mr_engineer

As a guy, what I can tell you is that being adored is much better than being the adorer. Being the adorer is conditioning from movies that's unnatural. It's an immature phase you go through when you're young, where women seem like these unattainable goddess-like beings. Because of which you screw up in your decisions of who you go for. Then, you learn and you get wiser. Then, you go through another 'b*tches ain't shit' phase. Which is also immature. Then, when you meet compatible women, you develop a discernment in terms of the right women for you. And then you make mature decisions with women. Do you honestly think that the 'adorers' 'adore' the one woman they 'adore' for good reasons?! Or, is the reality that they're young, they lack life-experience and if they knew what's out there, they would change their minds immediately?!

LOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL. That is very funny. You're trolling, right?!

Knowledge about health and healing is fundamental to feminine power. If she's not disciplined with her diet, you're looking at bigger relationship-issues that you need to fix. You should look at what trauma she's coping with and help her heal that first. Then, if she sees something about healing-work that appeals to her, she will make that her priority. Cuz that's where her power lies. It's fine to know that you should 'support her'. I think that this is what it will practically look like to 'support her'!

Yes, it is true that women on dating-apps are broken. A dating-app is an app on which people are judged by their looks. Now, for a man, this is very good, because he gets to see a picture and make a decision. But, this is not so good for a woman. A high-quality woman will not put herself up for objectification by all the single guys around her. She will choose different avenues to meet men. You are dealing with women that are at the bottom of the barrel on dating-apps. So, if you get some success there, don't pat yourself on the back too much. And if you fail there, don't beat yourself up too much. Dating-app results are not to be taken personally. Because your decision is made just by looking at a picture.

Has she self-reflected about this? Does she have any concrete conclusions about herself based on that? What is her level of self-awareness, according to you?

Sounds like she's polyamorous. Has she considered this possibility? Have you talked about this?

There is one thing that religious people and conservatives get right. It is that if there are societal norms/trends, kids should be educated about them. Science takes it one step too far and turns it into dogma. But, if being cis-hetero is the norm and if that's the reason families have the structure they do, kids should know about this. And this is more important than LGBT-awareness, quite frankly, from collective perspective. Meaning, if we had to choose between the two, the option that's for your culture/collective is the one that educates children about the fact that being cis-hetero is the norm. I know, it sucks to be LGBT in a heteronormative environment, but that's the hand you're dealt. I think that if the progressives acknowledge and admit to this much, right-wingers will give them whatever they want.

There was a video of Rogan admitting that he will say anything he has to in order to get rich and famous. And, Brand pushed the idea of the New World Order. I can't recall links off the top of my head. It's just my two cents.

I don't see the issue with being anti-establishment. Why is it so threatening to pro-establishment people, if they're so strong? And if the establishment is so strong and morally righteous and good. Maybe it's not that strong...? Maybe it's a house of cards. And by the way, Brand and Rogan will not have intelligent critiques of the establishment, because they're controlled opposition. They will embody strawmans of anti-establishment rhetoric.

Have you heard any speculation/fact of a link between genital mutilation and LGBTQ in the West? Have you heard conservatives talk about this? Or, is it just a weird feeling to entertain a gender/sexual identity that's unfamiliar and 'abnormal'?

https://www.indiatimes.com/news/lgbtq-the-truth-about-how-hijras-are-made-in-india-because-they-re-not-always-born-that-way-257525.html I have heard, anecdotally, that this is the case. In fact, every other day, I see a human being with a hoarse, manly voice, wearing women's clothes, clapping their hands and begging. I was told by my culture that 'that's a eunuch and this is their backstory'. I haven't really dug into this cuz it's too grotesque. So, I can't point you to investigation-reports that have proper evidence. But, here's a media-report. My point with the movie was that it talks about the begging-mafia. There are limitations to what they can show on the silver screen. And this is something that the culture really doesn't want the West to see about it.

Watch Slumdog Millionaire. I was warned that it's too depressing so I haven't watched it. But, if you want to dig deeper, go ahead.

@Leo Gura I can understand the paranoia around grooming. Here, in India, there is this thing called the begging mafia. Where they abduct little kids, do genital mutilation on them, forcibly convert them into transgenders/castrate them (so they're outcast from 'civil society', which is built on the heteronormative nuclear family) and induct them into their begging cult. I can picture a 60-year-old American redneck conservative getting an ominous vibe, looking at a transgender teacher talking to kids about gender-fluidity. If they've heard these kinds of stories in their time and they don't have a very good image of LGBT from the past. When a woke LGBT-movement happens here, they will be asked by the conservative status-quo to 'clean out their baggage' first. Regardless of whether it really is theirs or not. Because they will use these data-points as confirmation-bias for the 'rightness of heteronormativity'.

I was hoping you'd try, so you'd understand the challenge we face with integrating what you're saying. I know you can't prove it to me. I was telling you to do it anyways, so you'd tell me the practical problem that comes up when you try. First of all, there is an assumption that the man in question has issues. Secondly, if this is true, wouldn't being authentic hinder your attractiveness to women? If you have to develop yourself all alone, what's the point of having a woman?! If women are going to abandon you anyways. I think that if I do this for women, I will become demotivated very fast. Because there will always be some problem. Nobody is perfect. And, I don't want to pander to women who are critical of me. Cuz that's pointless. How do you do that?

No, it won't work. Because the decision to be conscious has to come from within. No matter how well-intentioned you are, no matter how well-intentioned any spiritual teacher is, you can't wake up someone who doesn't want to wake up. It is a very good and commendable intent. Unfortunately, it would not be realistic. For someone to genuinely be a conscious consumer, they would have to critically look at their spending-patterns, their addictions and to not waste money on addictions and coping-mechanisms. They would have to think like an investor and build their lifestyle like that. This is why the previous step to hardcore investing is to be a conscious consumer! If you really want a conscious market to sell to, here's my suggestion - go one step deeper into the business. Into marketing. There, what you do is in your market-profiling, you integrate and understand the mindset of your market. This is where you figure out how to position something of genuine value to fill a gap. Then, when this is your product and you enter sales with this product, sales will go much more smoothly. HTH!!

Yes, sales must be manipulative. Precisely because if you give your stuff for free, people will call you a saint. Charity is 'good', sales is 'evil', in society's terms. Because sales is selfish in comparison to charity, you want something in exchange for what you're giving. Which is why, salespeople have to manipulate to a certain degree. There is only one exception to this rule. And that is that the customer is a conscious consumer. They know what they want and they're coming to you, the salesperson, for education about the thing that you have to offer. Here, if you know your product and how it can meet the need of the customer, there's no need for manipulation. The problem is that most people are not conscious consumers. They window-shop for things they like and truly want and then settle for a cheaper, lower-quality alternative. If the customer is unconscious and you have to survive, you have to manipulate.

Here's the thing, though - the goal is not to 'attract' women. It's to get with them. That's the point of talking about attraction to begin with. The ideologies may not be absolutely right, in that they may have counter-examples. But, they can be useful for the collective of men to understand what to do to attract women. And, by 'attract', I mean, get with. Feelings of attraction are pointless, honestly, if you're not getting with them. There is an agenda at play here. And that's how the ideology is chosen. To say that 'female attraction isn't parts-based, it's whole-based' isn't very useful. You can't do anything with that. You can only work on parts, not the whole. Because the whole is too much to mentally conceptualize of. In fact, let's do this - how would you go about proving this statement, that women are attracted to the whole and not the parts? How would you even define 'whole'?

I think it depends on what you use the forum for. Spiral-Wizardry is huge for making money, in my experience. It shows financial-opportunities that were previously unheard of. I'm working on an idea that takes my culture up the Spiral. So far, good response! If you use it to challenge your ideas and other people's ideas, break out of your intellectual comfort-zone, then it's good. If you come for an echo-chamber, then it's not good.

How do you be self-loving if you won't be pro-human? How do you practically embody it?

If I were in your position, I'd give her the same advice I'd give to any other man. Find ways to channel your sexual energy in creative ways. Also, I'd look into the underlying emotional-need that's being coped with here. Cuz that's if her drive increases when you change what you're doing, I'd think it's not about the sex anymore. Sex then sounds like an instant-gratification tool to cope with other problems. I'd suggest you look into that.

I can only think of one incentive for a mass of people to get into meditation - they all see it as an escape from the problems of their life. Most people are not willing to use their brains, practically. That's what's required for your consciousness to actually get raised. You need to have a certain degree of comfort and even success and confidence to even entertain the idea that it's all meaningless and to then search for meaning!

@Roy

Yes, those normative standards are evil. They've always been. It's just that we're able to talk about it now, because the manifestation of this evil is happening now. Tell me what's not evil about a system that conditions people into being dogmatic and that then uses this dogmatism to manipulate people into doing their bidding. Keep in mind that dogmatic people side with whoever has money and power, because they want some of it themselves. Because they're running in a rat-race. If you consider wage-slavery as evil (which it clearly is, because it makes people disconnected to and unconscious about what they do and this results in selfishness and blind pursuit of their best-interest), that's a normative standard. And, this wage-slavery is the product of this system.

On the one hand, you think that people are very stupid and you don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt. And, on the other hand, you think that they should be able to epistemically beat the big corporations who don't want stuff like this to come out. The truth will come out, one way or another. It's for you to decide which side of it you're going to be on. And how conscious you're going to be about it. And, never ever make the mistake of believing that it's the truth just because mainstream sources say so.

The problems with the epistemic ecosystem are not a bug, they're a feature. It's because people are fundamentally dogmatic. And, the reason for that, is the way the education-system works. Where you get points for regurgitating an official narrative. Your interpretation does not matter to the system. Even though, ultimately, what you do is based on your interpretation. This is not a bug of the system, it's a feature. No one at Tier-1 is immune to this. Given the way the education-system conditions people into being dogmatic and fundamentalist (do keep in mind that the origin of it was religious indoctrination-camps), it only makes sense that the media is able to position itself as a 'credible source of information' when it's funded by the same people who fund the government, who is responsible for the education-system. Yes, they farm the people to become dogmatic first, then use the media to take advantage of people's epistemic weakness/lack of thinking-skills to rile them up and do their bidding.