mr_engineer

Mexico is an actual libertarian paradise. People are doing fine there! And you're stupid to not be afraid. These 'planners' aren't fucking saints. They're out to get your freedom, to get your stuff, to get your business, to get your body-sovereignty and now your body itself. And you are spineless enough to enable this. Shame on you, honestly.

These aren't libertarian paradise. They're raped and pillaged by the first-world communism. And the first-world is next.

Everybody isn't as soulless and pragmatic as you are. Everybody doesn't believe in living in an AI-controlled technocratic city that's purely capitalistic and business-centered. Some people care about organic living and freedom and community.

I don't believe in bad debt. If you care so much about controlling the population, why aren't you getting rid of that first?! Why don't you want to do something good for the people, if you believe they're too stupid and ignorant to know what's good for them?!

They told you to believe even that. I'm not outright telling you you're wrong. But, you are outright telling me that I'm wrong. So, prove that to me.

Yupp. That's what they told you to believe and you, like the robot that they want you to be, believed them. Show me the gap in my understanding. Prove me wrong.

@Heart of Space See?! How did I know you'd love him?! I know you people want to let go of free will and make everything synthetic and robotic and soulless and lifeless. I know you people hate having free will, cuz you don't know what to do with it. You deserve the system they're creating for you. Congratulations.

@Heart of Space You're going to love this guy, in that case.

The fractional reserve banking system. The way central banking works is bound to fail long-term.

A shallow hook will be very passionate but it'll fizzle out quickly. A deep hook that happens for a good reason - that'll last. For more information on this, check out this thread of mine.

In my last thread that got locked, the point I was making to debunk redpill is about the various big-picture generalizations and how detrimental it is for individuals to hold onto such broad-picture theories. Because dating is an individual endeavor, not a collective one. And how much of the reality of women gets missed because of this 'numbers-game' attitude, like you're trying to capture a marketplace of sorts and you have to run with trends. I find it interesting that the people who chose to shut me down on that thread were doing more of the same. Perpetuating stereotypes, shaming of 'inexperience' (by their definition, assuming that their values are king), throwing around normalizing statements with broad-stroke assumptions in them. Welcome to cancel-culture. Where everything is personal. I don't claim to have any authority. I'm just the little kid pointing to the Emperor saying 'Why is that man wearing no clothes?!' That's it.

@Consept I don't want to be a slave to my biology and I don't want a woman who is either. Believe it or not, there are women out there who recognize the importance of emotional-needs in relationships and for whom they are a priority over biological needs. Yes, biological needs exist. But, as I said earlier, it's a question of priorities. That is what shapes the way you do this. Does your experience say that? If it does, tell me more about it. If not, it was a pleasure discussing this with you.

Why don't women tell you this to your face when you ask them what they want in a man, in that case? If you claim to know more about what women want than women do. For example, if you ask a man what he wants in a woman, he will have no issues describing the physical stuff. But, when you ask a woman what she wants, saying 'I want a rich guy' won't be intuitive, for sure. It'll be these airy-fairy things like 'confidence', 'someone who makes me feel safe', etc. This whole part about 'getting rich making you confident' is a male rationalization of what they're saying. And it doesn't have to be this way for every individual man. Now, yes, I am also making the claim that I know more about what women want than women do. The difference is that I do have female opinions backing me up. And I believe that some women have more consciousness and awareness than other women. Let's go even deeper. A 'romantic monogamous connection' is an illusion! And there is no 'need' for it. Now, why would I choose to create it, then?! Because it will be something worthwhile to experience. If you are God constructing all of reality, might as well construct a reality that feels good, than not. What you people are saying is highly cynical and limiting when it comes to finding love. And, I refuse to accept that. And, you keep bringing up this stuff about survival-drives. This has nothing to do with love! I don't actually buy it when you say that you have more experience than me. I have had some amazingly high-quality connections with women, platonically. I just didn't sleep with them. Apart from that, I'd say I have my fair share of experience experiencing 'love' and 'feminine energy'.

The reason I keep harping on the part where you embody your Life-Purpose is that it is one of the few ways to get rich that isn't narcissistic. And it is one of the few ways to bring in and keep genuinely good people in your life. If you are a narcissistic rich guy, the kind of women you attract will also be narcissistic gold-diggers. Who are totally lost in the rat-race. If what you want is love, not ideal. Even though, very interestingly, this is the redpiller's wet dream.

@Consept If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. But, I'd suggest you fully listen to what I'm saying before making up your mind. The masculine epistemology is facts-first. It is the way we see the world. It was previously animistic and superstitious, then science evolved and now we have this materialist-paradigm which is a part of the masculine epistemology. It is physically oriented towards physical survival. There is no doubt about its usefulness. The feminine epistemology is feelings-first. Now, I'm going to make the claim that a lot of New-Agers make, which is that your emotions are the key to your intuition. And, that energetically, we are all One. There is no separation on that level. So, it is spiritually oriented. Now, here's what religion did - it put men at the helm of everything, including being in positions of power in religion. When the pastor preaches to you who you are, what your morality is - this forms your identity. Because the pastor is a man, his understanding of the world, of religion is male-biased. Biased towards the masculine epistemology, facts-first. This is why heaven and hell are physical places in the Bible or whatever other scripture. (Keep in mind that morality also includes what's right vs wrong, what's true vs false. And what you hold as 'true' is your entire worldview. And if you disagree with people on what's 'fundamentally true', they will call you 'insane'.) This enterprise of defining our fundamental worldviews got taken over by science later on. It started defining 'the material world', who we are, what our physical needs are, etc. Again, the scientific-method is very physically oriented. I like to make the joke that if women ruled science, the scientific-establishment would be a lot less hard-nosed evidence-based and a lot more like the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry. (Does this remind you of the witch-trials?!) Come present day. Where we have these materialistic ideas of what men want and what women want. Now, what do women actually want? In their terms? Women want a man who makes them feel safe. If you ask women what they want, this is what they will tell you. Now, why do they pursue men with money in practice? Because we have been conditioned by a materialistic establishment that we are physically separate beings and that this is how physical survival works and money and power are the way to go. So, women's safety-meter makes them attracted to men with resources. What happens when a woman becomes enlightened?! All of this changes! Because, she's able to perceive that on an energetic level, we are One. And, that what you are attracted to is actually what you perceive to be able to meet your emotional-needs. And that emotional-need, is safety! (This thing about perception is big in marketing, by the way. Their market's perception of them is everything, that's how branding works.) The single biggest emotional-need that humans have from each other is love, connection, intimacy. And, when you don't have that, you are lonely. And this roots all of mental-illness. And, the human body actually perceives these needs to be more important than physical needs. The proof of that is that when a loved one dies, the body will prioritize processing the grief of that over eating food. When you use a feminine epistemology to perceive reality, this is what you actually see. You just need someone to teach you to do it. Which is by feeling your emotions. And, when you see that, your ideas of what will make you safe change radically. You stop assuming that a rich guy will make you feel safe. You stop wanting to go for narcissistic rich men and you will want to go for men who are more empathetic! Why does enlightenment help us get to seeing this? Because in the process of enlightenment, you do self-enquiry. And you disidentify from your physical body in that process. That is when you are able to perceive that the '3D physical body/physical world' is actually a construction of 5D building-blocks, so to speak, which are energetic/emotional in nature! This is where you can really disidentify from a masculine epistemology, because you disidentify from your body and mind.

Because men have had the choice to define what they want, because men ruled women. Kings had the privilege to say 'I prefer this female servant over this one'. Men know what we want, it's no secret. But, women's truth has been repressed. Feminism is helping women's truth come out. And, if we want happy women, it is our job to listen and own up to the problematic male-biased conditioning that has been given to women. Women's identities have been mirrored to them in a very wrong, male-biased way. Because religion was male-dominated. The New-Age community has been huge in helping women discover their authentic spirituality that is independent of male-dominated religion.

If the wife is staying at home, how can the husband 'choose his family and kids over their careers'?! Don't they have to succeed to provide for a stay-at-home wife and a kid?! Okay. In case women don't know this, I'm going to tell you something - men have a very intimate relationship with what they do. They either love it, or hate it. Or they're emotionless zombies, in which case, they hate what they're doing. And a lot of a man's happiness is decided by whether he loves or hates what he does! You can't be 'loving and caring' if you hate what you do. Cuz you're going to be bitter towards the people you're making these sacrifices for. It's not your emotional system. It's the patriarchy. Your relationship with your emotional-system becomes bad for this reason. And because you have been conditioned by the patriarchy into a masculine epistemology. And, feminists push women into taking on the masculine epistemology for their 'independence'. If your mind is open to what I'm telling you, this could genuinely improve your life. Not kidding. I would highly recommend learning from New-Age women how to access your intuition. They can teach you how your emotions can give you more clarity and not mess up your mind. I think it would help you to open your mind when I'm telling you about something you didn't even know existed. I get to run my relationships how I want. You asked me what my modus operandi is, I told you. I respect your modus operandi but I would rather not procrastinate on compatibility when it comes to my own dating-life.

Men and women just work differently. Especially masculine men and feminine women. Because the masculine and feminine epistemologies are different.

If they're passionate about their careers, they won't be boring. Even if they're wage-slaves, they can be interesting people. I didn't break out of wage-slavery the moment I got passionate about my career either! My point is that passion towards what you're doing is a choice. And the men who make that choice are interesting to women. Because it creates a forward-movement that is unstoppable. I feel like this argument applies more to women than men. It's more of an 'either-or' for women than for men in a patriarchal system. And, beware of the men who say 'I do this job that I hate for you, my family. Do you see how much I'm sacrificing for you?! Do you see how this justifies my abuse towards you?!' I prefer women who prioritize mental peace and mental clarity like their life depends on it. Because they understand that that is the key to happiness. A huge trap for men is putting up with a woman who expects him to make her happy and who doesn't take responsibility for her own happiness. I want to avoid that one like the plague! You can have emotional logic without ambiguity. I'm fine with emotional logic. But, what really bugs me is the ambiguity, not the emotional logic. I've met women whose emotional logic is crystal clear! That takes a tapping into your intuition and a commitment to self-love. This is what I call 'feminine epistemology', for those of you who have been wondering what I mean by it. What you're talking about is not 'love', actually. I call it 'care'. Care is what happens between two humans who matter to each other. And this is transactional. And, you are right, that it's only one-way from parents to their children. All adult-relationships are two-way. This is why love-language compatibility is so important. It's very important to find a win-win there and a win-win in needs. And your positioning to the opposite sex has to match with it when you're dating. If you don't do this, your relationship will be flooded with coping-mechanisms for it in the future.

This is why I've had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want. The kind of women I want, do care what I'm passionate about! Cuz they understand that a boring, uninspired, zombified man will only objectify them. And they won't get love from someone who can't even be passionate about his life. See my thread on redpill for that. Not the kind I want. I prefer direct communication about this stuff, not passive-aggression when uncommunicated expectations aren't met. The truth of what women want from men. Most women just don't know this because of lack of self-awareness. And it's never even been a talking point cuz women have been historically oppressed. This is changing now because women have more freedom. Actual love, is a recognition that both of you are One. It is a choice. And very few people make this choice because they're wrong about what 'love' is, but they think they're right. The way most men and women define love is the way it's defined in the movies/rom-coms. It's a 'positive feeling-state' or a state of approving of something/someone. This can be created by making shit up in your head, quite honestly. You can have an ego-agenda, rationalize it using your concepts of 'love' and then when it doesn't fulfil you, talk about 'how all human love is finite'. I'm sorry to be ranting about this stuff.

I didn't really have to show it. It was like an energetic switch that got turned on when I found my passion in my career. I had to look long and hard for the kind of woman I want to be with. Then, the next thing I had to do, was to figure out how to have a relationship with her. Yes, I was in my masculine energy, but I didn't know how to create the kind of relationship I want with the kind of woman I want. And, pick-up theory turns out to not be good enough for it. For example, when I talk to you people about the basis of your belief in pick-up theory or redpill (if you do), I see a lot of bias and outright wrong knowledge. So, I had no knowledge-resources. I'm having to research this shit all on my own. The fact that most women either don't know what they want from men, are wrong about what they want from men or are outright lying to men about what they want from men, doesn't help. I have to really find the high-consciousness self-aware women who are telling the truth, then I have to verify it in practice, verify the correct way to implement it, then I have to sift through the women walking their talk on this front and develop my filters for women like this. Most people aren't looking for love, they don't care about it. (Because they're conditioned with a materialistic worldview that says that 'love' is a feeling-state or an illusion) I saw this from a very young age. Which is why I knew that I could trust almost no one on this issue. And, as we all know, most people don't know about non-duality, so they don't know what 'love' actually is. They have wrong ideas about that too.

Does it make you happy? And why? And, if it doesn't make you happy, why is everyone running in it? The banking-system survives on people believing that material pleasure = happiness. I would like you to shine some light on that too if you could! Very interesting to hear your take on this.

You have a small forum. So, you have the right to make it a left-wing forum. But, if you become so big that you start lobbying the governments for changes you want and stuff, your audience will want you to have the responsibilities of a politician too! And to democratize your forum more. This point about 'Free speech doesn't apply to private companies' will become less and less tenable, as you get bigger and bigger. Cuz your power will be more than governments at that point.

And, one final point about the 'left vs right' thing - people on the Left think that they're so much better, so much more virtuous than the right, that they deserve the right to censor the Right. All of it is 'far-right extremism'. If you're going to censor everyone who disagrees with you, what is the difference between you and the 'fascist right-wingers' you claim to be against? In terms of action, not just ideology. Sure, your ideologies may differ, yours may be higher-consciousness than theirs. But, if you resort to censorship like this, not only do they see you as the fascists - you make resolution with them very hard. Most people don't 'learn' your ideology when you beat them over the head with a stick.

Silencing the Canadian truckers, the Dutch farmers and protests in Europe is absolutely criminal by the mainstream-media and social-media. If you don't see social-media censorship as an issue at this point, you're kidding yourself. The way I see this, Twitter just had to save face by selling out to Elon at this point, after hurting people this badly. By propagating the mainstream commie narrative and hurting common people's livelihoods. You don't get away doing shit like this.