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 don't need to read what he says, I can just look at reality and see guys all the time who do possess this combination of social skills / vibe and use it to gain plenty of social power and influence and subsequent women that comes with it.

Their personality is their skill, so to speak.

To put it in his terms, it's a form of primal capital itself, it's a free standing factor, it's not dependent on the others.


Nearly no factor of an individual is free standing, there's nearly always an interplay amongst them.

I don't know what reality you are seeing but for me it's always the good looking guys with the good looking women. I have met men with good social skills and vibe as you call it, but if they're ugly they don't get good looking women at all. Most of the time it was women on their own looks level. Again you are confusing cause for effect.

Lets not even use that term because it doesn't do it justice. Without going into a large amount of unnecessary detail, we are discussing a complex combination of vibe, mindset, beliefs, attitudes, social skills, and combined subtle behaviors that would constitute a guy having charisma.

It's not just "that guy is confident" or "not confident".

It's more like how does that guys brain / psychology function and the subsequent emotions and vibe that comes from that along with the combined social skills.


Charisma, confidence, etc. . is mostly useless if woman does not find you sexually attractive. That's it. And you don't create attraction from a woman - she either has it for you or she does not. And on practical terms to notice another person's charisma, as you put it, requires them to know the person. If she does not want to know the person all those social skills and charisma etc . . means nothing.

They do all the time.

Well not all the time, but at least as commonly as chads do.

Chads are pretty rare, so are guys with massive personalities. Getting a ton of hot girls period is rare. Doesn't mean that looks is the only way to do it though.

Some guys will also get mad about this and say that this level of status or money is not reasonable for the normal guy.

Well neither is being 1 in a million winner of a genetic aesthetic lottery.


People as ugly as Quasimodo - no they do not get women. Simple as. And if they do it's not quality women, or the woman is strange in the head or virtue signalling to her peers. Again all rare cases. Most women wouldn't even look in their direction because they are so repulsive.

I never said looks was the only way, it's a factor. And there are threshold tolerances and the like going on. Also, depending on your looks level, you experience different issues relating to it that it biases your views, so there is an interplay on all this too. I do agree: a very good looking guy can lose out to a normal looking guy with good charisma if the females in his social circle have known him for some time and see what he's like.

All other issues I think Eugenicist has answered you well enough.



and just to add, all my replies to you have been off hand and at a low level, not of the quality that Eugenicist does, so I apologise for that.

So you don't have to be a dominarch to have high primality.It's tenderness in relation to the psychopathic nature of living things and the domination predication all living things have from the way which most things are in the universe. A power play of opposing physical forces. Dominarchy is one of the main trait trees of primality. Dominarchical traits are what women gauge and glean as valuable in the real world. Often looks/ appearance hold the value they have because of the properties they like about someone's appearance orienting their value from being more dominant savvy from the status/ raw social power it loans itself to.


I feel like you are making this discussion more complex than it needs to be through your style of communication and I'm not sure why.

Sometimes added complexity adds value but here I think it is just making things more inefficient and taxing without adding anything useful.

For example you are making a false dichotomy of invented terms here and the reality is a combination of those two things, in a way that is difficult to convey or explain in this convoluted system you have invented to describe and interact with it.

You are making it harder to have a discussion because to do so one has to go through your system and terms, instead of just clarifying and connecting over the most accurate apt description which is what I am trying to do, it's making for a more strained interaction than should be necessary.

Sigh... you're retarded if you thought I umbrella'd all of this capital chiefly from that.


Be clear in your communications then, don't obfuscate and then blame the other person for their confusion, rather than for the lack of clarity in your presentation.

AND it gives ourselves a feeling of cosmic significance in having high appearance rather htan feeling we made it through flukes/ artificial (out of the will of the universe) means by money/ status like the PUAs offer us to do.


I don't agree with that idea at all. Some people find the opposite, they have much stronger and better emotions because they earned something. In fact it's arguable than any existence that doesn't have a certain appropriate level of struggle is much more unsatisfying than one that does.

No, it's just the greatest favorable set of features people want because it's the cheat code to life.


Not exactly. As usual there is some truth to what you say, but it's far from much more powerful and much more useful descriptions that consider the full functional situation and the associated detail and additional factors.

Are you trying to make a point or be accurate? Those are two different goals.

Primality mentalities believe that the osmosis of one's personal delivery... unspoken... unstated is where true value is subcommunicated. If you have to go further, there is a bit of a libido kill. Faint, can be overriden, but still present nonetheless.


Maybe in some cases, that is true, about the libido kill.

And why does it matter wheter you worked for it or not?

I know you are trying to draw a distinction but I think it's a pointless one. We should discuss which is better, not which might have some vague psychological superiority in some temporary cases and situations.

But this is an incredibly vast oversimplification and not in the good way.

AND it gives ourselves a feeling of cosmic significance in having high appearance rather htan feeling we made it through flukes/ artificial (out of the will of the universe) means by money/ status like the PUAs offer us to do.


It doesn't matter. What matters is what ultimately functions best. If trying harder functions best and creates a better result, then who cares about any of this.

You're deliberately trying to derail me of the primal momentum of my insight by arguing with a derogating straw man.


If it was a straw man, it's one that you had a hand in building.

You don't know what a reductionist really is


I would not have actually even brought the term or idea into the discussion myself. At least not worded that way.

I did say that you were isolating a variable and then falsely projecting it to the entirety of a system, instead of analyzing all the parts and their relationships and the subsequent whole system that they combine to create, as a much better interpretation than your obsession with the one single part.

And yes that is reductionism. I don't know what definition you are working from, and clarify that if you want, but that would fall under the accepted definition of both the term and the philosophy.

Dude natural charisma is discerned by what has impact on the primal discernment system. ... Essentially keeping primal momentum which often is broken depending on how looks are essential to the girl, which is a lot to a lot of them. Attraction is not affirmative action. Primal marketry is hierarchical.


That's just a system that you don't understand then. Because you don't understand the human social brain and it's primal function, outside of physical visual aesthetic cues, which is your reductionism of the system to that factor.

You then say that you did not say this and this is not your theory, but it basically is and you imply it and heavily associate with it all the time.

If anything it's certainly dominant in your mind.

And why even discuss it in this fashion, just cut the shit, and say what you think directly.
Loose Goose

100+

Nearly no factor of an individual is free standing, there's nearly always an interplay amongst them.


This is just a superfluous point in regards to what I said.

I don't know what reality you are seeing but for me it's always the good looking guys with the good looking women


That's something that can easily be demonstrated to be false, even on this forum. If you refuse to accept that, that's fine, but I don't know what else to tell you then, because you are simply not in reality, and unable to engage in a accurate truthful investigation of it based on the evidence and facts.

I have no need to convince you of it, I was simply responding to your arguments.

I have met men with good social skills and vibe as you call it, but if they're ugly they don't get good looking women at all. Most of the time it was women on their own looks level.


Your anecdotes are irrelevant to the clear facts of many men who do.

That is something we can actually discuss, your anecdotes are something that is only accessible to you, so it's not a very good standard of evidence nor a useful discussion to even have.

And on practical terms to notice another person's charisma, as you put it, requires them to know the person. If she does not want to know the person all those social skills and charisma etc . . means nothing.


Yet again you are making a error here in the context in which you conceive social interactions as one on one interactions instead of a overall one of that individual and a much larger social group and tribe.

You are misunderstanding the type of social interaction we are even discussing. We aren't even discussing the same concept here.

People as ugly as Quasimodo - no they do not get women. Simple as. And if they do it's not quality women, or the woman is strange in the head or virtue signalling to her peers. Again all rare cases. Most women wouldn't even look in their direction because they are so repulsive.


This is a unusual position to take. Almost no one on PSL would agree with you here, because it's so obvious.

The usual argument though is that "well that doesn't count because they are just using him for his money and status and not truly attracted, similar to a prostitute".

That is the typical retort to the undeniable evidence of subhumans fucking really hot girls.

By the way of course it's rare. So are chads. When you are discussing having sex with a large amount of hot women, that's a rare thing in the first place.

We aren't discussing wheter it's common, cause it's not, we are just discussing what elite factors lead to it, and why some might be preferable to others.

I don't know of anyone on PSL, except for you in this case, who would attempt to deny the evidence that ugly guys get hot girls.

They would just attempt to write off as a form of prostitution, even if the girls aren't actually hookers, and they don't pay them.

And if they do it's not quality women


That really depends on your definition of quality. In this case when I say hot I just mean very physically attractive.

I do agree: a very good looking guy can lose out to a normal looking guy with good charisma if the females in his social circle have known him for some time and see what he's like.


I believe that even in a cold approach context, it's possible.

Especially if you are talking about just a normal level good looking guy vs a very charismatic ugly guy.

It might change depending on the specific levels of either, say if the guy was literally one of the best looking men in the world or something. But how common is that.

I would say RSD Tyler at this point, after 15+ years of learning it, would fall under the category of "very charismatic ugly guy" at least in a cold approach context. He is at a level that is far beyond the norm in this case.

So discussing him is different than discussing say a ugly guy who's just somewhat more charismatic than average, in the normal sense.

Same as a discussing the best looking chads in the world is very different than discussing the average good looking guy at a club.

Those are both extreme outliers.

In a normal context you would probably be correct, a ugly but more charismatic guy probably loses to a better looking less charismatic one.

We are talking about really hot girls and outliers though. Since getting a bunch of really hot girls is a outlier itself in the first place.

All other issues I think Eugenicist has answered you well enough.


Eugenicist doesn't even have a functioning theory. Tell me, say if you knew nothing, and then you learned his ideas, what would even change? What could you even do with it?

This is the same problem I have with people like Jordan Peterson. They say alot of things, some of it might even be accurate, but it's of limited applicable utility in real life.

It's just the same as telling people "be confident" instead of actually "this is how you do this".

It's analysis of limited value. I don't think it has none, but it's far over estimated.

and just to add, all my replies to you have been off hand and at a low level, not of the quality that Eugenicist does, so I apologise for that.


You can speak to me however you want or are comfortable with. I am just doing the same, telling you my thoughts.



cperkins wrote:and just to add, all my replies to you have been off hand and at a low level, not of the quality that Eugenicist does, so I apologise for that.
Yeah I think he's contriving his contrarianism to reality. Yeah it's true that there is more to this shit than LMS. But even the aspects that are immaterial/ the chillguy dudebrah demeanor only works if there's a dominarchic volume to it. Which comes from his looks, money, status ultimately. It's tacitly true based on the manner which PUAs go about talking to women. Look at what they are SAYING the ultimate selling point is for a girl. It's something on the PRIMAL SCALE. A lot of what PUAs do though is snake oil salesman style advertising/ omitting the raw truth and putting daisy braided retarded optimism in its place.

This omission of bare bones reality/ the true selling points brings an osmotic fallacy set that you can do it so long as you "BELIEVE" in yourself. Which is not true. Not really. You'll just be a sad, pathetic, desperate anomaly.

Sure people have natural charisma. A lot of girls don't have a normie friendly view concerning what men are of value for anyway though. Charisma is more predicated on tacit dominarchic demeanors. It's just a more clever variant. Which is still primality.

Women are by and large underlyingly sinister/ machiavellian/ desiring dominance among their social spheres. They'll not just be that christian quire girl who will enjoy coffee dates with random people. One you'll see in romance comedies starring jack black or dan aykroyd. That's hollywood horseshit.

Most of them pillar their hormonal hunger rather randomly. But the impact of dominarchic/ glamorarchic/ refinementarchic value exceeds/ set the platform for any tenderness, and engages them deep within their intimate core. It's what they'd really want.
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

Yet again you are making a error here in the context in which you conceive social interactions as one on one interactions instead of a overall one of that individual and a much larger social group and tribe.

You are misunderstanding the type of social interaction we are even discussing. We aren't even discussing the same concept here.


I never really said that.

Social interactions can be casual, or something else, etc. .

But in my experience if a woman is open to you she'll bother with you. And I know how to tell the difference between politeness and genuine interest. At the end of the day if a woman is giving you one word answers it usually mean that they are not interested.

Your anecdotes are irrelevant to the clear facts of many men who do.

That is something we can actually discuss, your anecdotes are something that is only accessible to you, so it's not a very good standard of evidence nor a useful discussion to even have.


And so are yours - so what?

This is a unusual position to take. Almost no one on PSL would agree with you here, because it's so obvious.

The usual argument though is that "well that doesn't count because they are just using him for his money and status and not truly attracted, similar to a prostitute".

That is the typical retort to the undeniable evidence of subhumans fucking really hot girls.

By the way of course it's rare. So are chads. When you are discussing having sex with a large amount of hot women, that's a rare thing in the first place.

We aren't discussing wheter it's common, cause it's not, we are just discussing what elite factors lead to it, and why some might be preferable to others.

I don't know of anyone on PSL, except for you in this case, who would attempt to deny the evidence that ugly guys get hot girls.

They would just attempt to write off as a form of prostitution, even if the girls aren't actually hookers, and they don't pay them.


First I have no idea what PSL is. Second thing I find it laughable that you think that subhumans fucking hot girls somehow breaks a "theory" (when none was actually offered). We're an adaptive species, based on circumstance and context and all that stuff. Yes, I suppose there are rare cases of subhumans fucking hot girls, but it's not the norm is it? By definition it isn't. So why should that be a shock to anyone with any sense of proportion in reality.

Same with chad, I agree that there are going to be some women who DON'T find chad at all attractive, but then again the norm is that the majority of the women find chad attractive, and he'll be flooded with so much offers that he's not going to care about the ones who aren't interested in him.

If you want to take some examples of "subhumans", take Lyle Lovett or Mick Jagger. They've had hot women. They're not exactly what you call good looking. Ask yourself would they even had the women they had if they were regular joes working normal jobs etc? But no, if you look like Quasimodo you're not going to get any women - that's just obvious.

That really depends on your definition of quality. In this case when I say hot I just mean very physically attractive.


high physical attractiveness, well mannered and sweet, no mental issues, does not sleep around, someone who you can trust be married to. . .

I believe that even in a cold approach context, it's possible.

Especially if you are talking about just a normal level good looking guy vs a very charismatic ugly guy.

It might change depending on the specific levels of either, say if the guy was literally one of the best looking men in the world or something. But how common is that.

I would say RSD Tyler at this point, after 15+ years of learning it, would fall under the category of "very charismatic ugly guy" at least in a cold approach context. He is at a level that is far beyond the norm in this case.

So discussing him is different than discussing say a ugly guy who's just somewhat more charismatic than average, in the normal sense.

Same as a discussing the best looking chads in the world is very different than discussing the average good looking guy at a club.

Those are both extreme outliers.

In a normal context you would probably be correct, a ugly but more charismatic guy probably loses to a better looking less charismatic one.


From what I am seeing RSD Tyler is NOT actually ugly. He's more of a normie. And I laugh at your "15+ years of learning it" because if he has done that, then he's a retard and has really learnt nothing. . . You don't really "game" women - what is there is already there, not matter what you think otherwise. You can however encourage interest if there is some of it there already, but you CAN'T create interest if there is none in the first place. Even an 11 year old can understand that, if not explicitly then at least subliminally - and I think most adults too. This PUA nonsense has retarded so many people's minds. . .

We are talking about really hot girls and outliers though. Since getting a bunch of really hot girls is a outlier itself in the first place.


No, from what I gather what you mean to say is that YOU want to CONVINCE yourself that there is a chance for YOU with these really hot girls. That's the impression I am getting from your response. You want US to tell you what YOU want to hear. Too bad. . .

From someone who had a few really hot women all I can tell you is that they were attracted to my looks, and there wasn't much work on my part, it also helped that I earned a fair bit of money but that was only an advantage of being able to go to expensive restaurants and holidays etc. . . Charisma, personality, character etc. . . came later, women make things very easy for you if they like you. There was the case of someone slowly showing her interest in me, but I found out she was interested all along and was just binding her time for the right moment.

Eugenicist doesn't even have a functioning theory. Tell me, say if you knew nothing, and then you learned his ideas, what would even change? What could you even do with it?

This is the same problem I have with people like Jordan Peterson. They say alot of things, some of it might even be accurate, but it's of limited applicable utility in real life.

It's just the same as telling people "be confident" instead of actually "this is how you do this".

It's analysis of limited value. I don't think it has none, but it's far over estimated.


If you don't understand what Eugenicist is saying then I can't help you with that.

All Eugenicist has ever done for me is to resolve and articulate the many muddled issues I've had about women - and humans in general - that I've always felt but could not articulate properly. If I knew nothing I would just go out in the world to see how his views play out. And what could I do with his posts? Since you ask I'll just say I'm glad that someone had the guts to say what needs to be said, and thank him for elucidating and illuminating the various issues I felt about all this time. My views on women haven't changed - they've been strengthened. If you contrast this to PUA stuff, then there was always a level of disingenuity and political correctness slipping into the narrative that made you feel that it was written by retards . . .

You just strike me as a person who wants people to tell him things that he wants to hear and at the same time not being able to see what is of value being laid out for you. The "value" I talk of is in regards the truth - whether they are actionable or not is another matter for you to decide.

And in regards to Jordan Petersen, your comment regarding his work tells me that you expect everything to be handed on a plate to you, to have a universal system to fix all things etc. . . You strike me as someone who probably isn't sure of himself and need more experience and want fixable affirmative things and one line answers etc. . .

And lastly I'll add in regards your "actionable" and "limited value" comments you strike me either as someone brainwashed by liberalism or you really believe in the cultural marxists.

If some scientist writes a piece on how males are better than females at certain tasks and females read it would they complain "this articles is of no worth, there is nothing actionable here so it's of limited value". . . PUA and the other scams want to appeal to the lowest common denominator, where everyone is given a chance and there is a glimmer of hope for everyone - how retarded is all that?

If anything what Petersen writes (from what I heard) is actionable in the practicable psychological sense. White males are constantly berated and made fun of by the MSM, it's like open season. If any of you had a fucking brain you'll realise that all this "toxic masculinity", feminist and "anti-white male" agenda is all RETARDED, and the people behind it just want to fuck you over. Jordan Petersen just tells obvious shit from his rules to just grow a fucking pair and realise that is bullshit. And it is. I mean that fact that he had to write that book with those rules just tells me how dominated some people are by the media, and how stupid they are to actually BUY into it.

I've never bought into this MSM white male hating nonsense because I just couldn't help feeling that it was totally retarded, and those behind it should be ashamed of themselves.



I don't agree with that idea at all. Some people find the opposite, they have much stronger and better emotions because they earned something. In fact it's arguable than any existence that doesn't have a certain appropriate level of struggle is much more unsatisfying than one that does.


You don't really grasp the depth of what i'm really trying to say. The harder someone has to work, the more it seems that their existence, by proxy, requires patience from society. And that means that they'd probably be someone more primed to be taken out. They don't get laurels and graces from society, and thus have to work for it. People want things handed to them because they are innately viewed as deserving of these achievements. Theres IS value in being an achievable person, but not as much as being someone that is innately bequeathed the laurels of being of a higher being of mankind. That's essentially the point of why people want to look better. No one wants to start life off at the bleacher, but on 3rd base, because then they can get a head start at going for the HIGHER echelons of mankind at a faster rate because they are starting life off at a higher level.






No, it's just the greatest favorable set of features people want because it's the cheat code to life.


Not exactly. As usual there is some truth to what you say, but it's far from much more powerful and much more useful descriptions that consider the full functional situation and the associated detail and additional factors.

Are you trying to make a point or be accurate? Those are two different goals.
I'm giving you general overviews and then you're blindsiding me with this different format of addressing my writs altogether. If you want to have formal debates, then we can, but I didn't necessarily ordain this to actually have an argumentative dissection. It should be self-explanatorily true to you anyway, but you're being retardedly contrarian about this. So, here we are.


Primality mentalities believe that the osmosis of one's personal delivery... unspoken... unstated is where true value is subcommunicated. If you have to go further, there is a bit of a libido kill. Faint, can be overriden, but still present nonetheless.


Maybe in some cases, that is true, about the libido kill.

And why does it matter wheter you worked for it or not?

I know you are trying to draw a distinction but I think it's a pointless one. We should discuss which is better, not which might have some vague psychological superiority in some temporary cases and situations.

But this is an incredibly vast oversimplification and not in the good way.


It matters to people because people have innate methods by which they evaluate and discern a person's value. Not to all women, but many draw mental prime lines of what is distinctly produced and what is innate. These distinctions being drawn are essentially the pattern in which women, at least the ones in question delineate. The mindset of women you should take into consideration is the one who will have the most quirks/ obstacles in being swayed under the array of stimulus you'll introduce to them. Once you manage to defeat the mentality/ sway the mentality of the highest level female, then you'll be able to ease breeze past others of a lesser difficulty. It's just that women will make these distinctions. Every female's discernment system is largely similar, but it will have certain quirks and cringetinges in their thoughtloops. Her seeing whether or not your value comes off sincere, and your substance comes off natural is one of them. A common one at that.

It essentially matters due to the fact some girls have a sense of social hierarchy purity. Women have this sort of horse sense in which they don't want fakers or posers to have any sway, because essentially the female is being tricked and her instincts are being swayed in a fallacy of what that person actually is. Not all girls have the industriousness to hold their integrity (that most girls have) to have the honest truth of who they're engaging with to the point where it's a part of their active mental activity. As I said, women are largely unconvictious and don't really stand for whatever beliefs they tend to hold to the hilt, with participation and effort. A lot of them are hormonal, and only work on themselves to the point where they can mooch off men to do the work for them. But this is just the general pattern, and female behavior comes from this general pattern pillar. Deviations, yes. But they still do emerge from this pattern that they offhandedly incline to.

Again, you say it's an oversimplification but you don't really imply any scenarios in which this is different from which your thesis can be properly understood. You assign a flaw to my analysis at every turn but with no tangible value to substantiate it. You may as well be going WRONG, FALSE, but there is no BECAUSE. Or anything that substantiates anything which follows in your because if there happens to be one.





AND it gives ourselves a feeling of cosmic significance in having high appearance rather htan feeling we made it through flukes/ artificial (out of the will of the universe) means by money/ status like the PUAs offer us to do.


It doesn't matter. What matters is what ultimately functions best. If trying harder functions best and creates a better result, then who cares about any of this.
Women do. The whole point of being a PUA is essentially that you're dressing up your lack of natural raw primality value with fun, whimsicality, daisy braided presentability loops to the point where a female's hormonal awareness essentially gets distracted by his lack of raw primality sex value. IF that is that a woman predicates value on that to begin with. Other girls who are more on the provisional facets will probably welcome a guy who has immaterial/ economic/ social status capital as opposed to pure raw primality/ aesthetic/ geno-capital. But again, as I say, it's more on the ficklery flow of females to go after someone of good appearance. Or who will just resonate on who has the highest primality capital around them. Which is, essentially, not limited to aesthetics, or status, but who has the greater balance of. The only thing a guy has to work with are her fear/ anxiety constraints of leaving the guy under the tyranny of his existence... or bondship/ connectionship capital. This may keep the female at bay. It's a combination of pressures/ currencies/ and the format of the female's mentality.






I would not have actually even brought the term or idea into the discussion myself. At least not worded that way.

I did say that you were isolating a variable and then falsely projecting it to the entirety of a system, instead of analyzing all the parts and their relationships and the subsequent whole system that they combine to create, as a much better interpretation than your obsession with the one single part.

And yes that is reductionism. I don't know what definition you are working from, and clarify that if you want, but that would fall under the accepted definition of both the term and the philosophy.
Give the definition then of reductionism that substantiates your claim.




Dude natural charisma is discerned by what has impact on the primal discernment system. ... Essentially keeping primal momentum which often is broken depending on how looks are essential to the girl, which is a lot to a lot of them. Attraction is not affirmative action. Primal marketry is hierarchical.


That's just a system that you don't understand then. Because you don't understand the human social brain and it's primal function, outside of physical visual aesthetic cues, which is your reductionism of the system to that factor.


Why do you keep coming to the stupid assumption that I think it's only about genetics? And aesthetical hierarchy? I just said that it's an enormous factor, and it severely helps a guys' natural charisma. It's predicated on your volume of primal value, and in something as physically/ intimately considerative as natural charisma, women are more likely to think you check off all the boxes of what they're charmed by by being a good looking person. They're constantly shuffling through all your factors in a micro readout by their hormonal viewbase. You couldn't see a midget having the underlying dominarchic dynamic that makes girls get their buzz? There'd be a limited set of cards the midget can play, and the more it seems like he had to be formulative to use them, the more of a try hard he seems to be.[/quote]

PussySlaughter wrote:
For example you are making a false dichotomy of invented terms here and the reality is a combination of those two things, in a way that is difficult to convey or explain in this convoluted system you have invented to describe and interact with it.
What exactly makes a dichotomy false? Dichotomies are artificial systems we create to categorize phenomena. Good and evil, tall and small, etc. it's a vastly human manner of categorization, cumulatively interspersed broadly among human history, and even in thoughtforms today.

In my opinion, there is no "false" dichotomy anymore true than any dichotomy ever existed. As they are human modes of understanding and perceptual categorization. Negative/ positive charges in atoms are essentially less of a dichotomy because they're not necessarily a gradient of perception, but of scientific affinity.

The categorical mode by which I've perceived mankind is present however. It is a valid one that can vastly categorize/ and act as a platform to help the human race to delineate attraction/ human behavior/ psychology/ etc. Jung did the same with his dogma. Such as Self and Shadow. He created his dichotomy.

You pillar your affirmative/ negative stance on a belief I think based on its actionability. But not all things fall into the pigeonhole of how you visualize actionability. Sometimes someone's viewpoint just is. You can intercede, but someone typically can only give the affirmative insofar as they are able to see whatever fits their criteria of affirmation/ positivity.

What in the world are either of you talking about honestly?

I am trying to explain to the both of you the reality of hot women, how they think, how they behave, how they act, and who they subsequently choose to fuck, and why that is the case.

This conversation is becoming exceptionally convoluted and without good reason or justification.

What I told the both of you was very simple. Women are highly emotional, including the hottest ones, and if you can appeal to them on that basis, it can and does override all this "primality" nonsense.

They just go where the fun is and fuck where the fun is, essentially.

And no it doesn't mean a damn thing that it's not chad.

Some of the biggest low lifes and losers, also subhumans, fuck hot girls through this all the time, I could literally post them all day, maybe I should and then you can pontificate to me how they are all faggots and make excuses for their success.

In fact in plenty of cases these guys out class chads, unless those chads also possess this fun thing.

You've way over analyzed and over complicated hot girls here Eugenicist.

I am going to tell you right now that some "loser" in your mind with swagger and inside access to the fun that these sluts chase, will shit all over all the theories you just made.

And why does it matter?

It matters cause for anyone that is actually trying to accomplish something, they aren't going to win if they are doing the wrong things. It has a actual connection with reality.

Which I am trying to reestablish since I see that it is diminishing quite a bit here.

PussySlaughter wrote:What in the world are either of you talking about honestly?

I am trying to explain to the both of you the reality of hot women, how they think, how they behave, how they act, and who they subsequently choose to fuck, and why that is the case.

This conversation is becoming exceptionally convoluted and without good reason or justification.

What I told the both of you was very simple. Women are highly emotional, including the hottest ones, and if you can appeal to them on that basis, it can and does override all this "primality" nonsense.
I'm talking to you about how primality is the connotation I use to describe the system that they evolutionarily tie into. What they like. What they enjoy. What they esteem. How they feel. How they're geno-wired to enjoy what they feel/ the rate of what they feel/ the impact of what they feel. All this comes into the hormonal identity.

Where they have reason, yes. But there are still so many triggers/ manners of thought/ systems of evaluation that fall into primality. The opposite side on the dichotomy (which is useful to create a dichotomy since we can gauge the system better by creating these assignations and map it by the scale) is edificality. Where they are edified and ascended.

Where a woman doesn't melt mentally in submission for a guy because he has primarchical value. The primal hierarchy. It is in our nature to create hierarchies as naturally primality predicated people. Where you don't need primal momentum, but you can stil lget a girl by being an all around intelligent/ unattractive/ industrious beta. I.E. a girl picks a guy for the non cuntish reasons, but for the right/ boding brightly on her personal identity reasons.

But I think even if this is the case, and a woman doesn't take the primal pattern, even if edificality where she likes art, a sense of discovery, being friendly generally, splitting atoms, going to greenhouses, dyson spheres, zero point gravity, giving to the poor instead of money to her makeup drawer. etc. etc. it's still intrinsic to the nature of selection to pick value that is seen as distinctly unique/ high value to her system of esteem.

EVEN if a girl isn't utterly cuntish and superficial... she will be selection of her environment. A girl can only have one man's baby, and she'll choose to pick someone from a more primal utility perspective. Yes, even when girls decide to fuck a beta because he will provide and be a good father that is primality and not too much edificality in volume. So on the graph, she is still high on the primality quadrant, but is leaned a little on the edified side, but just still highly primal. It's a primal hormone for women to think about an easy-to-control beta because they're maternal hormonally. So this is a good choice, but also fueled by primality centric instincts. Since it comes from human nature.

It's intrinsic to the process of selection to pick the best thing for her criteria of acceptance. All girls, even if they aren't primality predicated cuntish sluts... but are edified, refined, nice, loving WILL STILL have a set of stipulations in their definition of what constitutes the substance that they deem fulfilling of their criteria of intimacy that has a high volume of rarity/ high degree of uncommonality... (because it needs to be distinctive).

But, It is the nature of primality for a woman to reserve herself/ her body/ her genes for someone whose substance is scaled by how upward it is on the primarchical pyramid. Where on that diagram, the narrowness of the width indicates the population volume (and it gets narrower as it goes up) and the high-low longitude is indicative of the primality substance. Eye color, height, power, prominence, etc. etc. etc.

But for women with edificality, who fall out of the primality need for dominance, or being unconsciously woven into that dominance, then it's more varied on this pyramid. Because then you branch out from ego/ primality and get to explore the whole universe. But still, every girl has their own pyramid, or something that gets narrower (in population) as it goes up for their criteria of intimacy. This isn't because of society's hierarchical esteem system only favoring the elite majority... This is because we passively compartmentalize people and cumulatively deem other as more deserving of what we personally prefer.

It's a universal notion, primal or edified for people to reserve sex for what they prefer. Or having a baby. Women can't afford to hand out sex for pity... to the point of having a baby. That kind of ratioanality/ manner of thinking misses out on genuineness, and love no matter how compassionate you are. It's "wrong". Even if women don't use that truth as a diffusion mechanism for letting a guy down on him asking for sex out of pity,it's still wrong.

No matter what, the nature of selection for humanity is essentially categorizing with a woman reserving her criteria of intimacy around something of preference. All of our preferences to the point of such a close connection need to be narrow. All things in the world dimension our set point of intimacy only to what we find best. Primal instincts make us dimension our intimacy around what is powerful. Edificality based preferences probably veer off from primality into what is decent, right, enlightened, of a higher medium of taste... but still... no matter what the taste, no matter how extensive the grace... it's still a small hoop to

We cumulatively dimension our desires/ preferences off of what is rare, glamorous, exclusive. A rarity on the high scale of all phenomena. Often edificality doesn't nature this around power/ might... but around their high refined peculiarities. The selection of all is... intimacy inclusion of all is... not attainable without a distinctively high concentration of substance in relation to the rest of the universe.

Women, like men have in their criteria of intimacy the need for something of distinguishing value. There's a bit of primality in all people so you still need good race, impressiveness, power, status, etc. But even if a girl wants edificality from you, there are also stipulations that although may not be primal, but may be just as missable on unchangeable features.

Most do not want the distinguishing properties just on people's hearts, but on their genetic form. Primality.

You need to have a definitive factor to meet a girl's criteria of consideration, love. You need to have a distinguishable substance, and unfortunately, most of the time that doesn't revolve around something easy easily attainable or common in the world. We dimension our views of value in relation to what is special/ peculiar/ unfindable/ rare in our preference charts. That's not always primality. That's just human nature. And it wouldn't make sense for us not to even if we ascend that. We want to be preserving of the most notable traits by our own passive standard of what idealness is. I would say that's less primal than it is a basic mental function of animal perception/ thought. Creaturality/ Homininity/ HUmanity. We need to compartmentalize things in accordance to order of categorization or we'd have walked off cliffs as if they were swimming pools/ grass gardens.
Last edited by Eugenicist on Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I am trying to explain to the both of you the reality of hot women, how they think, how they behave, how they act, and who they subsequently choose to fuck, and why that is the case.


From what I read your "explanations" are not explanations at all. They are all rather vague and lack any substance as you will see. . .

What I told the both of you was very simple. Women are highly emotional, including the hottest ones, and if you can appeal to them on that basis, it can and does override all this "primality" nonsense.


Saying that women are highly emotional is a vacuous statement. It really means nothing since it's without context and nuance factored in. It's like saying men are ego driven and prone to rage - which is true, but tells us nothing to how men get to those states. If we can all agree that the hottest women are highly emotional how about we have the case that the hottest women are highly emotional to very good looking men, and that if the man does not have that quality, then the man in question does not appeal to this "emotional" demand of their? This case would completely fit your description. . .

They just go where the fun is and fuck where the fun is, essentially.


Fun as in what? Appealing to their emotions again? What happens if the conditions for "fun" would be flirting and playful sexually curious conversations with "a rich AND good looking man"? Which would mean they would NOT want to have "fun" with an ugly, fat and old man? Yes, definitely, go where the fun is, a euphemism if I ever heard of one. . .

And no it doesn't mean a damn thing that it's not chad.


Contrast Tom Brady to an average looking guy, who would the hot woman choose if she knew nothing about the both of them. Hmmmmm. . . . tough one, eh? Is anyone surprised that he has most of the hottest looking women after him?!!!

Some of the biggest low lifes and losers, also subhumans, fuck hot girls through this all the time, I could literally post them all day, maybe I should and then you can pontificate to me how they are all faggots and make excuses for their success.


please do . . . you'll find that these "losers" probably have good looks or some other high primality about them. There are no ugly midgets fucking tall hot women that I see, do you?

In fact in plenty of cases these guys out class chads, unless those chads also possess this fun thing.


The "fun" thing? hmmm. . . before you ask things of a hot woman ask them of yourself: if an ugly fat girl had a "fun" personality would you want to fuck her? Mix your genes with her to have your child? Spend a lifetime married to her going through all the ups and downs life can throw at you? I think we all know the answer to that . . .

You've way over analyzed and over complicated hot girls here Eugenicist.

I am going to tell you right now that some "loser" in your mind with swagger and inside access to the fun that these sluts chase, will shit all over all the theories you just made.


From what you said you seem to know NOTHING about hot women at all. You've been indoctrinated with tedious PUA shit and are just trying to invalidate the discussion with vague tedious drivel. But let me humour you: good looking women aren't sluts. Some of them invest long term in quality relationships. Most are probably smart and not psychos or "emotional" at all, but can sense value in a person. What you are trying to move to is some sort of cultural marxism idea where "fun" can be learnt and used to get hot women. Eugenicist is trying to tell you that they're too smart for that. You must be of value yourself if you are get investment from them. There is no point of being "fun" if that being "fun" is on your own. Fun, as you describe it, means participation. How can a woman know you are "fun" if they don't engage with you - and hot women will NOT engage with low status ugly men regardless of their "fun" factor.

It matters cause for anyone that is actually trying to accomplish something, they aren't going to win if they are doing the wrong things. It has a actual connection with reality.

Which I am trying to reestablish since I see that it is diminishing quite a bit here.


You know nothing about reality. You just pontificate PUA shit. That RSD idiot saying he took 15 years to learn all this valuable stuff had me in stitches, what a complete retard . . !

You don't get it Eugenicist.

Social experiences are primal themselves, guys who provide them or who are associated with guys who do are of high primal appeal.

Why do you think rock stars fuck so many girls?

It has nothing to do with your system of "primality".

It's like a cool kids vs not cool kids kind of thing. What's socially cutting edge and trendy and dominant and popular. They don't give a fuck about the underlying "primality" they are just responding to the emotions in the moment.

It's not a cunning self elevation tactic either, it's just simply because those guys are cool. They are providing a good experience and bringing women into it, who then end up fucking them.

Why do you think it's easier to fuck girls at a party than off the street during the day?

It's the same guy, the same level of "primality", but in one context it's about 10x easier.

It's cause of the experience and the emotions.

There are more than one way to get with hot girls and I am not saying this is the only thing going on, but you are really lacking understanding here to not understand the social aspects of it and just keep relating it to "primality" or their machiavellian evolutionary motives.

Sluts don't think about it anywhere near as much as you do, they just think "I want to have fun and party". That's it.

Have you ever heard the term "girls just want to have fun"?

It's not rarity either.

They don't have all these "preferences" they are trying to fulfill, they are just like, hey that guy is cool and fun and Im kind of horny right now, maybe I'm going to fuck him. That's all that is going through their head.

Image
Last edited by PussySlaughter on Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@cperkins

I'm sorry but Eugenicists ideas don't take precedent over reality.

Fact is that there are average and below average looking guys banging smoking hot girls and you have no explanation for this.

As far as I can tell, you somehow think it's just not even happening. Even Eugenicist is not going that far.

PussySlaughter wrote:@cperkins

I'm sorry but Eugenicists ideas don't take precedent over reality.

Fact is that there are average and below average looking guys banging smoking hot girls and you have no explanation for this.

As far as I can tell, you somehow think it's just not even happening. Even Eugenicist is not going that far.
There are girls who do fuck because you can easily be a good distractionist. But what he's trying to say is that women almost always have the same thing in mind they think they're attracted to. Which is a guy with high primality capital ESPECIALLY with the looks/ aesthetics/ bodily factor being prominent. I know the psyches of mankind default to a pretty mild state, but most of the time there are subtle judgments based on appearance being heavily prominent. It's just how conscious it is is dependent on the person, but it doesn't need to be vividly conscious for it to be pertinent also. More hormonal/ impulseive women/ people will let subconscious undefined unawarily felt psychpressures govern their actions.

It's just that women put the inadequacies of the reality of the substance of the guy in the back of their brain/ subconscious... to try to put down their hormones in place of their "heart" (when in reality most girls are just investing in mutual exchange for that person's value as is, meshed from different veins that aren't predicated on just appearance). But the female judgment system takes precedence over women. It's a conscientious effort for women to put down their ficklery when the guy gives them access to value (meshed by his status, power, standing, personality) that is higher than any guy in the vacinity proximity that she can attain from her own accessability/ selection stock available.

PussySlaughter wrote:You don't get it Eugenicist.

Social experiences are primal themselves, guys who provide them or who are associated with guys who do are of high primal appeal.

Why do you think rock stars fuck so many girls?

It has nothing to do with your system of "primality".

It's like a cool kids vs not cool kids kind of thing. What's socially cutting edge and trendy and dominant and popular. They don't give a fuck about the underlying "primality" they are just responding to the emotions in the moment.

It's not a cunning self elevation tactic either, it's just simply because those guys are cool. They are providing a good experience and bringing women into it, who then end up fucking them.

Why do you think it's easier to fuck girls at a party than off the street during the day?

It's the same guy, the same level of "primality", but in one context it's about 10x easier.

It's cause of the experience and the emotions.

There are more than one way to get with hot girls and I am not saying this is the only thing going on, but you are really lacking understanding here to not understand the social aspects of it and just keep relating it to "primality" or their machiavellian evolutionary motives.

Sluts don't think about it anywhere near as much as you do, they just think "I want to have fun and party". That's it.

Have you ever heard the term "girls just want to have fun"?

It's not rarity either.

They don't have all these "preferences" they are trying to fulfill, they are just like, hey that guy is cool and fun and Im kind of horny right now, maybe I'm going to fuck him. That's all that is going through their head.

Image
Are you RETAAAAAAAAAAARDED. I'm saying their emotions are primally arranged. Primality is the system by which people's emotions function. They don't have to give a fuck. This is what people defaultly thoughtlessly function as. I think anything that is opposed to primality, such as being edified/ edificality is conscious effort for most people, as most people by and large are impacted by high level humor/ perosnality/ genetics/ good looks/ status/ being on top of others. These underlying pleasures are latently interwoven. And most of them DON'T KNOW IT. They DON'T consciously process it as primality. That's why there's so much hypocrisy in the world, and people think their endeavors (even if primally motivated) may be righteous in nature, when in reality it's self serving. Are you trying to just troll here? lol.

How can you not get this after I've elucidated it. Primality is the format of the thinking which I describe the innate superficial/shallow/cuntish criteria of association/ positive attention in laymen's terms. This whole philosophy isn't what I think they think they're consciously doing. It's that mankind's hormones fall before these impulses.
It impacts everyone by and large. It's a natural categorical thing for mankind. It's never a non-factor. More than intelligence/ personality/ money. rich 80 year old men can't pick up girls off the spot under his own volition unless he's like a mafia bass/ owns a huge business through prostitution/ buying whores. But dull dumbasses with high Looks/ 10/10 can hook girls off the spot.

Women have a conscious belief system 99% of the time totally unaware of how they really function psychologically. Just look at how broad and booming liberalism/ pseudo humanitarianism is while women are being cuntish sluts in the same vein. Yeaaaaaaahhhhhhh. They largely don't care about any ideology or law of conviction that makes them unhappy. They might have floaty stray thoughts, but since women are unconvictious and largely only comfortable if they believe they're in the right 100% of the time, they need ot iflter out whateverm akes them culpable/ wrong/ guilty of fault, so they make their floaty stray thoughts of their own cuntishness a non-issue most of the time ot retain their egotistical hold on psychsustainment. Women don't wanna introspect/ psychsect themselves at the expense of comfort/ happienss/ having fun because women pilllar EVERYTHING on somatic sensations of feeling good. Hedonism. Whoredonism.

You don't get it Eugenicist.

Social experiences are primal themselves, guys who provide them or who are associated with guys who do are of high primal appeal.

Why do you think rock stars fuck so many girls?

It has nothing to do with your system of "primality".

It's like a cool kids vs not cool kids kind of thing. What's socially cutting edge and trendy and dominant and popular. They don't give a fuck about the underlying "primality" they are just responding to the emotions in the moment.

It's not a cunning self elevation tactic either, it's just simply because those guys are cool. They are providing a good experience and bringing women into it, who then end up fucking them.

Why do you think it's easier to fuck girls at a party than off the street during the day?

It's the same guy, the same level of "primality", but in one context it's about 10x easier.

It's cause of the experience and the emotions.

There are more than one way to get with hot girls and I am not saying this is the only thing going on, but you are really lacking understanding here to not understand the social aspects of it and just keep relating it to "primality" or their machiavellian evolutionary motives.

Sluts don't think about it anywhere near as much as you do, they just think "I want to have fun and party". That's it.

Have you ever heard the term "girls just want to have fun"?

It's not rarity either.

They don't have all these "preferences" they are trying to fulfill, they are just like, hey that guy is cool and fun and Im kind of horny right now, maybe I'm going to fuck him. That's all that is going through their head.


seeping cultural marxism detected. . .

of course don't talk about the person's looks, or background, or other things that might be relevant. All that matter is that he is in a fun environment, that he's having fun, and low and behold he's sure to get a lay . .

it's replies like this that makes me despair for people's intellects . . .

cperkins wrote:
You don't get it Eugenicist.

Social experiences are primal themselves, guys who provide them or who are associated with guys who do are of high primal appeal.

Why do you think rock stars fuck so many girls?

It has nothing to do with your system of "primality".

It's like a cool kids vs not cool kids kind of thing. What's socially cutting edge and trendy and dominant and popular. They don't give a fuck about the underlying "primality" they are just responding to the emotions in the moment.

It's not a cunning self elevation tactic either, it's just simply because those guys are cool. They are providing a good experience and bringing women into it, who then end up fucking them.

Why do you think it's easier to fuck girls at a party than off the street during the day?

It's the same guy, the same level of "primality", but in one context it's about 10x easier.

It's cause of the experience and the emotions.

There are more than one way to get with hot girls and I am not saying this is the only thing going on, but you are really lacking understanding here to not understand the social aspects of it and just keep relating it to "primality" or their machiavellian evolutionary motives.

Sluts don't think about it anywhere near as much as you do, they just think "I want to have fun and party". That's it.

Have you ever heard the term "girls just want to have fun"?

It's not rarity either.

They don't have all these "preferences" they are trying to fulfill, they are just like, hey that guy is cool and fun and Im kind of horny right now, maybe I'm going to fuck him. That's all that is going through their head.


seeping cultural marxism detected. . .

of course don't talk about the person's looks, or background, or other things that might be relevant. All that matter is that he is in a fun environment, that he's having fun, and low and behold he's sure to get a lay . .

it's replies like this that makes me despair for people's intellects . . .
Women don't have the brain power to be continuously conscious of what they're doing, even if they have high standards in their conscious mindset. It's primality capital momentum that will make them want who they want. And the essence of primality dpeends on the hormones of the person. A woman will wanna be funchill, but it's only because the guy passes her criteria of sustaining engagement and being primally drawn... which may be fun and fluffy on the surface but is in reality going through the hoop of her tacit love for primality substance/ dominarchical substance... like looks, money, status, groovy jaws/ big arms/ etc. Sometimes generally unattractive people can get laid if they have enoug substance capital elsewhere. And some women will be thinking about their agenda elevation in life underlyingly. But will there be primal attraction? Can't say many women have ever been hormonally looped by humor/ boyish joyous behavior alone. Be a 5'1 bald Indian busting out that kind of shit and you'll look delusional.

PussySlaughter wrote:What in the world are either of you talking about honestly?

I am trying to explain to the both of you the reality of hot women, how they think, how they behave, how they act, and who they subsequently choose to fuck, and why that is the case.

This conversation is becoming exceptionally convoluted and without good reason or justification.

What I told the both of you was very simple. Women are highly emotional, including the hottest ones, and if you can appeal to them on that basis, it can and does override all this "primality" nonsense.

They just go where the fun is and fuck where the fun is, essentially.

And no it doesn't mean a damn thing that it's not chad.

Some of the biggest low lifes and losers, also subhumans, fuck hot girls through this all the time, I could literally post them all day, maybe I should and then you can pontificate to me how they are all faggots and make excuses for their success.

In fact in plenty of cases these guys out class chads, unless those chads also possess this fun thing.

You've way over analyzed and over complicated hot girls here Eugenicist.

I am going to tell you right now that some "loser" in your mind with swagger and inside access to the fun that these sluts chase, will shit all over all the theories you just made.

And why does it matter?

It matters cause for anyone that is actually trying to accomplish something, they aren't going to win if they are doing the wrong things. It has a actual connection with reality.

Which I am trying to reestablish since I see that it is diminishing quite a bit here.


lol i bet by subhuman you mean theyre primitive caveman masc looking, girls like these kinds of guys. not the effete male models posted here

Ronald McDonald wrote:
PussySlaughter wrote:What in the world are either of you talking about honestly?

I am trying to explain to the both of you the reality of hot women, how they think, how they behave, how they act, and who they subsequently choose to fuck, and why that is the case.

This conversation is becoming exceptionally convoluted and without good reason or justification.

What I told the both of you was very simple. Women are highly emotional, including the hottest ones, and if you can appeal to them on that basis, it can and does override all this "primality" nonsense.

They just go where the fun is and fuck where the fun is, essentially.

And no it doesn't mean a damn thing that it's not chad.

Some of the biggest low lifes and losers, also subhumans, fuck hot girls through this all the time, I could literally post them all day, maybe I should and then you can pontificate to me how they are all faggots and make excuses for their success.

In fact in plenty of cases these guys out class chads, unless those chads also possess this fun thing.

You've way over analyzed and over complicated hot girls here Eugenicist.

I am going to tell you right now that some "loser" in your mind with swagger and inside access to the fun that these sluts chase, will shit all over all the theories you just made.

And why does it matter?

It matters cause for anyone that is actually trying to accomplish something, they aren't going to win if they are doing the wrong things. It has a actual connection with reality.

Which I am trying to reestablish since I see that it is diminishing quite a bit here.


lol i bet by subhuman you mean theyre primitive caveman masc looking, girls like these kinds of guys. not the effete male models posted here
No that would be women whose hormones hunger for neandertharchical value. Primality is the primitive dynamic of selection system/ the central stipulation of the selection system/ the manner of mind that we are all born with. There is moderation primality/ competition primality. Many girls want competition primality if they go for high value guys. And they just want mitigation moderation primalityi f they jsut want a betacel/ goodfathercel/ fat loser funny guy cel/ high provision cel. But typically prestige prodigy primality revolves around looks and that's what most guys want to be truly loved for. It gives them an ego boost.

Edificality is the opposite. Where animalistic do not play a role. But that's maybe 1%- of the whole population.

Effette guys can be liked because they have primal hierarchy value, in which case that is primal. But it's edificality if a girl doesn't prioritize his appearance and looks at his personal expression, his high-grade love for the world and willingness to show by example to be healthy, expressionistic and artistic. Bombastically idealistic things that nearly NO ONE prioritizes over looks, money, status, competence, achievement, glamor, power, prominence, prowess.

Either way whether a girl is primal or edified it doesn't matter. 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. Which is hard/ rare because even edified/ primal people develop their dimensions of distinguishment of reality with all they perceive inclusive. People want to filter their preference/ love to what they feel gives them high sensation. Sensation intersects with both primality and edificality. But either way there are some unchangeable stipulations to preference/ selection almost always across the board like someone being different/ distinguishable/ interesting/ entertaining/ memorable/ exciting/ inspiring/ etc. Women use this as a veneer for what they're really attracted to. So as to give every 5'1 bald spic who works as a construction worker no feeling that most women don't prioritize primality traits (LMS esque) as the delineating specifics they are really referring to, that he instinctually knows, but so that society can have this fake compromise that makes everybody semi-sane when seeing abomination.

Which means there is a certain whirlpool of distinguishable value that people want and will swirl to. Much like how a person who wants to help the hungry and poor will venture to Africa because that's the worst place imaginable, but there are also people they were helping in America who also need help, but they get left out because of higher priority.

It's usually logistical happenstance/ and preferential pursuit. In our first world country a lot of us are generally unbound by logistical constraints, so we can be gravitated to our preference.

Some women can feel self-worth bankrupt and get with the guy who is available rather than one she likes. She htinks of exerting herself as painful/ unfruitful and would rather get with someone out of moderation than preference. And the guy can put her under logistical psychological hand-wringing/ along with her passive anxiety to stay with the guy she's currently with because the fact he's even there supplies her more self worth capital/ value than she'd ever believe she'd get.

So in a sense it's both moderation and prestige that people have a preference for. It's just that most women would prefer to go in a more moderate route. And some would prefer to be prestiges. And not eat nachos and drink soda. It's mostly because they're self esteem bankrupt and not really by choice.

Primal moderation is like along the lines of primality pleasure wrought from choosing hwo is available, construing that to delusions of having high prestige when fat ole' olga gets with nigel and thinks he's the best chad in the universe. Literally cooling down, also like stacy when she wants a beta for value.
Edified moderation is being content for the sake of others.
Edified primality prestige is being greater at power for the sake of protecting and inspiring others.

Not too common for people ot be edified IRL.

Ronald McDonald wrote:say that in english eugenicist or someone translate
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.

Eugenicist wrote:
Ronald McDonald wrote:say that in english eugenicist or someone translate
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

seeping cultural marxism detected. . .

of course don't talk about the person's looks, or background, or other things that might be relevant. All that matter is that he is in a fun environment, that he's having fun, and low and behold he's sure to get a lay . .

it's replies like this that makes me despair for people's intellects . . .


I can already tell that you have made up your mind about what you want to believe and are arguing from the position of fitting reality to your position rather than the other way around.

So I have lost alot of interest in taking the time to specifically respond to your points, because it's just going in circles so that you can attempt to convince yourself you are correct, and that is just a waste of time.

Saying that girls care about personality and vibe and that humans are social and behavior has a influence on other people has nothing to do with "cultural marxism". We are not even discussing that anyways we are discussing female attraction and the existence and relevance of factors other than looks.

No one said looks don't matter either, just that personality also does and that it's a viewpoint that is actually a useful addition rather than one of black and white conflict.

And it has nothing to do with my intellect, it's just a question of what women find attractive.

Something which talking to you about is like talking to a brick wall.

Women don't have the brain power to be continuously conscious of what they're doing, even if they have high standards in their conscious mindset. It's primality capital momentum that will make them want who they want. And the essence of primality dpeends on the hormones of the person. A woman will wanna be funchill, but it's only because the guy passes her criteria of sustaining engagement and being primally drawn... which may be fun and fluffy on the surface but is in reality going through the hoop of her tacit love for primality substance/ dominarchical substance... like looks, money, status, groovy jaws/ big arms/ etc. Sometimes generally unattractive people can get laid if they have enoug substance capital elsewhere. And some women will be thinking about their agenda elevation in life underlyingly. But will there be primal attraction? Can't say many women have ever been hormonally looped by humor/ boyish joyous behavior alone. Be a 5'1 bald Indian busting out that kind of shit and you'll look delusional.


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.

It's to feel a certain way and have a certain experience. And that is not "cultural marxism" it's simply a objective fact.

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.

Why the fuck else would you do anything to begin with?

Truth itself is a feeling and experience, you cannot disconnect the two.

I would not even say that is in question here, what is, is what specifically is triggering that and to what degree and in what relationship and combination with other factors.

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.

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

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.

All the way down to both the biology of the brain and of the body, since the two are heavily inter related obviously.

Saying looks is all it is, is essentially saying that these systems of attraction are totally controlled and manipulated by physical visual cues exclusively.

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.

Obviously it is a factor, but it is not the only one. Clearly.

This has nothing to do with "cultural marxism" either, this is a perfectly scientific and objective discussion to have.

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.

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.

Otherwise people wouldn't even interact, they would just look at each other.

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.

I'm saying their emotions are primally arranged. Primality is the system by which people's emotions function.


There is so much going on with it that is so far beyond what you have said it is staggering.

Obviously far beyond anything I understand, but I recognize, and attempt to learn.

I don't try to stuff it in a small dysfunctional simplified box to put my mind at ease, ironically the same exact thing you are accusing women of doing.

You are talking about the human brain itself and why and how it creates the specific experience that it does, ultimately.

And how to manipulate that in others, including in ways that benefit you, such as getting women to have sex with you.

It's really like a pandoras box, but I find opening it alot more fascinating and exciting than stuffing my head in the LMS sand and trying to preserve it all costs, including in the face of conflicting ideas and evidence.

While I contemptuously think myself "red pilled" and above "those normies".

Also Eugenicist I would describe alot of your posts as just moving the goal posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

You seem to be alot more fascinated with the placing of things into your terms and system, than with the actual reality of the system itself.

You are very obsessed with this.

Because you often do it when there is no reason to do it, and other ways of communicating or systematizing it are better or more efficient.

Many girls want competition primality if they go for high value guys. And they just want mitigation moderation primalityi f they jsut want a betacel/ goodfathercel/ fat loser funny guy cel/ high provision cel. But typically prestige prodigy primality revolves around looks and that's what most guys want to be truly loved for. It gives them an ego boost.


For example now you have changed "primality" to include women who go for beta losers as "mitigation moderation primality".

You just shift your definitions, which are mostly just invented words of yours, to accommodate the conflicting information.

I am not really finding the system or the language of it particularly useful, mainly the opposite, so I am not sure why you are so obsessed with it.

It's literally just like a avalanche of unnecessary terms to define things that are already clear and defined. And whose definitions you even change regularly as you please.

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.

PussySlaughter wrote:
I can already tell that you have made up your mind about what you want to believe and are arguing from the position of fitting reality to your position rather than the other way around.

So I have lost alot of interest in taking the time to specifically respond to your points, because it's just going in circles so that you can attempt to convince yourself you are correct, and that is just a waste of time.


No talking to you is like talking to a retard because you're still at the kindergarten level in your discussion. You obviously have a very low attention span otherwise your replies wouldn't be like this.

PussySlaughter wrote:Saying that girls care about personality and vibe and that humans are social and behavior has a influence on other people has nothing to do with "cultural marxism". We are not even discussing that anyways we are discussing female attraction and the existence and relevance of factors other than looks.


You seem to want to take looks out of the picture. And you've done it in a very transparent way . . . no one is buying it of course.

PussySlaughter wrote:No one said looks don't matter either, just that personality also does and that it's a viewpoint that is actually a useful addition rather than one of black and white conflict.

And it has nothing to do with my intellect, it's just a question of what women find attractive.


On the one hand you mention hot women fucking subhumans and now you're saying that looks do matter. You are not even consistent in your rumination . .

Eugenicist never advocated any black and white viewpoint. Where has he done this? Personality only matters ONCE the person decides she WANTS to know you. If she doesn't want to know you, your personality is of no concern, because this is her life we are talking about. Women do not find "personality" attractive in of itself, otherwise you'd get really ugly guys being able to score consistently with hot women - which they do not. And personality cannot be viewed in isolation, hence looks and status will always be a factor that will influence personality.
Last edited by cperkins on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

PussySlaughter wrote:
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.

It's to feel a certain way and have a certain experience. And that is not "cultural marxism" it's simply a objective fact.


Your "secret" is retarded. This is tedious intellectually masturbatory stuff you post. Real kindergarten stuff. Hearing this from an adult (which I am assuming you are) makes me cringe. . .

PussySlaughter wrote: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.

Why the fuck else would you do anything to begin with?

Truth itself is a feeling and experience, you cannot disconnect the two.


Here's a truth: the earth is round and not flat. That is independent of feeling AND experience. For thousands of years people thought the earth was flat because some stupid book or group of people thought so, and their limited experience on the earth made it seem plausible. It took a genius to work out that they were talking crap. Just like the crap you are posting here. . .

Eugenicists has already stated in his long posts that PUA techniques - or any other weasel like, slimy, "gaming" women can't work unless you yourself are of high value, in which case it won't matter anyway. His reasoning is deep and comprehensive, but it appears to me that you don't have the intellectual fortitude to grasp what is being said in his extensive posts.

PussySlaughter wrote:I would not even say that is in question here, what is, is what specifically is triggering that and to what degree and in what relationship and combination with other factors.

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.

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


Again more kindergarten stuff, totally tedious to read. You want to push the idea of mental "games", the PUA concept of game to deceive women. People of good looks don't need to deceive, they don't even need to do much work, the attraction is usually instant off the bat. More idiotic intellectual masturbation . .

PussySlaughter wrote: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.

All the way down to both the biology of the brain and of the body, since the two are heavily inter related obviously.


ditto. . real kindergarten stuff here, tedious to even read it let alone thinking someone wrote this obvious tedious, tiresome stuff.

PussySlaughter wrote:Saying looks is all it is, is essentially saying that these systems of attraction are totally controlled and manipulated by physical visual cues exclusively.

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.

Obviously it is a factor, but it is not the only one. Clearly.

This has nothing to do with "cultural marxism" either, this is a perfectly scientific and objective discussion to have.


You are trying to put this marxist slant on this by trying to put forward "gaming" as if looks and other non changeable physical traits of the person does not matter. That's what you are trying to do and it's too apparent here.

PussySlaughter wrote: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.

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.

Otherwise people wouldn't even interact, they would just look at each other.

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


Clueless and retarded to say the least. And tedious as well stating the obvious along with it. People do look at each other and can take visual cues as to whether the person likes them or not. If you have not seen it or experience it yourself then you're ugly. I've had plenty of women give me visual cues from body language and facial expressions that they were sexually interested in me. The socialisation came later because I let a few on them into my life and we had a lovely time together. I did NOT let the ones that I found repulsive in, despite all the "personality", mental "gaming" etc. that they did to get my attention - and believe they tried but I was having none of it because I didn't want to know them because they were ugly. And this is how most hot looking women treat ugly men, with aloofness and disregard, as if they were invisible. No amount of "game" or personality can compensate for this if the decision has already been made by the woman. . .

PussySlaughter wrote: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?


No, that's you saying something. It doesn't make it true. All the good looking women I know (and have known) have good looking boyfriends. I've seen ugly men try to "game" one of my good looking female friends and they got the brush off in the many different ways that women are capable of. Good looking women like to fuck good looking men. End of. Having a nice personality definitely helps, but for some strange reason the women never said this about their boyfriends much. Most of them fell in love at first sight with their significant other, which from my experience is a sign of a strong lasting relationship to come.

Women may say they are attracted to factors like personality etc, . but they're just being disingenuous, as anyone who has been around them will know.

PussySlaughter wrote: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.


Why do we need to? Even thought Eugenicist has done it and the answer is obvious, but it appears you can't read. Also it doesn't affect my life so it doesn't matter.

PussySlaughter wrote: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.


You want "game", you want to put forward "game" in PUA parlance. Like the RSD retard that spent 15 years learning this "shit". Which is a joke, by the way, because from personal experience I've never used "game" to get women. They either liked me or they didn't. I didn't need to manipulate them, because that implies weakness.

Emotions and "vibe" of the moment is a concept you are trying to put forward but cannot even explain and that suits your retarded thinking. You want to push this excuse so you can invalidate what Eugenicist is saying, even though there is nothing of substance what you are saying at all. Women are not attracted to emotion and vibe of the moment. They are attracted to having someone who they can show off to their friends, to cement their social status, to prove their value etc. . it's all hierarchical to say the least. They get a lot of emotions and vibe out of knowing they are better looking than their peers, they get a kick out of being with someone who they value highly, so they will only invest in men of high intrinsic value. Betas they couldn't care less about, regardless of emotion and vibe that surround betas.
PreviousNext

Return to Bash the Scene

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests