Emerald

Don't get me wrong. There's plenty of subtler prejudice to be exploited in the general population... even for those who aren't drawn to these right wing echo chambers. And veiled scare-mongering about immigration can work for Republican politicians to get more votes from the general populace as long as the anti-immigrant sentiment it isn't too blatant. The thing is, most people genuinely don't like to think about themselves as racist or xenophobic, even if they are to some degree. So, if there's a Republican politician who's couching their anti-immigration sentiment from a non-hatred based rationale... this won't scare off normies who happen to have unconscious biases against immigrants. And they will feel comfortable voting for that politician because "They're not racist, they're just concerned about the cartels." Or "They're not xenophobic. It's just that every functioning country needs a strong border. Otherwise immigrants will take jobs from Americans, and we won't have enough resources." And the normie Republican voter with unconscious biases against immigrants and some genuine practical concerns about immigration will feel comfortable voting for this kind of politician that couches their anti-immigrant sentiment in dog-whistles and less extreme rationales. But if a politician is clear and blatant about the xenophobia and racism like they are in right-wing echo chambers (which is what Trump mistakenly parroted in the debate), it will scare normie Republicans and Centrists off who have milder, less-conscious biases. They particularly don't like blatant racists and xenophobes because it holds a mirror up to their own Shadows. Probably only about 25% of people (probably less) actually resonate with intensely blatantly racist/xenophobic perspectives... and only people with that level of neurosis and grievance are in right-wing echo chambers.

My thoughts are that it makes sense. Most people don't have the same kinds of grievances and worries. So they aren't attracted to these spaces.

I think you're reading intelligent strategy into what is a knee-jerk emotional response on the part of Donald Trump when Kamala baited him about his rallies. Trump is clearly in a lot of right wing echo chambers as those are the contexts that are the most sycophantic to him. And he has a fragile ego, and so he tends to surround himself in echo chambers full of yes-men. And he also has tended more and more over the years to gravitate towards far-right online spaces, which has caused him to not have his finger on the pulse of normie America. And he tends to put a lot of stock into the perspectives that arise in these far-right online spaces because those are the most validating voices to him. So, when he brought up the "immigrants are eating your dogs" thing, it's because he exists in right wing echo chambers where the fake-news story of the week was about Haitian immigrants eating cats and geese. And because that was the story of the week in that echo-chamber, and he has lost sight of the fact that he's in an echo-chamber because of the near-ubiquitous validation he gets. And he has convinced himself that normies are just as tuned in to the stories around immigrants eating pets. But of course, he doesn't really care about this. He didn't even get the fake news story right because he said it was dogs that immigrants were eating. He's just trying to throw red meat to the electorate... because he assumes that most of the electorate is keyed into this story of immigrants eating pets. He just doesn't realized that it's unhinged Facebook grandpa behavior because he has to believe that EVERYONE adores him. And so, the echo chambers where people adore him, get seen as EVERYONE in his eyes for the sake of bolstering and maintaining his ego.

Exactly

The problem with this is that it falsely equalizes something that is not equal... which creates a distortion in the eyes of viewers. Trump said that blue states have legal infanticide, and that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets. Those are egregious ridiculous lies that would be malpractice for a debate moderator to not call out. It's just that Kamala didn't tell any egregious ridiculous lies. So, the moderators didn't check her. They also were consistent, and only called out his egregious ridiculous lies and let the other 5000 milder lies slide unchecked. So, the moderators were actually pretty even-handed as the boundary-line for fact-checking was consistent for both candidates throughout the debate. If anything, it was slightly more in Trump's favor because they always let him go over. Yet again... that wasn't so much in his favor. And perhaps they gave him the advantage of time to give him more rope to hang himself by. In that case, it could be a stealthy 4-d chess level of bias against Trump that has the plausible deniability of looking like a bias against Harris. But overall, they were really decent moderators.

Yes, that's true. But even beyond the persona level, it causes us to split ourselves into two categories... good/desirable parts and bad/undesirable parts. And this expresses itself as the personas we use to hide parts of ourselves. And we try to annihilate the supposedly bad/undesirable parts. And this creates shame and fragmentation and division... within ourselves and in relation to other people and from the universe at large.

I recommend Shadow Work as this is about loving and embracing the parts of yourself that you have pushed away and rejected. And there are lots of practices for this. One is to practice dropping judgment by accepting both halves of all polarities. For example, if someone has the idea that to be passive is good and to be aggressive is bad... that means they will begin rejecting any part of themselves they deem as aggressive. But if they instead recognized these as neutral qualities that can be express in positive and negative ways, they can accept both sides of the polarity. But it's also important to accept ourselves unconditionally, even if we were to have the worst expressions of the traits.

Of course Trump voters won't budge in relation to the debate. But the debate is for reaching undecided voters and normies. And for that, Kamala came off as normal and articulate... and Trump came across as unhinged and uncharismatic. So, this debate was a big loss for Trump as it will ONLY be accepted and energizing to people who are already really into him. It will scare away moderates, independents, and undecided voters.

Thank you for the compliment!

Thank you for checking out the series. And yes, judgment is commonly the root of "evil" actions.... because we begin to view ourselves as good guys fighting the bad guys. And we dehumanize the bad guys. But this also opens up the possibility that we are bad/invalid because we're viewing the world that way.

Thank you!

I only did stand-up one time like 8 years ago. But for some reason it's what comes up when you google my name.

I ALWAYS think about this SPECIFIC video that I watched nearly a decade ago when I think about Red Pill guys and PUA guys. They're really just Incel guys that solves the 'fake growth' problem. But they haven't addressed the real issue.

Well said. Now certainly, it's important to not be seen only as a provider of funds. The love and mutual connection element has to be there. And there really are people who want to take advantage that exist out there, like gold diggers. It's more of a matter of taking into consideration practical things like a potential partner's work ethic and level of financial stability, as these factors will determine how much peace of mind you'll have and how sustainable the relationship will be.

The thing about shame is that, if you put ANY conditions on your validity, it just creates more shame. And because another person's affection is conditional, it will just exacerbate the shame issue if you see getting those affections as a necessary pre-requisite for recognizing your own worth and validity. That's not to say that you must stop seeking connection. It's that, seeking connection as a pre-requisite for letting go of shame and accepting yourself will just create deeper levels of shame. And that's true if every woman in the world started knocking down your door. You see this pretty often with successful PUA guys who sleep with 100s of women, but are approaching their desire to be with women from a place of shame. They get good at getting women attracted to them, and on the surface it creates a temporary feeling of validation. But it just brings them deeper into shame and self-hatred... and typically really negative feelings towards women as well. Also, I made a video about shame and the creation story... and the original sin. It's from my shame and love series. I'll link it here because I think it will help you...

No worries. It's all good.

@Tenebroso If you haven't had the types of experiences with women that you want to have, what do you attribute that to? I can tell you right now with 100% certainty, that it doesn't have to do with your level of physical attractiveness... or even personality attractiveness... or anything core to your nature. My suspicion is that you are getting too in your head about things and not opening yourself up to having jokey lighthearted fun with women... or in general. And I can tell by what you're written that you're letting your mind get in the way of your ability to engage in a relaxed and open way. Every relationship I've ever been in has always begun with witty jokey flirty banter that eventually morphs organically into something more. And if you're too worried about making her uncomfortable to be open and playful, you're not leaving space open for something more. Now, be sure to socially calibrate with this. Don't go 0 to 100. That would make a woman feel uncomfortable. Instead, just begin by having relaxed platonic conversation and build rapport and throw in a joke here and there. And as more and more rapport is built you can escalate slowly into more flirtatious banter. But the key here isn't to have an agenda and not to overthink it. And just have fun. And chances are that your room mate is probably a naturally gregarious flirty guy if he's getting lots of female attention.

I think a lot of comes from guys who haven't experienced a longterm relationship with a woman, and don't consider the practicalities of how things like a partner's work ethic, job, temperament, ethical code, etc. are the MOST important factors for how sustainable a relationship is... and just not realizing how vulnerable and stressed it leaves a woman and her children if her partner has deficits in these areas of life. Often times, before someone experiences a relationship and they lack the knowledge of how a real relationship works, there are focuses more towards intangible things like sexual feelings and physical attractions. And I notice that this is especially common in young inexperienced men who are drawn to women mostly out of a desire for sexual experience. And from that point of view, any considerations of things beyond pure physical/sexual attraction might be viewed as cold insincere gold-digging because they just don't realize how much of a dampener of peace, health, and happiness it can be to end up with an unsupportive partner. And they may not even be thinking of things beyond the physical attractions and read raw sexual desire as more sincere than the more complex considerations that mature women go through when selecting a long term partner. And often, the type of guy who sees these kinds of relationship considerations as gold-digging will often be hyper-focused on his own agenda and vulnerabilities (like the fears of a woman not genuinely wanting him but wanting his money). And because he is hyper-tuned into his vulnerability, he may not be able/willing to exercise empathy towards why a woman might take these things into consideration.

Yes. Any accusation of objectification and hypergamy is a confession... since men are commonly objectifying and hypergamous regarding women's looks. It's just that the men who don't realize they're being objectifying will project onto women their own tendency to view women as merely the sum of their parts... and they will believe that women see them as nothing more than the sum of their parts. But of course, going for a guy who isn't mature and doesn't have his life together will be terrible for child-rearing. And a man not making enough money to be stable, means the woman would be needing to sacrifice the quality of life of her children to choose that guy. And of course, if he has no job, that's typically a red flag that she will need to carry so much more weight to make things go. I always think about this cartoon character to be a PSA as to why it's important for a woman to consider factors like money, job, work ethic, etc. when looking for a partner...

I'm sure there have been women who are attracted to you if you're generally socializing. You just may not have known it because women can be reserved about sharing their feelings out of nervousness that they aren't returned. But let me assure you... I'm originally from a redneck town, and as a teenager even the creepiest least attractive guy that I knew had girlfriends just because he was socializing with girls. And let me be clear that most girls were freaked out by this guy because of his tendency to be very touchy feely and sexually inappropriate in a socially inept ways. He was the "Where's my hug at?" kind of guy. He also genuinely looked like a walrus... white mustache and all. And if I recall correctly, he had a genetic issue where he had webbed toes on one of his feet. But that might have been someone else... as it's been nearly 20 years since I was interacting with him. But if he can get girlfriends, literally anyone can. And he's just the most memorable example of a person you might have assumed can't get a girlfriend, getting girlfriends (multiple over the years I knew him). But being from a redneck town, I can tell you that there were tons of boys/men who were unappealing in a variety of ways (being ugly by societal standards, missing teeth, being crazy, creepy, unintelligent, etc.) who had girlfriends and/or wives. So, literally anyone can find a partner... many in fact. But you have to put yourself out there and socialize. So I have to ask... are you interacting with women? Do you have any women in your social circle? Have you tried joking, flirting, and engaging in banter? These are things that are necessary to open up the possibility that something would happen. Otherwise, it would be quite uncommon for a woman to initiate on you without any indication that you like her. And women generally won't express those kinds of feelings towards a guy or come onto him unless she's sure that he's attracted to her. Women generally tend to be a bit more averse to overstepping those bounds and grossing a guy out.

Of course women experience that level of interest and attraction towards the men they have feelings for. And it isn't just some utilitarian thing. Women can get super obsessed with a particular man because she like his personality and likes being around him... in a way that doesn't even have to do with ANY specific quality he has... not even looks. People fall in love with other people. It's just how it is. Also, women could (and often do) come to similar conclusions to the one you did but with regard to men not being capable of feeling real feelings towards women. And that's because of a VERY common pattern of men only liking us for surface level qualities like physical appearance. And you mentioned looks as one of the main elements of what gives you the warm and fuzzies towards a woman. But you don't recognize that you're engaging in a similar type of objectification that you fear is the nature of female attraction. You're just not used to being objectified for your looks, so you don't recognize it. But what you said above would be the equivalent to a woman saying "It's a shame that men only capable of objectifying us and liking us for our looks and sex appeal, when we just need a man to have a spiritual interests, innate intelligence, a big penis and a fat wallet to be irrationally infatuated with him." So if you introspect a bit, you can recognize that the objectification that you assume women are doing to men is actually something that you yourself are doing... and that that's a big part of where these concerns and projections are coming from. The more a man sees the value of women through a more objectifying lens, the more he will come to believe that women are objectifying him. But this is only his own reflection staring back at him. You just don't recognize it as such because you are not used to being objectified based on your looks. And then you worry that women will do the same to you based off of money.

This isn't really what I meant by what I wrote to you. It's more the other way around. Your problem is only a woman-problem at the symptom level. The real problem is shame. And this is what creates the n1/n2 problem that you mentioned because that is a symptom of the shame. I know that your problem SEEMS like it's a problem with women and dating. But it really isn't. Shame is the beginning and end of the issue, and it manifests likely in many forms... and this woman-problem is just one of them. So, my advice isn't about alleviating shame for the sake of being more confident with women... as that isn't the root of the problem, just a symptom. And if you try to alleviate shame to be more acceptable to women, you will just double down on and exacerbate the shame. My advice is rather to seek to resolve the shame because you want what's best for yourself, and as a side-benefit of resolving the shame this will enable you pursue connection, love, sex etc. from a frame that doesn't come from a sense of lack and a need for external validation. And the ONLY way you can alleviate shame is by practicing unconditional self-acceptance and compassion. If you put a condition on loving and accepting yourself, it will create shame in you. And you will go seeking validation from the outside. And one side-effect of this is that you will be looking to women to validate you so that you can finally love and accept yourself. And of course, this puts all sorts of pressure and stakes into romantic interactions that aren't actually there. And once you come to accept yourself... you don't need to pretend to be a nice guy or a dick or any other kind of thing to get women to like you. You will just feel comfortable being yourself, and there will be women that are attracted to you as yourself without any calculation about what kind of persona that you need to adopt. And seeking out some mentor to teach you how to get good with women... or trying to learn to act like a dick isn't going to help you. To do this would be like trying to cure malaria by taking a a fever reducer. It might bring the fever down, but it won't really resolve the issue.

Yes, there are many myths that archetypally refer to the psychological dynamic that many men are caught down in when they end up in a Red Pill mindset. Really, the Red Pill framework is just the replaying of an ancient mythos couched in modern storytelling... and then projecting that mythos onto reality and believing it is real. And then shadow boxing with the mythos. And that is because it FEELS real archetypally, and makes sense of the feelings of pain and shame that men collectively feel regarding the expectation of perfect masculinity that is socially enforced. It is also projecting a mythos onto female sexuality in lieu of deeper understandings that stem from empathy. One example of this is the mythos of the mermaid. The ocean tends to represent emotions and the unconscious. And women tend to be more native to those waters like the mermaid, while the sailor (the man who is un-integrated with his feminine side) is a land-lover who doesn't swim quite so well. So, the story is of vicious calculating mermaids luring the unintegrated sailors to drown in the depths. But if the myths were more reflective of the reality... the unintegrated mermaid just doesn't understand that the unintegrated sailor isn't capable of swimming in the emotions and the unconscious without drowning. So, in actuality she doesn't understand his limitations and that he won't be capable of swimming in the depth until he becomes integrated with his feminine side (Anima) and grows some gills.

I think it would start with knowing where you want to arrive... and even more importantly WHY you want to arrive there. One issue with the tendency for men to seek out the help of other men who have "gotten there" is that it often misdiagnoses the real issue. And this, in turn, can lead to a tendency to seek out role models that may worsen the real cause of the issue. And there are many men who have gotten to where you want to get to that are struggling just as much with the deeper issue. And the real cause of the issue doesn't actually have to do with dating, sexuality, and women. That's just the most symbolically resonant projection screen for the real issue to play itself out on. The real issue in all of this is shame and a feeling of not being good enough. And even moreso, men liking women more than they love themselves... and seeking out female validation to try to alleviate the shame (which of course doesn't work). And it imbues a projection of false power onto women, who come to be seen through the projection as hyper-objectifying calculated arbiters of male worth and punishers of male weakness. And this, in turn, leads to men misunderstanding female sexuality... and instead to read into it a kind of cold power to adjudicate the worthiness of a man. So, resolving the shame and developing self-love and looking into any reasons for attachment to female validation is necessary to rescind the projections... which in turn, will enable you to really open up to love and connection with women: platonically or romantically. And if you seek out mentorship with dating or seduction, you'll want to be 100% positive that the mentor you choose is not caught down in the same shame dynamic, as it is a VERY common dynamic for boys and men to get stuck in.

You're afraid that women aren't capable of loving you and meeting your love and connection needs... and that you will have to go without that need. And you also may be projecting a condition onto your own sense of validity and lovability that "In order for me to be valid as a man, a woman (or women in general) has to love me." So, this creates fear and pressure and desperation because you want and need love and connection. And that desperation is what manosphere coaches and content creators are arousing in you (sometimes consciously and sometimes just a result of them being caught in the same shame spiral). And that's because with that pain, you'll want to buy the solution and you will get in a cycle of searching out more and more manosphere information and more and more manosphere solutions. And their proposed solution is of course... more manosphere! That's why you should NEVER ask a woman to help you with these things... because then you won't pay money to get a manosphere coach to help you. So, it becomes the place that supplies the pain and the cure... and the cure is more of the pain... so you need more of the cure... which is more pain. And it creates a really pain-filled target audience of men to wring money out of.... and to sell increasing pills to to brainwash them into deeper degrees of desperation. And to ensure that women will get scared off by them because women can smell these ideologies from a mile away. But rest assured, that manosphere frameworks isn't reflective of the actual reality. It just takes the worst examples and then says, "This is an unchangeable part of female nature." And it creates even more desperation... which is then solved by.... more manosphere. So, the solution is to get out of the manosphere loop and forget 99% of what you 'learned'. And open up and be vulnerable... and if you are discerning, you can find a relationship that's based upon mutual love and respect.