Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - My AIDS, Your Arse

1 [2] 3 ... 23
Interzone / Re: Study shows realities of mate selection
« on: December 28, 2010, 10:56:53 PM »
The only way to win the game is to not play it.


You probably meant to say "the only way to do nothing is to not do anything." You might as well stop breathing too because you're going to die anyway.

This is the perfect attitude to have if you want to repel pussy, or any form of human companionship altogether.

Women date the successful and smart guys, yes, but they also cheat on them with bikers, druggies, and "bad boys."
My statement will be super-simplified and formulaic and tasteless to some, but here it goes anyway -- you find the truth that you can within it:

All women have a sexual, instinctual drive to cheat on their feminized loser provider-husband with the archetypal "bad boy" or alpha male, but it doesn't mean it can be overridden by another instinctive sense - who will be the beta-provider?

Or by how sexy/attractive they estimate themselves to look. The most physically, sexually-attractive women (but often vapid) are attracted to abusive (or potentially abusive) alpha males. The reason why is because they have nothing to lose -- They're on top of the world (in their own little world) and can afford to do without the woman.

(There are also successful alpha males, not just "bad boys." Look at some world leaders.)

This pattern of attraction ebbs and flows between the two extremes depending on where the woman is in her menstrual cycle:

Awkward news from the world of science: Women with less-masculine husbands or boyfriends are more likely to lust after other men during the fertile part of their cycle than women partnered with butch guys.

A new study reveals that heterosexual women whose partners have less-masculine faces report more attraction to other men during ovulation. Women with masculine-looking partners said their eyes wander less, perhaps because the traits women tend to find sexy when they're fertile are already present in their partners. However, while those women weren't looking elsewhere, they also weren't more attracted to their own manly partners while fertile, suggesting that women's reasons for wanting sex, not overall desire, might be what varies throughout the cycle.

The meek beta on the other hand will fight and lose anything and everything to keep his woman and please her and generally be her loathsome slave -- her bitch.

Ugly girls look almost exclusively for provider-types who are willing to settle for less, unless they're so ugly that they will just resort to any gross cock that will dump a fuck in their porcine hole. This exact pattern may just be anecdotal hearsay, however, and is probably tied more to the menstrual pattern above.

To address the idea that women are "after your wallet": From experience, I'm loath to spend much money on a girlfriend and each one in the past has loved me regardless. Women only look for money in lame men because the men have no balls to compensate for the unattraction otherwise.

You don't exactly need money to "have" women. All you need is the proper attitude and some BALLS - spiritually speaking.

Fix yourself, and every other aspect of your life falls into place. The alpha male is attractive socially to everyone and sexually and romantically to women because he is driven to live, to conquer, to destroy, to build and hold strong and steadfast in defiance of inevitable death and entropy: He embodies the vir that everyone here always goes on about.

(Maybe metal music sucks because there's too many pussies trying to make "metal music" these days. Indie metal is shrunken-testicle estrogenic bullshit.)

If you have the "positive" attitude toward life, women will basically smell it in your manly musk and see it in how you act and carry yourself in the world. This stuff cannot be easily faked. Apparently they can tell if you're ugly by your musk too, so if you're ugly or bitchy looking, this doesn't apply to you.

Money only serves as one means to care or provide for yourself and your potential offspring. If you have another reliable means of supporting yourself and living than relying on money, more power to you. Women will still be attracted nonetheless.

I personally believe that what's more important than just finding a sexual partner out of somebody is finding someone whose path of life is parallel to yours and you can help further each others' goals. At the very least, to provide some kind of companionship to one another.

Nature laid the groundwork, now it's time for us to utilize it for a higher goal.

Interzone / Re: Homosexuals: Genetically and Spiritually Superior?
« on: December 23, 2010, 04:56:17 PM »
If this feminized brain structure were "superior", in history and recent time why aren't there female or homosexual male scientists, scholars and warriors all across the board?

One can make note of many geniuses that never begat children or ‘bothered’ with family life, and the many great artists who were or have been reputed to have been homosexual or bisexual such as: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Beethoven, Chopin, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust and so on.

I'm not picking sides, just pointing out that he already answered your question. I'm interested to see how his statement will be rebunked. Mind you that since homosexuality has been heavily tabooed in the western world for 2000 years (because of christianity) there might be tons of historically important closet fags out there. But hey this should help: maybe it was because of the pressure they were under because of possible persecution that they tried to make themselves valuable in other ways. Maybe if homosexuality was encouraged then they would have all ended as some drunken sailors lovebird instead of geniuses. We'll never know any of these things for sure will we?

So here's another way of looking at it: what has homosexuality done for mankind? Not homos, but homosexuality itself...?

I was speaking in general terms here, but a good lot of those names in that list are male artists and writers, and my previous statement was not made in ignorance of that list.

It's possible that the successes of most of those men came from their being relatively celibate or sublimating their sexual drive, and whether their inborn preference be heterosexual or homosexual, it's still a sex drive that will make or break the man.

Nikola Tesla is one such heterosexual celibate genius, Friedrich Nietzsche might be another.

The fact that certain gay geniuses may have had to remain closeted homosexuals could have forced them to sublimate their energies into their specialties rather than toward chasing men. Another possibility is that certain behaviors by celibates may have had them considered by others to be gay or bisexual simply because they never had the drive to interact with women with great fervor. People get called gay in high school all the time for not going around to get laid or having a girlfriend: It doesn't mean they're gay.

It could more than likely mean they have other priorities and/or they are too socially-inept to get a girl.

We all are innately bi-sexual.

Mostly wrong. Women are the gender who are innately bisexual.

Men are either turned on more by women or by men, they have no choice. The men in the above linked study noted that they were only turned on by the films of their innately-preferred gender.

Tie this into the previous post about homosexual male brains resembling hetero female brains, and you'll see all signs pointing toward inborn sexuality.

Sure, a homosexual can learn to repress their gay urges in the closet and pretend to be straight and maybe stick his dick in a wet (female) hole or two, or a straight man can learn to tolerate taking it in the ass and sucking on cock, but neither of those situations are their inborn preferences.

Consciousness grants us the illusion of absolute "free will" but in the grand scheme of things, it is the universe that imposes its own free will onto us. In the material world, it's all about action -> reaction and causality.

Besides, who cares to distinguish whether will is "free" or not or whether it resides within the individual? Will is will.

Interzone / Re: Homosexuals: Genetically and Spiritually Superior?
« on: December 22, 2010, 01:41:55 PM »

Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.
Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women.

If this feminized brain structure were "superior", in history and recent time why aren't there female or homosexual male scientists, scholars and warriors all across the board?

"Superiority" is the wrong term to use because the dimorphic brain structures of straight males and females obviously serve more niche'd purposes.

Interzone / Re: Self
« on: December 18, 2010, 01:28:08 AM »
It's definitely not a physical thing in itself as far as we know.
This comment smells like dualism. Please explain more.

Self is an abstract concept, like God and mind and consciousness, hence non-physical, just like an operating system on a computer or the data stored on a hard disk are non-physical and abstract. There are physical things that facilitate consciousness though, such as the brain and the mind within it, and the body that supports the brain.

No brain = no mind and no consciousness. Mind, as a part of one unified body, is merely an instrument for the Self and an expression of the Self, from my understanding.

Interzone / Re: Self
« on: December 15, 2010, 11:23:05 PM »
Not to be a prick, but let's get our semantics straight before we get any further with this thread. Are we discussing "self" as in "I, me" ego, or "Self" in the Vedantic sense?

I'd like this clarified so we express our knowledge more easily.

Interzone / Re: Self
« on: December 15, 2010, 11:15:26 AM »
I've seen "self" explained as that which is beneath the conscious (ego + senses), beneath the subconscious, and beneath the unconscious. It's definitely not a physical thing in itself as far as we know.

The ego is often treated as an insignificant thing for the eventual domination and mastery of it, but this may not be for all of us.

At the least I think anyone and everyone can benefit from a rudimentary understanding of how ego works, and I think a lot of people here are capable of that.

Interzone / Re: Chuck Schuldiner: The Pity Party Never Ends
« on: December 15, 2010, 11:05:29 AM »
Share this with your Facebook-using, metal-listening friends and family:

Interzone / How to deal with Christmas?
« on: December 12, 2010, 03:19:02 AM »
The iTampon has better absorbency than the iPad. I highly recommend the former.

Interzone / Re: Mixed race as opposed to Pure race
« on: October 02, 2010, 10:49:47 AM »
From what I've read, oversized heads are an unfortunate-but-inevitable side effect of having evolved enormous brains, combined with the effect on the hip bones' structure of an adaptation towards walking upright. When has death in childbirth not been a problem for women?
So, some brains have a couple more cubic centimeters in volume. Some birth canals can accomodate the newborns with these traits.

This makes me wonder if there's a correlation between high IQs/bigger brains and wider hips on women for members of a given race.

Interzone / Re: Bible Quotes
« on: October 01, 2010, 06:16:52 PM »
Matthew 10:34 - Christ: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Interzone / Re: Comics
« on: October 01, 2010, 06:08:52 PM »

This is among the most crass and politically incorrect comic series I have ever seen. Perfect!

The comic's author was on this forum briefly:

Interzone / Re: Chastity
« on: October 01, 2010, 06:02:59 PM »
Men are expected to sow their seed where they will, but don't expect it to thrive if you aren't there to tend to it.

Also, any woman will stay faithful to you if you're worthy enough to her. If she places no worth on her partners other than for frivolous things, kick her to the curb.

Select the selective people.

In our present society, women are encouraged to be "sexually liberated" and men are expected to be docile, domesticated grade-A pussyboys, so it's no wonder that promiscuity becomes more rampant as the quality of people declines.

Interzone / Re: Mixed race as opposed to Pure race
« on: October 01, 2010, 05:43:23 PM »
I'm a mixed person (Half mexican, Majority polish and part russian). Is it really that bad being mixed?

I'm "mixed" myself but I identify with Western/European values and virtues, and I can see some of these expressed in ancient American cultures as well as others. I believe these should be preserved, and any group or race or culture that stands for these values should be protected and preserved to continue onward. I think what helps is definitely to understand yourself and your family, the temperaments of your parents and their ancestors, and what makes you "yourself" within that context.

A culture of no-identity consumerism and wanton destruction of these cultures needs to be destroyed. So race-mixing is possibly only a consequence of this diseased society. Mixed-race people should resent the fact that this culture did not value their ancestors' cultures enough to encourage them to maintain that, and they should leave the other mutts to their falseness and bullshit, and instead to maintain or derive a 'new' culture they themselves can uphold.

What is important is reverence of ancestors and where you and the rest of the human race comes from. This way we can understand where we need to go from there because this game of chess has already begun. We need to work with the pieces as they've been laid out before us.

A little blending of "like" people is fine. It's happened in many parts of Europe, and most white Americans are blended Europeans themselves. However simple race-mixing does tend to reduce human and their cultures to grey cultureless and raceless goop and it potentiates unnecessary conflict and turmoil. Perhaps one has to compromise one culture's values and beliefs for another they may identify with, and this may confuse them so much that they simply may not give a fuck anymore.

I've met some people who were somehow proud of being a mix of this-and-this-and-this and then brush it off as if it doesn't matter, like every part of them is a simple interchangeable adjective to make them seem more unique or interesting. They also seem to be the kinds who adopt a crowdist view on things and compromise the most. I say fuck them, they're annoying.

The proudness exhibited by being an arbitrary mix of things is similar to the put-endless-adjectives-in-front-of-the-word-'metal' effect - example: "blackened brutal crust metal" <- with a label like that, more likely than not, it's going to be shitty. If you can synthesize jazz-metal while maintaining the favorable characteristics (a la Atheist) - there's a favorable blend right there. Rarely is the mix going to be perfectly 50/50 - sometimes the child will exhibit characteristics of one parent more than the other, and the unfavorable ones may be neutralized by the others.

I look at this current phase of race-mixing as a tempering of a sort - the people who are bound to come out of it are going to be absorbed into the race they belong to if they have favorable characteristics and outlooks. The rest will drown in grey goo. We just need to wait for the oil to rise to the surface of the water and find our way. We really do tread a lonely path if we don't.

Interzone / Re: The other sex
« on: September 13, 2010, 09:46:27 AM »
Your arguments disregards the fact that the concept of "game" is a reactionary concept. What makes a concept reactionary?

It necessitates itself on its insistence of the existence and relevance of a perceived threat.

It is reactionary if seen as antidote to something. I view it in a manner not unlike social engineering.

Confidence is a natural attribute. Human beings are not a tabula rasa, and natural design is a central attribute to consciousness. We can only promote specific manifestations of that design, we cannot change the structure of the design itself. The idea of game is akin to meme-terrorism and national socialism; it is appealing to the intelligent because it appears to be a systematic method of enforcing a successful value. What is strangely unrealized in all of these cases is that the value, at least as they have adapted it towards their own ends, has already failed. Even more strange is that these ideas seem to be most popular with adolescent youth, especially males. These systematic implementations of idea, more properly described as surrogates, are the equivalent of hacking at the heads of the hydra.

This is why I assume it's presented in a "get laid TONIGHT" way and not in a societal paradigmatic shift sort of way, since only recently have people been interpreting it in the latter sense. Psychology isn't necessarily presented with the idea that you'll be able to actually apply it to impose your will in a social/societal way, and chemistry isn't presented in a way that says you can't use it to make explosives.

I do think game is useless if you don't already understand what a man is supposed to be, or have no desire to become one. I wholeheartedly agree that we need more men to man up, and our present culture isn't helping.

The root cause of the "beta male" phenomenon is not a lack of game, it is a lack of a defined social role for men. Certainly a man can define his own social role, but so long as the value of a man's role within society is left undefined, you will continue to see a rise in the amount of submissive men. A good example of this is the herbivore subculture of Japan.

This, mainly this.

Solving the problem will involve those who understand the value of a defined social role aggressively acquiring positions of power, authority, and most importantly, respect, and using those positions as influence. Game is alright if you want to surf the wave of Kali Yuga until it crashes into the coast-line, but those looking to build upon the ruins, so to speak, will want to contribute to the creation of a culturally defined standard for varying social roles that are important to the health of the culture. I think this idea is explained in further and more beautiful detail in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

There's a concept of "relationship game" in certain parts of the community which discusses at length how to maintain your relationship. But again, the crucial foundation of game is that level-headedness and inner peace, and as long as you have that and decent social ability, all the loose ends tie themselves together.

Want to spread your seed? Make yourself and your seed look more attractive.
Want to spread your memes? Make yourself and your memes look more attractive.

Want to have your ideas appropriated and altered through simulacra? Make yourself and your ideas seem easier to understand.

You know, water them down a bit? You're harshing my mellow, man.

It's not necessarily what you say, but how you say it that makes it more palatable.

If you have to water down your ideas to make people accept or understand them, the error lies in the messenger and not the message. Maybe I don't socialize with many inept and dumb people but a lot of people are receptive and understanding of the ideas I present to them if I sense they will be to a certain degree and after a little bit of the usual banter.

This is only touched upon just a little bit in game, and doesn't teach you what any of it is based off of - human/evolutionary psychology and sociology. A lot of game literature is definitely written with the intent to earn its author plenty of money.

In my mind, game is much like a little toy gyroscope (in terms of its usefulness) that gives us a glimpse into the world of physics, but doesn't teach us all that we'd need to know about the science of it. It's just a little toy, a mind-object to work with, but it does have the potential to further our understanding and hone our intuition.

Anyway, what I was going off of is that women and many men seem to use inductive and emotion-based logic to make their decisions, and if you can't command that sphere, for whatever reason you may need to, you lose out. The rational and language sphere aren't necessarily superior to intuition and emotional communication and they cannot be neglected. This would be like your Charisma attribute in every single RPG ever, and for a meme warrior, this is just as important as any Strength attribute.

Most messianic and religious figures are presented (or presented themselves) with a palms-outward, arms-outstretched manner to indicate your inner non-threatening mood and sincerity, and that you have no intent to deceive the person (and you most likely really aren't but you may be subconsciously communicating that you intend to do so which is why some messages simply fail to get across to otherwise receptive people).

Having a greater awareness of how we present and carry ourselves will only make our lives that much easier, in addition to being able to read people based on how they present themselves, whether it be subconsciously and unknowingly or consciously and knowingly (as we may).

1 [2] 3 ... 23