Nilsi

I’m saying that unintelligent women would come up with all sorts of elaborate requests and stories in your thought experiment, while a intelligent woman realizes that what she truly wants is a man whom she can devote herself to.

She would choose to give her power away to a guy she trusts and respects and serve him with her love. Assuming she’s a highly intelligent woman.

Can’t wait for the new Polo G album. The singles have been absolute bangers, so far.

It’s basically the path of becoming a master trickster. You‘ll learn how to be completely fluid in your identity, make up cover stories on a fly (ever tried calling up a big company, asking to speak with their CEO?) and think on your feet — while also cultivating invaluable traits like clear communication, assertiveness, being relatable, work ethic, persistence, fearlessness… which will make a respectable man out of you. It‘s very psychologically challenging, but also incredibly fun.

Just enter „sales“ in the search bar of some online portals. Look for positions that do not require specific, tangible qualifications. They often just ask for vague qualities like „high motivation“ and „excellent communication skills.“ You should seek out companies that prioritize the sales process over maintaining a polished image. This means avoiding large organizations, start-ups and all „serious“ companies, where your role primarily involves making a few daily calls to existing clients or warm leads, or some bs like contacting prospects on LinkedIn or Email. It’s absolutely necessary to join a company that encourages cold calling to completely unfamiliar prospects and imposes no restrictions on the number of such calls you can make each day. By engaging with strangers and facing the challenge of generating interest and trust from scratch, you’ll swiftly be forced to get your act together. It's these positions that I would recommend applying for. Draft a compelling CV and then call up the prospective employers. They love this, because it shows you’re not reluctant to pick up the phone. The initial phase will be brutal and you will be absolutely clueless, however, even in my first month in a commission-based sales position, I did earn a income of 7,5k (which is not that bad). Being paid solely based on your performance leaves you no choice, but to find a way to make this work. As you gain experience and hone your skills, it’s entirely possible to make five-figures a month (even six-figures, if you’re really on your a-game). At this point, you can either opt for a more chill work schedule, reducing your working hours while enjoying the financial rewards, or you can commit to mastering the art of sales and further elevate your income potential.

I might sound like a broken record, but a sales job will force you to get your shit together and allow you to make unbelievable amounts of money in a very short time span. What makes this so cool is that you need no qualification or assets for such a job, you just need the balls to do it. If you work on a commission only basis, any call center in the world will let you sell their stuff. Talking to 100s of strangers a day, trying to convince them to give you their money, is the best kind of therapy for a young dude trying to become a competent and respectable man. You can of course just play the Buddhist game, keep planting trees and find fullfillment and mastery in the simple things, but it sounds like you're hungry for (some degree of) success and recognition, which is understandable. At the end of the day we're western men and there is a Faustian spirit in us (it's in our blood, our ancestry, our culture) that seeks adventure, knowledge, domination -- doesn't matter how spiritual and idealistic you are, if that part of you doesn't find some outlet for expression, you will start to resent yourself and the world.

I would rather use my spare money to invest in education/professional development, nutrition & supplementation, networking, etc. — this is how you create real income. I don’t know your situation, but planning 40 years ahead is kinda ridiculous to me. I‘m concerned with how I can make as much money this month, this year and the next couple years — that’s about as far as it goes. You could figure out how to make a million in 4 years, if you were actually serious about it. Once you’re rich enough to not know what to do with your money, you can start worrying about investing. This is just my way of doing things (and how most of the wealthy people I know roll). If you’re very neurotic, conservative and don’t have high ambitions, what you’re suggesting is probably the right move for you.

Focusing on the messenger is an extremely potent methodology for getting at deep truths. Nietzsche calls this the genealogical method, meaning what the message reveals about the underlying psychology of the messenger. This idea has been expanded upon by postmodern/critical theorists like Deleuze — to discern whether a message is motivated by slave morality (reactive forces), or master morality (active forces) — and Foucault, to tease out the underlying power dynamics in all claims on truth. This has nothing to do with identity politics, where you intentionally appeal to different group identities, to sway public opinion in your favor (i.e. propaganda). Geneaology = revealing deep truths; Identity politics = obscuring the truth.

What do you mean „is it that easy?“ You take 40! years to make a million dollars, which will barely be enough to finance your retirement, if you live very modestly. Figure out how to make a mill in 4 years. That’s when economic laws start to become fun.

Even within the framework of a Deleuzian Rhizomatic society, where hierarchical structures supposedly yield to interconnected networks, there are certain fundamental principles we can not get around. Think about the laws of economics, game theory, evolution, and other systems dynamics. It is undeniable that inherent disparities in genetics and upbringing persist and privilege few individuals with an initial advantage. These advantages are only reinforced by the laws of economics. Power differentials always grow and further the divide. Evolution works by way of the occasional emergence of advantageous mutations, but operates in such a way that these traits remain scarce initially. This deliberate scarcity prevents the risk of destabilizing the entire system. Even in an era of democratized exponential technology, which would empower humanity to influence the course of evolution, the propensity for arms races persists. First movers and the less risk-averse will always outrace the herd, producing runaway effects that ripple through the network. The only people talking about „ableism“ are the unable that got dealt a bad hand by life. Slave morality all over again.

My point is that it literally couldn’t be different. I’ll leave it at that.

I wouldn't want it to be any other way, because it couldn't be any other way. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but the question is simply illogical. There is a philosophical concept called "plenitude," which posits that everything that can exist must necessarily exist. Just look at nature. Every viable ecological niche becomes occupied through the evolutionary process of mutation and selection. Take the survival strategy of the cuckoo. It kicks out the eggs of other bird species and substitutes them with its own, because the absence of evolutionary pressure on these bird species to distinguish their own eggs has created an exploitable loophole - which must necessarily be exploited. The mere existence of mustard seeds, vinegar, salt, and water guarantees the emergence of mustard...

The less time you want to spend on actualizing this goal, the more scrupulous and immoral you have to be. Some fast (legal) ways to make money: Serving in the army $ Working on an oil rig $$ High ticket sales $$$ Pimping girls $$$$$ I suggest you don’t optimize for that goal to heavily and focus on what you actually enjoy doing/are good at.

Reality is too genius to dislike anything about it.

Never had any problems with this, luckily. I’ve always held quite extreme views on politics and religion, and I have no reservations at all about transgressing social norms — as long as you’re secure enough in your own perspective, you can always settle for a friendly „agree to disagree.“

Exactly. If your friends are bothered by your interest’s and are unwilling to engage with them, there is no friendship (goes both ways of course). Friendship fundamentally depends on you being able to share your passions and interests with each other.

The book is about the way in which capitalism and consumer culture alienates symbols from their meaning (e.g. zoomers wearing Joy Division band shirts, without even knowing they are a band, because the cover art has „transcended“ it’s original purpose). Extending this argument to broader evolutionary and developmental processes doesn’t make sense and leads to silly conclusions.

I know the damn book. My point of contention is that AI music is no less „real“ than a bird song. By this logic humans are the ultimate dystopian “simulacrum“ of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. What kind of an argument is this supposed to be?

I got some of my friends to watch Leo’s videos and take psychedelics and they thank me for it to this day.

Is this supposed to be a joke? I remember this show from the early Covid days. The host was some toxic manosphere loser, bitching and moaning about how he didn’t get any pussy in his time living in China, because of racism and propaganda.

You have to make it matter to them. Most people have no good reason to believe that this work has any relevance to their life, at all. They find it confusing and even repelling, because it’s so far removed from their everyday experience. If you actually care about getting your friends interested in this stuff, you have to be a master salesman.

Meaning?

The book he was referring to explicitly condemns postmodern culture for being oh so simulated, which is a stupid argument. There is no such thing as real and simulated, unless you create that distinction (by privileging some part of reality over another). These are the most dangerous and seductive ideas, because those explanatory structures (e.g. archetypes, grammar, psychological needs) are so robust and enduring — but ultimately of course just as transient and illusory, as anything else.

China is certainly quite neurotic and cynical, but they are just playing to their strengths - I don’t see anymore corruption in China than elsewhere. They have a clear strategy (create an army of highly trained and specialized people, and make sure that foreign ideals don’t corrupt their minds) and carry it out to it’s fullest — good for them!