do so. Let's say eveyrthing I say is already established, so based from that, delineate what you think I'm totally lost on. So go on, do it.


You don't know anything about biology or it's manipulation. If you do then explain it.

You don't know how to translate anything you've said into actionable reality. If you do then explain it.

How about you pretend I'm someone that doesn't know anything.

It's like talking about how to ride a bicycle.

Of course you sit on it and move the pedals and balance it so doesn't fall over.

But that's quite different from actually riding one, or connecting the conscious process in real time.

What do I do, and how?
Previous

Return to Bash the Scene

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests