mr_engineer

Feminine power means, having the ability to be loving and empathetic and connect with others. Which is the opposite of the narcissism that feminism preaches. You don't want your girlfriend to be a loving human being?! Okay, but most men want their girlfriends to love them. It's not rocket-science. Very few men are willing to put up with a woman who hates them and who's going to call them a 'sexist misogynist pig' when he asserts a single boundary. Well, you are injecting your dick into this conversation. Women are happy to not be masculine, men are happy to see them stopping to be masculine. White-knights such as yourself seem to be the only ones having a problem with this! Don't put words into my mouth. I never said 'kill'. I don't like how feminists think. Remember that not all women are feminists. In fact, you're either a woman or you're a feminist. Cuz feminists are narcissistic and real women aren't. The immaturity of feminists is just palpable at this point. I don't care. In fact, polarization is the point. Some will hate me, some will love me. I now know that those who will love me exist, so I'm ready to pay the cost, which is having some people hate me. Yall can hate me all you want, I don't give a rat's ass. Ah, now we're talking. Now, you're actually interested. So, listen. The whole issue that feminists have with the patriarchy is that it's narcissistic, it's by men, for men. The reason for this is very deep. It's that the epistemology of all knowledge-hierarchies (which men have been in charge of, because men have been physically superior to women) is that 'knowledge = words'. Meaning, the definition of 'knowledge' in our society, is that knowledge = words. This is true even in religion and when it comes to ideologies about God. Which is why the Christian 'God' is a bearded white man in the clouds. This is a problem for femininity because there is a biological difference between how the male mind works and how the female mind works. The male mind tunes into logistic facts before it tunes into how we feel about it. Whereas, the female mind tunes into feelings first, then the mind catches up. This is why men are better than women in emergency-situations. Men save women and women need saving. It's because the masculine epistemology is 'facts-first' and the feminine epistemology is 'feelings-first'. Meaning, the worldview of a masculine individual, what we consider 'truth' is physical facts, whereas what a feminine individual considers 'truth' is feelings about these facts. This is why it feels like men and women are communicating in different languages and resolving stuff becomes very tricky. Now, what's the solution? You change the epistemic-structure. You construct an epistemic-structure/knowledge-holarchy (not hierarchy, cuz that suppresses feminine creativity) that's based on the definition of 'knowledge' that says that 'knowledge = awareness'. You get two-way communication in this epistemic-structure, which is why you can find a way to be protective towards them and respect their creativity. It's the ideal container for them. All that's left is for men to learn to do this and offer it to feminine women. Then, feminism will appeal less and less to women and this is how you outcompete feminism. Because ironically, feminism does not do this. Why? Because feminism has the same knowledge-hierarchy, only this time, they are at the top and everyone else is at the bottom. It's not sustainable because it has no spiritual loyalty, so it cannot create a sense of family that is 'approved by God', so its only purpose is to destroy the existing family-unit. We have to beat them. It's to give men some hope that in the future, they will have a role in society, they won't just be totally edged out by feminists. Men need a weapon against feminism to outcompete them and I am giving them that weapon. Everyone who gives men this hope isn't a 'redpiller' with 'redpill talking-points'. Maybe you need to check your biases.

Yupp. And strong masculine men want women who have feminine power. I have met some of the loveliest feminine women in the world. I know what's possible for women and my wosh is for these masculine women to aspire to that. The average masculine woman is incredibly unhappy. They need something to aspire to. Feminism (the ideology, not the movement. The movement is a force of good overall but the ideology is trash) is telling them what their mind likes to hear, but is screwing them long-term. Why else would you pander to feminism if you're not being a white knight? You have two options. Either adopt the 'you go girl' mindset, in which you just talk about their problems, or actually solve the problems with the system that they talk about, find the women who fit into it and then, outmanipulate, outcalculatr and outcomprete feminism. Just edge them out of the ideological discourse. After all, even they're just whining, they're not doing anything about these problems. Nice try to bait me into making a racist comment. Well, it's time to turn the tables now. It's time to challenge them.

Newsflash - in the West, women have equal rights. (In fact, more rights than men, in some cases.) Now, the discourse on feminism is all about the everyday life-experience of being a woman in a male-dominated society, preaching their value-system of 'equality' to everybody and forcing everyone to be PC. We're still fine up until this point. It's not the optimal way to handle the situation, but there's nothing 'wrong' with it. The problem starts when their agenda of 'independence' (which is just to spite men, really), starts to dismantle the value-system that's at the foundation of family. This is where women go full masculine and 'strong and independent'. This is where, the dating-discourse starts to say shit like 'If a man doesn't prefer a strong, independent woman, it's because he's a sexist misogynist pig and he wants a submissive weak slave'. This is where men's dating-life starts to get affected because of feminist discourse. (Not the dating-life of PUAs, cuz they're all for independence. They never wanted to commit anyways. The dating-lives of men who want to start families.) The fundamental issue with this line of thinking is that it assumes that 'power' is necessarily masculine. So, the 'empowerment', means that women become masculine. This is the problem with Stage Green feminism. It's not systemically sound. Even though they understand the problems, their solutions aren't sustainable enough. Which is why some of them just stop being feminist and just become conservative trad-wives in the end. (Which is not the solution either, because now you're swinging the pendulum way too far to the opposite extreme.) The solution begins with the understanding that no human being can be 'independent'. Human beings need each other. Especially women. They need men. So, the idea of 'independence' is unnatural for especially women and children. 'Independence' is not a human reality, 'interdependence' is. The 'soft girl' video talks about this and admits to this reality. So, this is a step in the right direction. We start to see the importance of femininity for women specifically. (We know that men want feminine women, the issue was selling it to women, because the feminist conditioning was so dense.) The next step is for women to find their feminine power, to step into it and to build a life around that. This is something that will take real bravery, because society is not helping them. But, it is the long-term solution to those problems in society and if they can align their life-purposes with these solutions, society will get a lot better, honestly. All of the atomization of society, all of the separation and division in society, are problems that feminine women can solve if they put their minds to it. This would be real empowerment for women based on actual femininity, and this is how women can make a place for themselves in society. By creating something original from scratch and bringing to the table what men cannot, as a collective. This is how the co-creation would work. And, this is a superior solution to feminism, which is all about competing against men, un-needing men and making women more narcissistic. This is antithetical to femininity, because the more narcissistic a woman becomes, the less of a woman she becomes. (Just like the less responsibility a man takes, the less of a man he becomes.)

Gen Z is starting to move to Tier-2 quicker than I thought. This is amazing news.

What resentment?! I'm expressing happiness that women are finally realizing their feminine power and they're stopping trying to be men! What I'm giving here is a positive message. Don't you think men should have access to good women who don't fight them/hate them?! Is that how much you hate men?!

Name the college.

You use a currency that they don't control, i.e. crypto. Find something non-trackable. The markets for genuine crypto are not manipulated by the richest in the world.

Which college did you drop out from?

I don't know where you live. But, I'd suggest focusing on the strengths of your culture and exporting that to the West. That'll give you opportunities. For example, there are New-Age women who love ethnic jewelry. This is something that's made very easily in Delhi. There are people who make good money exporting ethnic jewelry to the West. You could hone in on the right market in the West, you could take business-trips to that country and eventually settle down there if you want.

You said that the default 'why' is that you want more money. That's what I mentioned.

@integral Here are some important questions for you to answer. Do you know your target audience? Who are they and why should they click on and watch your videos? Who's watching your videos and what do they think of it? What kind of comments are you getting? Most importantly, what do you have to offer to your audience? Will they receive it? If so, why? If not, why? Answer this one in as much detail as you can. And do not bullshit yourself for this question. Business is not about you and what numbers you want. It's about the marketplace and what they want from you. The whole reason you get into business is that you can choose your marketplace based on what you have to offer. But, marketing and selling is its own thing. I watched your video. It's deep philosophical content about AI. About this content, here are some further questions: Who are you, what are your credentials? What gives you the right to talk about the future of AI? Everyone is talking about AI, that's not extraordinary in and of itself. Why should people listen to you, of all the people talking about AI? Why should what you're saying matter to your audience? Where will they see changes happen in their life due to AI and what should they do about it? Most importantly, what is the purpose of what you're doing? On youtube, you get your own channel, your own space to discuss whatever you want. What is the point of your channel, what is the point of what you're discussing? Is it entertainment? Is it armchair-philosophy? Why does your work matter? If I were in your position, I would answer all of these questions before worrying about numbers. P.S. Relatability is the biggest key to success on youtube. People come home from a hard day at work, they switch on youtube and they watch their favorite youtubers. And, their choice of youtuber to watch corresponds very heavily to relatability.

It's a bigger process for some than for others, for sure. Then that's your 'why'. Notice that I didn't say that the right 'why' for you has to be contribution. It really doesn't have to be. I said that you have to be willing to take responsibility for your 'why'. The reason for this, is that there are a lot of 9-5ers who dream about starting their own business and they have wild and crazy ideas. Things along the lines of 'I will start a poultry-farm, where I will raise chickens, they will lay eggs and produce more chickens. Then, I will sell the eggs, sell the chickens and make money like that'. They think that being an employee, following orders sucks and being an entrepreneur in which you have money AND freedom - that's the dream. They're not in reality about business and entrepreneurship and what really drives successful entrepreneurs. This is the thinking of an immature individual who is not taking responsibility for their 'why'. If you get into business prematurely, you will face obstacles, you will get stuck due to them because of your own internal conflicts and you will fuck up your life in the process. The point being, there is a healthy way and an unhealthy way to do this, and we need to know this distinction. If you're actually broke/poor, you don't need to become a millionaire. You just need stability and security. Just get a job, pay the bills. Get insurance, have some bank-balance. Don't worry about being ambitious and being an entrepreneur, or being creative, at that point. As far as learning is concerned, you can learn a lot even as an employee, your boss can be a good mentor at times. 'Not being poor' is the middle-class drive and it probably won't make you rich. This is why middle-class people hold onto their comfort-zone, cuz they don't want to be poor. In fact, they become really risk-averse on the one hand, and on the other hand, they have an immature understanding of business. They've heard of some people making it big by becoming rappers and actors and athletes, they've heard of some other people winning lotteries, so they think it's all luck. You have to get so sick of staying mediocre, staying in the middle-class, that you have to be willing to risk being poor for the shot at getting rich. Then, everyone around you will ask you 'Why are you doing this? Life is pretty comfortable as it is, why are you taking crazy risks?' That's when you need your 'why' to drive you, despite the crabs pulling you down.

You are holding onto this idea that 'your parents are the wisest people you know' in order to keep the family together. They probably conditioned you with this idea, so that you would trust their opinion when things went wrong and they'd hold a very important place in your life. And, you don't know any other way to have a family/to have an attachment-relationship, which is why you keep doing it, even though it leads you down a path you don't want to go. Here are the steps for how to solve it: Figure out what the need for 'belonging' is, do some research on it and how it gets met. This will show you what need your parents meet for you (or are supposed to meet for you) and why you keep following their advice to your own detriment. Then, figure out alternative ways to meet this need. If you understand the need for 'belonging' or 'tribe', you will very quickly realize that the way you form a 'tribe' is by finding some common ground with other people. So, get to know yourself better and figure out shallow and deep things that you have in common with other people. That'll give you a way forward in meeting this need. And, in your new tribe, find someone whose judgement you trust/who would be a 'wise person', whose advice would help you. You have a certain direction you want to go down in life. And, a lot of times, shit can get rough along the way. Now, if you find a tribe that aligns with you, you will get the sense that 'we're all in this together', you won't feel alone along the way. Then, when you get a wise person who has compatible values giving you advice, this advice will be better than what your parents are giving you. (Not because they're wiser than your parents, because their values align with yours.) Because, the objective reality is that your parents' advice isn't as good as you think it is. So, you may have to face this reality. And, the way you do that, is by meeting more people and finding more people whose judgement you trust. And, one final point - for someone to give you good advice, 'how wise they are' isn't that important. What's more important, is compatibility of values. A dumb person with compatible values will give you better advice than a wise person with incompatible values. That's the reality! HTH!!

The whole trick to surviving in India is knowing how to cook Indian food. If you can do that, you're set.

This is not the important question to ask. The important question to ask is - how connected did she feel with me? Was I vulnerable enough with her, did I authentically put myself on the table, did I show her who I really am and what she would be signing up for, if she were to be with me? If you're unsure about the touch-thing, don't worry about that. Figure out other areas in which you can be authentic with women. Leo talks about the concept of 'hook-point' in his series on how to get laid. I will add one more layer to that concept - there is a difference between a 'shallow hook' and a 'deep hook'. Depending on what you want, you'd choose which one to go for. If you just want to get laid, you may get away with a shallow hook. Can't do much more on a one-night stand anyways. But, if you want an attachment-relationship, you want to form a deep hook. That is how you get someone to stick around. You make this 'deep hook' the foundation of your relationship and you build on it.

“I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss. I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy. I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” ― Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities This quote perfectly symbolizes authentic contribution. Contribution such that when you think of it on your deathbed, you go in peace. You don't die wishing you'd lived a little longer to have done this for the world, you die without regrets. Now, here is my question to all of you - what is this 'contribution' for you? You can talk about it here if you want to. But, it is something that I urge you to think about/contemplate.

@CARDOZZO Fair enough. And, by 'approach', do you mean, cold-approach or warm-approach? The reason this distinction is important is because the growth-curve for one is radically different from the growth-curve for the other.

I'm not asking to be convinced, I'm asking for clarification. What do you mean by 'better'? 'Better' relative to what?

Who do you want me to approach and for what?

That's because porn conditions you to be the watcher, whereas the highlight reel makes you feel like she's seducing you directly, so it makes your ego feel better to get off to that. This can happen when you're only caring about your pleasure/you're not caring about her pleasure. Aka, if you're objectifying the women you're getting off to. Sexualization is not the same as objectification. It's the decision to sexualize a woman only based on looks - that's objectification. So, if you are also looking at her personality/what she's into, you're checking for compatibility and you're consciously choosing to sexualize women based on that, it can elevate the level of consciousness of your sex. Then I think you'll be fine.

Of all the things that millennials and Gen Z's are burnt out on, this is one of those things. The topic of why men don't approach anymore is a book in and of itself. Here are a few of those reasons: Availability of porn: Because of the availability of porn/the illusion of women being accessible through online dating and social media, men can fap and get an orgasm like that. It may be a certain percentage of enjoyment of actual sex, say 10%. So, it's just easier to fap 10 times, than to approach 10 women, get rejected and work on your game. (This is a complaint a lot of women have and women will have to adapt to this new reality.) Looks aren't enough for men who date seriously anymore: A lot of women are in this illusion that just because they look hot, men should want to commit all of their money to them. That's not true anymore, because of the previous point. Because men are starting to see through the veil of looks and because men understand that 'romantic love' is towards a feminine personality and not towards a woman who looks a certain way, cold-approaching women just because they have big boobs isn't worth the effort anymore for guys who want more than sex. Fear of being seen as a 'creep': If you ask men why they don't approach, this will be the most common answer you'll get. Feminism has really made approaching dangerous and we have to really decide whether a certain woman is worth the risk or not, because of the possibility of her calling you a 'misogynist pig', 'creep' or just outright falsely accusing you. Cold-approach is inferior to warm-approach in terms of conversion-rate into dates: The reasons for this is that cold-approach is done purely based on physical appearance. But, if you have a social-circle and you get to know the woman through other people who you know, you can know more about her before you decide 'I'm dating her' purely based on appearance. (And by the way, Insta-DMs and online dating are forms of online cold-approach and are also purely based on appearance.) You can judge compatibility before taking your shot. A lot of women don't get this, though, because they think that looks should be enough too. Because traditionally, this has been the case, men have approached only based on looks up until this point. And, because a lot of men are utterly friendless, this option of warm-approach is not on the table for them. Now, before you jump on me with the 'tHeSe ArE eXcUsEs, yOu cAn dEcIdE tO aPpRoAcH aNyWaYs', calm down. I know that you can decide to approach regardless. These are not excuses. They are the reasons why a lot of men are burned out on the approaching-front. And, even though it is true that you can just decide to approach more, that may not be the solution to the issue of burnout. The solution, from what I've seen, is: To figure out what you want from women. Especially if you're cold-approaching someone, you're not really seen as a 'friend', you're seen as a 'stranger', so it's purely transactional. And you have an opportunity to flirt right off the bat, which is why a lot of PUAs like doing pick-up. It is useful to do pick-up to improve your game. However, pick-up is not the only way to improve your game, it's just one of the multiple tools at your disposal. Guys just like it the most cuz it can directly get you laid. My point is, before entering a transaction, you have to figure out what you want. So, the transactional reality gives you a clear reflection of what you want, which is where you can use cold-approach (or the potential of it) to reverse this cycle of burnout. Once you know what you want from women, transactionally speaking, you work on your game when it comes to getting that specific thing. 'Sex' is a catch-all term for a wide variety of sexual acts. So, the biggest key to finding a sexual partner is to figure out sexual-compatibility. Figuring out what you want is to select women correctly and figuring out what those women want, is to work on your game. This is where you hone in on your social-circle and you really figure out how to vet for compatibility. This is where your dating-strategy becomes socially appropriate. (Pick-up is not traditionally seen as socially appropriate, because society objectifies women and to a lot of people, cold-approach resembles the act of approaching a hooker and paying them for sex. This is also where a lot of women completely filter out PUAs cuz of the potential of slut-shaming by their own peers.) Relationships have been forming since the beginning of time. But, it seems that men of previous generations didn't have to do this in addition to everything else you gotta do to make a relationship work. Why is that? Because there is a big shift in the consciousness relative to relationships, we want them to be more 'loving'. Even if we don't know what 'love' is, at least, we want them to be more pleasing. So, the expectations from everyone (men and women) are really rising, in a way that millennials and gen Z's were not prepared for or warned about. Hence the crisis.

That is a Pakistani account whose sole purpose is to trash-talk India and Indians. This is the literal job of a lot of Pakistani media. Indians see them as 'b@rk!ng d0gs at a moving car' for the most part. (It's an analogy, not using 'd0g' as a cuss-word here.) We don't pay much attention, until they talk about cricket. And, about the 'PUA picture game' - it's really normal simp behavior. It's Instagram, which is where all the simps hang out.

What's written in the picture doesn't read as a rape-threat. It reads as a comment that's more along the lines of 'Travis Head's wife is hot'. To spin this as a 'rape threat' is the work of Pakistani propagandists. This is Pakistani propaganda.

Today is the day I identify as non-binary!

The cancel-culture ball-game that they decided to play is one without proof. I'm playing by their rules, not mine, cuz they're the dominant side, I'm not. And, I'm figuring out ways to beat them at their own game. As I said, maybe you take on the label for different reasons, like 'I feel like a woman in a man's body'. But, first of all, you can't prove your feelings to us. Secondly, from society's perspective, it is a label! You are a statistic, from society's perspective. The level of importance of this statistic depends on the era you're living in. If I choose to lie about my feelings, you can't do jack shit about it. That's the reality. Do your worst. I tried being a good example. It didn't work. They don't use logic, they're just out for blood. They're not well-intentioned, good people. Definitely not well-intentioned towards men. Right now, I'm just looking for ways to cancel them, to turn the cancel-culture table onto them. That's the only thing that seems to work.