Como Ser Alpha?

~~cormaya~~ · Maio 7, 2016 às 13:52

32 minutos atrás, »Neo disse:

É quem é gordo ao emagrecer e consequetemente dar uma secada no rosto tb, sempre ira ficar aparentemente melhor do que quando era gordo.

Quem é magro n tem essa melhora no rosto ao ganhar mm.

pior que incha, fica com o rosto redondo dae, o negócio de quem é magro é bulkar tacar o foda-se e depois de uns 2 anos secar, aí sim fica massa

apesar de ser muita neura se preocupar com formato do rosto, sério, é um detalhe tão minúsculo na hora do flerte... tom de voz, linguagem corporal, o desenrolar em si... isso sim é o que vai decidir se leva ou não a mulher pra cama.

formato do rosto é um mero detalhe, um pequeno atrativo, masculinidade se prova verbalmente.

Editado Maio 7, 2016 às 14:10 por cormaya

C.Golden · Maio 7, 2016 às 14:11

Foda é perder gordura pra afinar o rosto e perder a MM junto..

----------------------

Um homem inteligente vale por 10:

Pode ser fictício. Mas é motivador. Estimule sua criatividade, ponha sua inteligência em prática.

Editado Maio 7, 2016 às 14:13 por CassioGolden

1dayumay · Maio 7, 2016 às 16:20

Essa linha que fica na maçã do rosto (n sei o nome certo) é muito foda, dá uma melhorada fudida no rosto.

OBS_cenous · Maio 7, 2016 às 16:54

Vcs ja ouviram falar do pua zera?? ele eh realmente tão foda igual falam dele?

Aroma · Maio 7, 2016 às 16:58

1 minuto atrás, OBS_cenous disse:

Vcs ja ouviram falar do pua zera?? ele eh realmente tão foda igual falam dele?

HAUHAUAHUAHAUHAUAHUAHUAHAUHAUAUAUAHUAHAUHUAHAHAUAHA.

A comunidade tem nomes reais, de caras que saem de casa constantemente na caçada e também constantemente comem mulheres diferentes. E tem esses "fodas" de teoria e internet.

Abraço.

Vengeance · Maio 7, 2016 às 17:15

Zera é bem famoso nessa comunidade do PU, ele foi um dos primeiros a praticar o pick up no Brasil.

Não sei se pode postar links aqui no fórum pq sou novo, mas se tu quiser ver, mega.nz/#F!3IJlxYzC!ohkxI-FCG4woAV4DdrJszA!fBhXFJjT,

tem uns videos fodas nesse link na pasta do zera sobre tudo, até umas dicas pro Night Game que ninguém nunca falou.

~~FrangoEctomorfo~~ · Maio 7, 2016 às 17:42

O que aconteceu com o zera foi curioso. Ele fez um vídeo pregando o amor livre, poliamor, poligamia ou como queiram chamar. Daí ele começou a pegar uma gostosa chamada "branca de neve". Ela era uma HB9, bonita e gostosa, com cara de atriz porno. Por expôr ela na internet e manter amor livre, vários puas pegaram-a e exibiam fotos na internet. Ele começou a enlouquecer. Hoje lê livros da REAL e não pratica mais PUA. kkk

Você via nas fotos do zera que ele era beta. Nas fotos em galera, ele sempre estava excluído em algum canto enquanto algum outro cara abraçava as minas.

Eu frequento um ts de projeção astral que vez ou outra o zera aparece.

Marlon Henrique01 · Maio 7, 2016 às 19:40

Qual a diferença de PUA e REAL?

enebt · Maio 7, 2016 às 20:23

37 minutos atrás, Marlon Paradise disse:

Qual a diferença de PUA e REAL?

PUA:

-Comunidade de "sedução", objetivo principal é a conquista de mulheres

-Surgiu fora do Brasil

Real:

-Nasceu no orkut se baseando nos trabalhos do Nessahan Alita sobre o lado obscuro feminino

-É anti PUA

-Tem como base o "masculinismo", o desenvolvimento do homem no geral

vizerdrix · Maio 7, 2016 às 22:44

Zera representa o típico estereótipo do PUA beta, que é o cara que sai publicando centenas de artigos e vídeos sobre como pegar mulher, mas que tu nunca vê realmente pegando ninguém. Pra mim instrutor de PUA tem que fazer mais e falar menos, se tiver canal no youtube ou blog tem que mostrar mais vídeos infield abordando, interagindo e pegando mulheres (HB8+ se possível) do que videozinho de palestra ou motivacional.

planeta · Maio 7, 2016 às 23:09

se real nasceu mesmo no brasil... red pill é maais legal... e red pill defende pegar geral mesmo, exceto se achar uma especial, que é bem raro

red pill não é contra pua, apenas falam que pua são tecnicas sem entender, e que no pua o homem fica se esforçando tentando convencer a mulher

.... enquanto game e sedução todo homem deve saber e de preferenci a entender, e o game de red pill é com menos esforço, mais em ser foda, ser bonito, estiloso, shape top, manter framem er confiança tipo ze bonmitinho, e provocar ciumes

poderia dizer que pua é rpa crianças enquanto que sedução é pra adultos... mas, são só tecnicas diferentes hahaha

sobre pua pra pegar geral, de bçog, o melhor que vi é o goodlooking loser

mas o tyler atrai as minas só no olhar e na vibe, uma dominancia que influencia ante mesmo de ele tocar na mina

planeta · Maio 8, 2016 às 03:14

avançado, dark triad

13

DARK TRIADWomen and psychopaths - A superficial treatise (self.AlreadyRed)

submitted 1 ano ago by [deleted]

You already know, of course, that if one could use a spectrum for psychopathy then (averagely speaking) women are more close to be considered psychopaths then men (again, averagely speaking). A woman after all is an efficient agent, (not talking specifically about her sex desire) she will use sex to find a slave who "works" for her. That is love. She will even make the man think he is pride that he takes care of a creature less strong than him ("I want a man who I can look up" is what the woman says). Women don't long after the will to acquire knowledge, or the will to create things, and similar things in which men find amusement. I am talking of course of the majority of women, the ones who have back in their mind (since young children) the final thought about marring and letting the man do the work and they will take care of entertaining themselves with his money only giving what's barely needed from them to maintain this state of things. They essentially exploit (fully control) the best man they can find for their own purposes in the most efficient way (making even proud the man to do so! That is an efficient manipulation: the manipulated agent is not aware of being manipulated and it is even happy to be in that state).

Psychopaths don't like to be controlled, of course. That is somehow the essence of all of it when it comes to relationships with women. From the psychopath point of view, here's what it can be said that is true and actually it is obvious once written: if a prey is too easy to be controlled or not of much value then of course the process of obtaining control over it is not interesting. Thus the psychopath always looks for new challenges which are interesting to him, i.e. preys which are valuable and not so easy to be controlled. Of course the psychopath knows that at the end he will control the prey, but the process is what gives pleasure because after the prey has been conquered there is no more interesting work left to do. This same pattern is known to be true for women when it comes to control men.

We can frame our vision of interaction between the sexes through this lens: the locution "a woman likes a man" can be seen as "a woman has the desire to control the man". Yes, the social status, power and the actual value of the man is still something to be considered, of course. It is very clear that there is nothing to control (to obtain the control, I should specify) in the so called beta male. The beta male gives away himself just like that; he screams "control me please" every moment he interacts with a woman. High status beta male still find heavy difficulties in fucking women. What about the psychopath. He won't ever be controlled. If it seems it is controlled it is because he has chosen to do so. When the psychopath seduces a girl he let her play her charm on him, he let her think she can control him with her body and sex. Of course the psychopath takes pleasure when he dominates her body in the act of sex, but that does not concern him outside the actual act. The sex domination is only a part in the overall control process.

When a woman interacts with a psychopath it is clear to her that he is difficult to manipulate/control. How the psychopath let the woman think he could be controlled (aka she has control over him)? He says romantic things to her, he let her think there are some emotions in him for her (of course, there are all those things about putting all the attention on her in the initial phase of the interaction, making her believe she has found "the perfect one"; how much women like to say those words), and she will grab these emotions and she will think she can use them to control him. What power does a woman have on a man if not that of her body? When a man is after the woman, the woman has the control. Sex and her body is the ultimate weapon for a woman to control the man. Yes, of course a hot girl will elevated attentions, but the psychopath can go beyond his sexual needs. The psychopath let the girl think she can control him but then, at one point in the relationship, he let her understand sex is not a weapon she can use on him. He takes sex from her only when he wants it, she cannot seduce him like she can seduce other men.

The essence is this: a psychopath cannot be controlled by a woman. This will increase the woman's desire to control him, of course. The psychopath can always control her desire to control him. The balance is easy to manage, the psychopath inherently must only put effort in the romantic shots, putting effort in making believe the woman has some power over him. The woman is hooked by now and she will feel pleasure and pain at the same time in the relationship. Using the reframed lens: pleasure for a woman is when the woman has control, and pain is when she does not have it. The actual physical pleasure the psychopath creates through the act of sex only serves the aim to increase the plesaure-control he induces in the woman. The woman only wants to control the psychopaths, but the level of control she has is never full nor empty, this is the balancing process. What surely happens is that it will never be full, but what can actually happen is that one day the woman will acknowledge (give up) that she can never fully control the psychopath and at that point she will try to leave him, but not without going through pain. She will never be capable of fully forget the relationship and will never fully accept the fact that she wasn't able to control him.

This is it: relationships are only exchanges of control between agents who find in one another the maximum value to fight for the control of the other. The agent with the maximum value and the less need for the value of the other will gain the control of the other agent (assuming the first agent wants the control of the other). An agent increases its own value to be able to control more valuable agents.

A side thought: what nobody seems to say (at least in TRP, manosphere area) is that psychopaths are very close to how women think, but they have a male body. Psychopaths can control both other men and all women.

all 37 comments

exibir primeiro:

melhores

[–]648262 13 pontos 1 ano ago*

Some good stuff there, and it's always an interesting topic.

A quick clarification that might be a disagreement. Towards the end you say:

psychopaths are very close to how women think

I would say most people, women and men have some degree of psycopathism in them. That's why the spectrum idea works.

she will use sex to find a slave who "works" for her. That is love.

Men tend to be fairly cynical as well. We play the part of good husband in exchange for sex. In reality we would probably fuck anything hotter than her given the chance, like Tiger Woods did for example.

And a quick note on love. Nobody loves another person. We love the feeling we get from interacting with another person. There is nothing external going on, and I'm sure it's why Japan is going to shit - they all have found other places to invoke these feelings.

Psychopaths, women and men aren't bad. They can do bad things to you, but we have to accept reality. People simply exist, and the end game for everything we do is survival, either through reproduction and building fortresses.

If you have a kingdom, company or gang you can easily find use for a psychopath. Agree on some common goals, let him have the needed freedom to pursue them and you'll probably both win in the end. You need a common goal/enemy though.

relationships are only exchanges of control between agents who find in one another the maximum value to fight for the control of the other. The agent with the maximum value and the less need for the value of the other will gain the control of the other agent (assuming the first agent wants the control of the other). An agent increases its own value to be able to control more valuable agents.

This is the blueprint for all social interaction. It doesn't matter if it's men, woman, children or dogs. It is why "48 laws of power" is so applicable. It's about having control of power in all interactions.

With friends the dynamic tend to flick back and forth, a lot. In bad relationships it tends to be one sided.

When you teach, you have control and when you're the student you do not. Interactions with men that aren't your close friends tends to be a master and apprentice interaction, with one guy teaching the other. An example would be a male boss.

If you want to learn, let go of the need for power in that situation - though brownie points can be had if you manage to challenge him correctly.

Note to self, and others I suppose: I tend to see power and control as one and the same. It might not always be.

[–][deleted] 2 pontos 1 ano ago*

A quick clarification that might be a disagreement.

There's nothing in which we might disagree. Some of the sentences in the post are not very well and clear written and they are not attack-proof also. You are right in what you write.

Men tend to be fairly cynical as well. We play the part of good husband in exchange for sex. In reality we would probably fuck anything hotter than her given the chance, like Tiger Woods did for example.

Yes, that's true. What we can observe though is that men who can act like Tiger Woods are few in respect of those who cannot. What I was trying to argue is that women (averagely speaking) know how to play the "game of control" better than (mark: averagely speaking) men. Men are less aware of the "dynamics" (not a very clear word, but I believe you know) of the game. What I argue is that you can see "attraction" as "the desire to control a valuable entity".

And a quick note on love. Nobody loves another person. We love the feeling we get from interacting with another person.

The feeling (detailing: the good feeling) happens when a valuable agent gives you a degree of control of itself and you exchange a degree of control of yourself too for the other agent which considers you valuable for itself. It is of course a two-direction cyclical exchange; the process is dynamic. When an agent A is valuable to another agent B but A does not easily give degrees of control to B then B will start to exchange some more degree of its own control (i.e. B will make itself controllable by A) for A hoping in that way that A will give B some of its own degree of control to B. The nature of the dynamism of the process makes it difficult to explain it because the interaction is not decided in only one or few points, it is a flow of points (a sequence of points) that will stabilize throughout the process.

If you have a kingdom, company or gang you can easily find use for a psychopath.

Absolutely. This is an example of the difficulty to explain the dynamism. You say "you can easily find use for a psychopath" and one could easily argue saying <the psychopath is actually the one who choose its use>. This is the dynamism: both sentences are true because they both describe two inside-system entities. The gain control process of an inside-system entity can be executed only because other inside-system entities exist, and by themselves these other inside-system entities also want/need to gain control of other inside-system entities.

Note to self, and others I suppose: I tend to see power and control as one and the same. It might not always be.

The power of an entity A at time T_1 is the sum of the values of the entities controlled by A at time T_1, which decrees the total value of A, which in turn decrees (and implicitly increases) the value of other entities that A can control at time T_k, where k>1.

planeta · Maio 8, 2016 às 03:25

59

THEORYWomen are pre-programmed radar beacons for male SMV. It's about Survival. (self.AlreadyRed)

submitted 1 ano ago by TRPsubmitterKorea Expert

I came across some great comments in a thread on the OKcupid topic, which featured a wall-approaching woman who is trying to date a beta guy and doesn't understand why she is pining for her past alpha cock when she "knows" that good girls should like Nice Guys™

Comments correctly reinforced that Nice Guys™ are not attractive to women. They also do not understand why. And any chance to understand it has been brainwashed from them due to feminism.

"Women are completely oblivious to their own natures..."

/u/wakethfkupneo

Women have no incentive to understand the nuances of human sexual dynamics. In that vein, most women succeed simply by existing. Recall that their mating strategy is to get pretty and simply wait. Top that up with a heavily-frontloaded SMV.

Men, on the other hand, have every need of that knowledge. Men can easily fail and fall through the cracks. There are tons of men that no one wants to fuck. Men need to figure out what the problem is and how to fix it -- in this case, repairing their abysmal SMV's.

Just the nature of the game.

/u/Cyralea

These comments got me thinking as follows:

Women do not find these guys attractive because they are like pre-programmed radar beacons for male SMV, at least regarding their sexual nature.

While being nice shows you adhere to "modern" social expectations/legislated behaviors that have been developed within the past few hundred years, it also indicates you lack evolutionary fitness indicators.

Basically, being "nice" is a turn off (emotionally, sexually, evolutionarily...except not logically, which is why women still hold onto it as a fantasy).

Women, with their male SMV radar, can sniff this out like a good police dog. They are programmed to do this. It's in their nature and evolution gave them this incredible ability to ensure that 50% of their child's genes are the best available. We can give ladies props in this regard.

That is why they inexplicably, mysteriously, confusingly (insert hamster word here) are driven to mate with alphas. This is why they find beta nice guys unchallenging, boring, and disgusting. Their radar alerts to them to the fact that men who are unable to take, assert, punish, execute, etc. are simply not as good at surviving as potentially possible, and thus their child would not be as good at surviving either.

In short, Nice Guys™ as an institution represents everything that is risky/unsafe for women's own procreation and survival.

This is why women are confused when they meet a "safe" Nice Guy and like his beta bucks but aren't necessarily attracted to him; In terms of evolution/sex, he is actually the most UNSAFE option

Clarifications/Additions

Okay...why you acting like girls just wanna get knocked up? Not every girl is looking for a baby daddy

Yes, but while not all sex is not procreative these days, a) some of it still is, regardless, the factors/motivations that drive humans to have sex (regardless of intent) haven't changed.

Um, bad boys aren't the best at surviving! Nice guys are reliable and don't get in trouble in today's society!

a) Firstly, being reliable doesn't mean you are going to have higher social/money/sexual capital to spend. It only means you don't lose whatever little SMV you have in the first place. Congrats. Most importantly, survival is meant literally. I don't care about surviving during rush hour and making a good impression at weekly church bingo night. I mean surviving by dominating those who want to harm you + procreation.

We are fortunate to live in an era (and most of us, a part of the world) where "survival" as a word has lost its real meaning. But make no mistake, the Dark Triad "sociopaths" our society labels today would have been village/city/country/army leaders hundreds or thousands of years ago. These are the real survivors. And most importantly, they're the men who were most powerful thousands of years ago when women's evolutionary instincts were imprinted.

This is why women are attracted to "bad/crazy/evil" guys. Take away the moral presuppositions, and you realize women are attracted to "survivors" and "powerful" men. That's why redpill sexual strategy is "amoral", because survival is ultimately amoral.

OBS_cenous · Maio 8, 2016 às 17:38

18 horas atrás, planeta disse:

se real nasceu mesmo no brasil... red pill é maais legal... e red pill defende pegar geral mesmo, exceto se achar uma especial, que é bem raro

red pill não é contra pua, apenas falam que pua são tecnicas sem entender, e que no pua o homem fica se esforçando tentando convencer a mulher

.... enquanto game e sedução todo homem deve saber e de preferenci a entender, e o game de red pill é com menos esforço, mais em ser foda, ser bonito, estiloso, shape top, manter framem er confiança tipo ze bonmitinho, e provocar ciumes

poderia dizer que pua é rpa crianças enquanto que sedução é pra adultos... mas, são só tecnicas diferentes hahaha

sobre pua pra pegar geral, de bçog, o melhor que vi é o goodlooking loser

mas o tyler atrai as minas só no olhar e na vibe, uma dominancia que influencia ante mesmo de ele tocar na mina

onde posso encontrar mais sobre red pill??

enebt · Maio 8, 2016 às 18:22

44 minutos atrás, OBS_cenous disse:

onde posso encontrar mais sobre red pill??

Já ouviu falar de algo chamado google amiguinho? :lol:

~~lucasf21~~ · Maio 8, 2016 às 18:27

5 minutos atrás, enebt disse:

Já ouviu falar de algo chamado google amiguinho?

eu nunca ouvi falar, poderia me dizer o que é?

OBS_cenous · Maio 8, 2016 às 19:14

53 minutos atrás, enebt disse:

Já ouviu falar de algo chamado google amiguinho?

procurei no google n achei nada, por isso perguntei
so achei umas parada no reddit mas n entendi nada pq n sei ingles

Editado Maio 8, 2016 às 19:16 por OBS_cenous

planeta · Maio 8, 2016 às 23:17

4 horas atrás, OBS_cenous disse:

procurei no google n achei nada, por isso perguntei
so achei umas parada no reddit mas n entendi nada pq n sei ingles

UNDERSTANDING THE DARK TRIAD – A GENERAL OVERVIEW

The Dark Triad
Introduction:

The Dark Triad is an immoral trifecta of personality traits that result in immense personal power. It grants high social status, tight control over interpersonal social dynamics and elicits intense sexual attraction. It’s for these reasons that many men interested in red pill philosophy likewise have an interest in the dark triad and idealise ascertaining the psychological state of “being dark triad” or at least a simulacrum of such a state.

These men see power embodied within specific personality traits and they want to know “how can I be like that?” “How can I be the successful asshole?!” The truth of the matter is that if you did not neurologically develop a dark triad personality as a child, you will never be completely dark triad in the truest sense of the classification. The dark triad is essentially not something one can be trained to become, however it can be reverse engineered and emulated. I’ll elaborate on this later on in the article however first I’ll outline what the dark triad actually is.

Not too far back I mentioned the dark triad is a trifecta of personality traits. To be more specific, it is composed of three “anti-social” mental schemas which work in tandem to form “the dark triad.” Those comprising psychosocial mental schemas are as follows:

– Understanding Narcissism

Excessive self-love as well as ridiculously high, bordering on, or far exceeding, obnoxious self-confidence. Dark triad individuals are egotist incarnate, this component of the triad forms the superficial glazing which masks and distracts one from the murkier depths of the dark triad persona. It is this device that achieves a dark triad individual baseline social acceptance in most social situations, for people are innately drawn to those who exhibit vast self-confidence.

The narcissism is clinical, deep-rooted and intensely internalised. The individual truly believes they are superior to everybody else simply because they are who they are and they exist. This is something akin to a god complex. Naturally, this has the effect of rubbing off on other people despite being completely unsubstantiated. People assume subconsciously that someone who loves themselves that much must have a basis for their self-image and therefore wrongfully assumes such an individual is high value. Narcissists, in the absence of significant worldly success are huge proponents of the “fake it ’till you make it” mantra. Except unlike your average Joe who exhausts himself with the pretence, it takes a narcissist almost no effort to maintain it, because despite the objective invalidity of their assertions they believe in their own delusions.

The strength of such concentrated narcissism in tandem with the fearlessness of psychopathy (more on that later) is that such extremely high confidence generates an abundance of courage. This facilitates rampant opportunism that manifests as a keen risk-taking eye as well as concise, solid decision-making. So it follows that by extension of this the narcissist has a high rate of success when engaging in personal aspirations, presuming that, they can rationalise away failure rather than let it consume them. This is oft dependant on the individual and the type of narcissism that they exude, for there are two different types of narcissism I consider to exist: functional narcissism and dysfunctional narcissism.

The average person is insecure and low in confidence. Regardless of that, even other confident people will naturally gravitate towards someone who is highly confident. This then has the knock-on effect of raising the social status and popularity of the narcissist and circularly fuels their narcissistic supply by giving it logical and tangible reasons for existing in the first place. How this manifests is via all the positive feedback that the narcissist receives in their theatricism of audacious assholery. This is what is known as a “positive feedback loop.” The contrast: “nice guys finish last.”

Narcissism is very infectious and has a tendency to make people addicted to the individual displaying it. Especially by those who are low in self-esteem and strive to be like the person they admire. People of low self-confidence can vicariously ascertain confidence through the narcissists own confidence and have it “rub off on them” via prolonged exposure and mimicking the narcissist’s mannerisms.

The weakness/negative aspect of the narcissistic element of the triad is that normally it is so pronounced that the individual in question’s ability to reason can become impaired as they value their ego over truth. If they do not avoid or completely ignore an attack on their ego (which is common – they often feel above random remarks) they will deny reality/logic outright to preserve their ego. On occasion they may even go so far as to maliciously shut you down in order to make you pay for your insubordinate behaviour/threatening posture. They will do this by framing themselves as superior to you in a very aggressive manner, and highlighting a flaw (or two, or three) of yours to rebalance the frame of the interaction in their favour.

When a dark triad man exhibits his narcissism in his game with a girl, he essentially negs the fuck out of her, guilt trips her, makes her qualify herself (jump through a hoop) then rewards her for being complicit. This is a form of operant conditioning and ties greatly into the next element of the triad (as each part of the triad is inherently linked with the others)

With training and self-improvement borderline narcissism (far healthier than clinical narcissism) can be acquired and utilised to improve one’s self-confidence, which as previously briefly touched upon is essentially all about forming and sustaining positive feedback loops.

For those who wish to emulate narcissism, it can be learned and is considered academically to be a “social maladaptive trait.” Basically, narcissism is nurtured, you can become a narcissist, or something akin to a narcissist in your chosen level of severity, should you desire it. It’s not something restricted to the realm of genetics.

– Understanding Machiavellianism

Machiavellianism is the tendency to see all social paradigms and scenarios as games of strategy that require meticulous manoeuvring. Machiavellians are emotionally and socially manipulative; they have a tendency to dehumanise and objectify humans down to their skills and utilitarianism rather than perceive them as entities with personalities to be admired. In a nutshell, Machiavellians have a tendency to view things purely in terms of value exchange “what does this person bring to the table?” and care little, if at all, for anything else.

Highly skilled Machiavellians manipulate themselves via stoicism to attain the outcomes they seek (something of a perverse form of delayed gratification) however dark triad individuals have no need for stoicism because they possess an underlying psychopathic element. Machiavellians quite simply are very tactical individuals who execute the vast majority of their social interactions like a metaphorical hybrid game of chess and poker.

The narcissism is their poker face for appearances and is the physical representative for all their manipulations. Their Machiavellianism is their core, their chess-like mind. They think 10 moves ahead of those around them, use smoke and mirrors (misdirection), leave bait for you and then switch the outcome from the expected outcome (a nuance on misdirection.) They pretend to be busy when they’re not to convey a false image/sense of importance, making their target feel disposable when they in fact, value them. They outright lie to achieve ends. They indulge in jealousy plotlines, making a person jealous via the deliberate inclusion and flaunting of another – creating competition anxiety. They ignore you because they want to attract you. Then there is dread game: making someone who values the dark triad individual doubt the stability of their relationship with them, causing the target to supplicate and be more malleable. The dark triad individual does not limit this scarcity mentality/competition anxiety to romantic endeavours. The list of manoeuvres goes on and on, Machiavellianism is the art of duplicity which forms the core intellectual component of the dark triad.

If you had to think of an animal that is inherently manipulative, it’d be a domestic cat. Most women adore cats, so go figure that one out, projection much? Women at a baseline level tend to be more Machiavellian in nature than men. The presiding theory in red pill philosophy is that men evolved to have a genetic advantage physically, making them more violent and physically dominant, whereas women evolved to be non-violent due to inferior musculature and small stature. Instead it is thought they evolved to use their adeptness in Machiavellianism to have men fight for them on their behalf, giving them a far more intricate and diverse psychological skill set primed for co-option and manipulation.

If she’s a beautiful Machiavellian she can use her beauty to captivate a man and exploit him by controlling his desires, further facilitating her desires and devices. Think of the guy as a bear who loves honey, the queen bee leads the bear to a seemingly empty bee hive full of honey, the bear puts his paws in to eat the honey and then the bear is caught by surprise as an army of bees come out to collectively sting him. Now the queen bee can dictate to the bear how he must behave because he tasted her honey and she has an army of bees to punish him if he does not comply. Women are controlling, they will always fight for control of the relationship, but once they get it they are dissatisfied and will move onto another man. It’s an unending test you are not allowed to fail should you desire continued association with the woman in question.

“Gold diggers” as a stereotype are a societal acknowledgement of women’s inherent tendency to perceive men as little more than useful idiots, resource providers. Gold diggers are essentially people with the ability to “use others for what they’re good for” rather than value them for “who they are as personalities.” It is Briffault’s Law on steroids: they prioritise what a person can do for them over forming emotional bonds. They don’t identify who a person is and what they can do for the manipulator in question as separate components, to a Machiavellian these things are both one and the same.

For example a Machiavellian wouldn’t think along the lines of: “John is great, I like John because he’s a decent guy” and form any sort of emotional bond. Their thinking would be something more akin to “John is a great negotiator, if I win his favour he can negotiate on behalf of me in hypothetical situation X, if I can’t win John over then I have no need for John and I should cut my losses.” Thus any emotional bond that appears to be forming is the product of superficial charm, glibness which is used to win John over so his utility can be put to use at a later time. No relation is formed out of legitimate admiration or desire for John; merely it is but a manipulation to commodify John into a redeemable asset.

Machiavellianism when concentrated towards a single person for an extended period of time is a form of mental abuse. It robs one of their agency (ability to freely make choice) for Machiavellianism as covertly as it can be deployed is inherently coercive in nature. It creates an invisible prison of sorts, a person thinks they’re free but they’re so trained to behave in ways specific to the desires of another that they’re actually enslaved. That’s Machiavellianism at its least destructive, non-violent, and passive. However it is important not to characterise Machiavellianism as purely a source of evil, as that is an inaccurate generalisation. How Machiavellianism is deployed is contingent on the agenda of the person deploying it and their relationship with the person they wish to influence. Machiavellianism can for example be used benevolently by people like parents and such; to protect, to preserve, to foster and to nourish. In dark triad individuals however it tends to be utilised for destructively selfish purposes, eg: hedonism and profit. Dark triad individuals are on their best days, amoral, at their worst, their capacity for immorality will fully manifest.

Machiavellianism can be present in either gender, however as a baseline women tend to have a much more pronounced proficiency in the skill set and utilise it far more auspiciously. Man’s physical advantage is outlawed by the legal system, woman’s mental advantage is not. Combine this with their innate sexual appeal to men and it is fair to say that womankind has the edge in modern developed western societies. A woman’s logic being inherently contingent upon her emotional state only helps to facilitate and foster her Machiavellianism because her lack of consistency makes her seem more complex than she actually is. Not even she understands half the bullshit she pulls, and she is constrained neither by logical arguments nor an introspective need to understand her own irrationalism. She simply does what she feels she must do, and if that makes her feel happy, she is mentally and physically placated.

The sheer amount of weak effeminate behaviour characteristic of men at large in our modern society is indicative that many the great majority of men lack Machiavellian traits and capabilities to any beneficial self-serving extent. Governments want men complicit and mentally unaware so that they don’t rise up, but instead continue to pay the tax bills which fund for-profit wars and the welfare state. They want men to “man up” which means to be productive little economic slaves for the benefit of the state, and to a lesser extent the feminist bureaucrats and politicians who can only fund their perverse laws and practices with the aid of your sweat n’ tear tax dollars. Then when a man losses everything because he was too naive in matters of Machiavellianism to see what was going on around him, he is profusely blamed and shamed for his naivety. Dark triad men and women are proficient Machiavellians and can run rings around the average person, making them jump through all kinds of mental hoops and subjecting them to all kinds of tests and power plays; be it out of a desire to seek entertainment or to ascertain control over a situation. Machiavellianism is inherently in and of itself the most logical part of the dark triad persona which runs counter to the inherently delusive nature of the triad’s narcissistic component. Naturally, this makes it possible for said components to clash.

Dark triad men who are abusive and have women pining for them, wanting to fulfil their every whim do so by emotionally addicting said women. Their very presence causes said women to have rushes of dopamine/serotonin/cortisol/oxytocin as well as other neurochemical shit I don’t know about. It’s this hormonal cocktail of an emotional rollercoaster (better simplified as: drama) which causes women to form an addiction to said man. Women are addicted to dramatics; it is the basis of every modern soap opera, chick flick and romantic comedy. By associating the systematic release of these neurotransmitters and hormones with the company of a specific man who acts as the stimulus for these releases, they become biochemically addicted and thus mentally dependent upon him. The removal of such a powerful man from a woman’s life can thus elicit withdrawal symptoms similar to that of a drug comedown.

The stimulus is the dark triad man because if he’s absent for long enough the chemical processes stop and she has withdrawals from the cycle which leads her to start proclaiming shit like “needing him to go on” despite the small little fact he’s an abusive asshole. Controversial conclusion: mental abuse can be chemically addictive to women, as painful as it is, they get off on the theatrics. Women to this degree demonstrate a predisposition for masochistic tendencies, especially in relation to love and sex, this however is a topic that falls outside the spectrum of this article and is a topic for another time.

In summation of this section: dark triad individuals tend to pull people in with narcissism, control them with Machiavellianism and then addict them with the emotional rollercoaster previously described. The final element of the triad complements Machiavellianism quite brilliantly in how it aids in forming emotional addictions to the manipulator, that element is psychopathy.

For those who wish to emulate Machiavellianism, it can be learned and is considered academically to be a “social maladaptive trait.” Basically, Machiavellianism is nurtured; you can become a Machiavellian by studying the arts of political and military strategy and then applying the principles to your own social interactions.

– Understanding Psychopathy

Psychopathy is the reason you cannot train yourself to be a dark triad individual, psychopathy is how your brain connects your behavioural choices to your sense of guilt/remorse. These are essentially the body’s way of morally provoking you to cease immoral activity. If you felt no guilt or discomfort for making immoral choices, your likelihood of committing immoral behaviour increases tenfold. Furthermore if you actually derive pleasure from immoral behaviours, that can act as a social reinforcer for being immoral (read: sadistic pleasure, crime being profitable etc.)

Psychopathy defined in relation to the dark triad is the inherent ability for the dark triad individual to show no aversion for immoral or harmful behaviour, predominantly because they feel no empathy, guilt or remorse when doing bad things. This is perceived as a skill of sorts in the ruggedness of the oft unfair modern world but is medically defined as a mental disorder.

Commonly new and naive followers of red pill philosophy think “hey I can do that too via stoicism/Zen meditation.” The difference between stoicism and psychopathy however is that stoicism is the suppression and self-control of emotions that are released either after performing an action, or prior to an action. It is the suppression of detrimental emotion that elicits strong feelings which inhibit the ability to self-control, such as suspense, eagerness or anxiety. A psychopath on the other hand has neurologically weak connections between the emotional centre of their brain and the part of their brain responsible for behaviour/decision-making. This means they feel nothing or very little (dependent on the individual’s brain) when doing something immoral and thus have nothing to actually suppress to begin with. This isn’t a question of desensitization for them but more of an inability to care about the feelings of others. It is thus by extension of that inability that they are not limited by the element of guilt that would normally follow in the aftermath of such dubious choices.

This lack of ability to feel guilt or fear as consequent of their personal choices is a great source of the dark triads power (the power of fearlessness.) It’s this ability to ruthlessly exploit people which addicts women to dark triad men. Psychopathy is very closely linked with the Machiavellian component, however the sheer unpredictability and audaciousness of the psychopathic element is what addicts women to these individuals, the spontaneity and impulsivity is electric. It’s like crack to them.

The constant highs and lows psychopathy generates is the drama that women thrive off of. Psychopathy is the delivery system of the Machiavellian core, the spontaneity, the audaciousness, the guile; it’s the creme da la creme in executing a tactical manoeuvre. However, when psychopathy gets out of control and manifests itself independently (say the dark triad person loses their temper,) it’s completely illogical and separate from the Machiavellian element, perhaps utilising elements of Machiavellianism but not actually being pre-meditated in nature. You may know this as “someone going batshit crazy.”

Psychopathy is a clinical condition and state of mental-being. The people who are afflicted with psychopathy have abnormal neurological structures, short of going and getting yourself brain damage no amount of self-determination will result in ascertaining psychopathy. You can mimic a psychopath and even fool others you are one with some degree of success, but neurologically you will not be one. You will still have to deal, introspectively, with the emotional consequences of your actions, something an actual dark triad individual does not. Hence your efforts will make you an imitation, not an actualisation of that which you lust to become.

Dark triad people are very powerful individuals. They are harmful both to society and themselves, as by nature of their personalities they are extremely unstable individuals. The fact of the matter is they tend not to care about changing their negative aspects even if they are self-aware enough to realise what the negative aspects of themselves are. They are more concerned with concealing the existence of their negative aspects and convincing others they do not exist or are otherwise justifiable or acceptable within the context of a situation. Rather perversely, they appear to be at peace with their deepest faults even if they verbalise the contrary.

Due to the psychopathic element of the triad a person cannot become “fully dark triad” as this element in particular appears to be something imbued either genetically or in the development stages of childhood brain formation. Dark triad individuals cannot be “fixed,” a dark triad individual will remain one for the entirety of their lives. Most of them don’t want to be fixed as they’re addicted to their own power and sense of self-importance. They can be emulated, you cannot “become one” but you can “become like one.” With training and study, one can demonstrate borderline or sub-clinically dark triad qualities and that is much the purpose and topic of this blog. So should you find this topic to be of interest, I recommend you follow this blog. You can do this by entering your e-mail in the top right corner of the sidebar.

planeta · Maio 9, 2016 às 00:04

The Principles (your holy scripture!)

#01 – We are at war.
Nothing you want to do gets in the way of your relationship, it is innately part of who you are and why the bitch fell in love with you in the first place. We are at war. You’re in situations when you think you’re in a relationship but you’re not in a relationship, you’re in battle. If you give in you’ll never get what you lost back, it’s very hard to get what you’ve lost back if you’re not a “master pimp.”

#02 – All bitches are crazy.
Stop trying to make sense out of nonsense, they’re out of their fucking mind. You’re trying to use logic to figure out what they’re thinking, but this is guerilla warfare – stop with the logic.

#03 – Repeated favours become obligations.
Anything you do more than 3 times is no longer a favour, it is a habit and an obligation and you need to understand that’s how they (women) think. To an extent, men are the same. When people come to expect things, it’s no longer a favour but an unspoken duty.

#04 – Women fall for who you are but they try to make you something that you’re not.
A woman falls in love with you for everything that you are. She spends the rest of the relationship trying to change you into everything that you’re not, and when she succeeds she will dump you for the guy who is what you were when she met you. You’ll get left for the guy you used to be even though she’s trying to change you. That’s why you have to set up fake rules for them to break, then they feel good without really breaking your integrity or who you are. When a woman falls in love with you and she’s attracted to you there are things she’s attracted by, don’t change those things, she’s going to ask you to change things that she finds innately attractive. This sounds fucked up because it’s an act of self-sabotage (of the relationship) but the thing is she knows other women find these things about you attractive so she tries to get rid of it so that other women don’t come at you.

#05 – Whatever’s broke, fix it.
Always be self-improving and upgrading wherever you can. EG: Your salary, car, personality, game, skillset (languages, martial arts, instruments), your physique (gym etc)

#06 – Trust your gut.
If your balls are tingling a bitch is probably gonna kick you in the balls. Don’t ignore your better instincts for a whiff of the pussy. If a bitch gives you alarm, stop the interaction, don’t argue, just leave. Guys ignore their gut because they’re in love or in lust. Compromise when you’re comfortable, do not compromise when you’re uncomfortable as when it gets thrown in your face, because you bent over too far backwards, you’re not just going to be angry at her but at yourself too because you compromised yourself.

#07 – If anything goes wrong it’s always your fault (because she’s a reflection of you.)
Anything that happens in a relationship that goes bad with your woman, if your woman’s a bitch, if she’s disrespectful, if she cheats on you, if she leaves you, if she takes your money – it’s your fault. The way she treats you is down to the presentation you give her. There’s no such thing as victims, just volunteers.

#08 – Don’t assume shit.
Common sense ain’t common, if it was common everybody would know. You can’t assume people understand things, you need to be a guy who can explain things straight so that she understands her options. Get good at giving ultimatums and laying out your boundaries by communicating them adequately, even though she may expect you to be a mind reader, you don’t have that same luxury so get good at laying it down.

#09 – Put yourself first at all costs.
If you don’t love yourself nobody else will. If you don’t put yourself first, she won’t. If you put a woman first, she won’t appreciate that shit and ends up taking you for a sucker. But if you’re like “fuck it I don’t care what you need” they’re grateful for any little thing.

Stop using the W words, “who”, “what”, “when”, “why” – stop giving a fuck, you know what happens if you ask them W words? You’re getting taken in and then you feel like you need to know what she thinks. The reason you think you need to know is because you think what she thinks is important and that essentially what she thinks is more important than what you think. In order to not give a fuck you’ve got to understand what your value is, this chick is interested in you because she sees some sort of value in you, if she thought you were a failure then she wouldn’t have anything to do with you in the first place, what you’re doing is changing her mind (of the opinion she’s formed that you’re worth knowing) and thus she’s re-evaluating your value.

#10 – Agreements with women don’t mean shit.
Don’t think that if you’re honest and they agree to it, that they’ll agree it to later, there’s no binding legal agreement. Women have integrity amnesia, whatever you decide the relationship will be in the beginning doesn’t mean a damn thing. What she wants in a relationship changes based upon her emotions because her reality stems from her emotional state (See #16.) Whatever they agree to in the beginning doesn’t mean shit later on, they haven’t signed a legal contract, you have to police that, you have to hold firm with the rules, you show you’re a real man by sticking to your guns. Likewise, if you establish something as a pattern, that pattern can’t change just because she chooses to complain about it.

#11 – You MUST be credible.
You wanna be the captain of your ship then you’ve gotta steer all the time. You must be in control, but you need to be credible so she can relinquish her control. It’s her job to give you a hard time because what she’s trying to do is make sure that you’re credible, if you’re not strong enough to protect her from her own bullshit then how are you able to protect her from other people? In order for her to allow you to take charge you’ve got to be credible. If you’re trying to sell her something you don’t have, she isn’t gonna buy it. It’s about being a man, taking what you want. It’s about being credible, taking control, giving a woman what she needs as opposed to what she wants, understanding what she needs and making the hard decisions when you need to make the hard decisions so that she sees you as credible, they really don’t wanna drive, they want to give the wheel up, but they’ll only give it up to someone who they feel is credible enough to give it up to and only then will they let YOU drive.

#12 – Everybody “gets got” at some point.
You will fall in love, get your heart-broken and get fucked over, it’s inevitable and you need the experience to become a true player in the game, use your heartbreak as a learning experience to catapult yourself forwards.

#13 – Be Ready to take the L.
Do not be afraid to leave, if things aren’t working out you’ve got to leave, and you’ve got to communicate to her that you will leave. If she calls you on that, you have to follow through. If you’re afraid to argue with her, let alone leave, then she’s pimping you with the pussy and you’re not in control.

#14 – Women pretend they don’t want sex.
It’s easy to control a woman’s body, but takes a real man to control a bitches mind. The power you’re going up against is so huge. The reason it’s difficult is because women have a natural aptness in mental manipulation. Women’s sexuality has been repressed by 2,000 years of religion which is why so many feel they need excuses to have sex now, to have plausible deniability in situations where really they do in fact want to fuck.

#15 – Women’s behaviour and personality mirrors you in a relationship.
A bitch is always a reflection of the guy that she’s fucking, they don’t really have set personalities. When you’re with a woman, whatever she is, her love needs to attach itself to something and when she attachs that love to someone, they ultimately shape who she is. The way you treat a woman shapes who she is as a person.

#16 – Female Logic.
A woman cannot be logical because her logic is based upon her emotional foundation, so as she changes in her mood so does the foundation of her logic.

#17 – Feminine indifference is dangerous.
Never have a woman be indifferent about you. Have her love you, have her hate you but don’t have her be indifferent, indifference is the nail in the coffin. If you piss a girl off she’s more likely to fuck you.

#18 – Be astute, observe.
There is information all around us, it is our job to interpret it and use it to our benefit. Look for clues. If a woman fucks you over, there will be clues beforehand. Moodiness, major difference in behaviour and demeanour around different people etc. If you’re caught by surprise, you weren’t paying attention to the subtle (or not so subtle) cues she was giving off.

#19 – When a woman dumps you.
If a woman leaves you then praise that because it gives you time to be inside a new woman that’s more worthy. If she’s left, it’s dead. Don’t go back, go forward (see #20.)

#20 – Don’t chase them, replace them, remain unaffected.
You’ve gotta like you so that when these women make a decision that goes beyond your scope of patience, you’ll be ok. You don’t control a woman, your patience does. You have to be consistently inconsistent and unaffected, understand the emotions that she’s giving you she’s just bouncing off you to get a rise. You have to be kinda robotic “this is what we’re doing? OK I’ll drop you off” being consistently inconsistent is what keeps her off-balance, it creates interest and keeps her interested in you. In poker, if you keep bluffing or raising then they’re gonna catch you, you have to mix it up.

#21 – What it takes to get a woman is the same thing it takes to keep her.
The elements required to get a woman are the same things it takes to keep her (being nice, intelligent, rich etc) the things she is initially attracted to are the same things that keep her interested in the long run. The opposite is not true. The element needed to get a man is not the same as the elements needed to keep him. You get a man by having a vagina, but the thing women don’t understand is the contract surrounding that. A man gives his best to a woman and then she fucks him – contracts finished. Now if you want a man to like you that’s a different contract that needs renegotiating (essentially a vagina will get a man into a womans bed, but it’s not enough to make him commit.)

#22 – Never let a bitch define you.
Don’t let a bitch define you because if you do then it won’t be long before you ain’t shit. If you don’t think you’re the shit, she won’t either. “You’ve got to be the shit so that she knows you’re the shit.”

#23 – The game is going down.
The game is happening whether you’re playing or not, you can either learn to play good or you can learn to lose. Choosing not to play the game doesn’t mean you’re not in the game it just means you’re gonna lose quicker. You have to learn the rules of engagement in order to play the game.

#24 – Create a bidding war.
Bitches always want what they can’t have. If a girl sees you with another chick or sees you’re generally having a good time with other people, she’ll want to be part of that. That’s how you start a bidding war, by not giving a fuck about her, and by nature of logistics, she is forced to see you doing your own thing and having a good time. Jealousy is the active ingredient in a bidding war.

#25 – Stop making black and white movies into Technicolor.
You see women as better than they are, you think she’s worth so much more than she is. In reality it is you who is ascribing this extra value to her, she does not actually possess it. As an asset you are worth more than her, your value appreciates with age whilst hers depreciates. Stop seeing women in some golden light, like her farts don’t stink and she has no bad qualities, because her shit does smell and she has plenty of fucking issues which you fail to acknowledge. Your mind deludedly constructs this false ideal to fool you into thinking she’s better than she is or even worse, that you’re not worthy [of her.]

enebt · Maio 9, 2016 às 00:31

5 horas atrás, OBS_cenous disse:

procurei no google n achei nada, por isso perguntei
so achei umas parada no reddit mas n entendi nada pq n sei ingles

é realmente isso amiguinho

The red pill é um "movimento" estrangeiro, que está no reddit.

McAffe · Maio 9, 2016 às 04:11

Amanhã faz um mês que eu comecei a trilhar meu caminho alfa. Acho que um ou outro ainda se lembra do meu relato nesse tópico.

O que eu tenho a dizer é que não estou mais vendo santidade em nenhuma mulher. Comecei a ler algumas coisas que postaram aqui, livros e posts, e comecei a levar isso para as ruas e realmente tudo na prática faz muito sentido, o jeito que as mulheres testam os homens socialmente para chegarem a conclusão se vale ou não apenas mostrar seu lado sexual, o que elas gostam e por ai vai, mas o que me chamou atenção mesmo foi as diversas maneiras fáceis de se conseguir uma, pelos app que temos hoje então... Eu ainda estou me libertando da terrível timidez que esses anos passados me fizeram ter, mas mesmo assim eu já consegui uma mulher que me serviu muito bem como "ponto de partida", que pelo corpo e rosto, elevou minha autoestima. Cheguei na conclusão no final desse meu primeiro mês "me consertando" que alfa está mais em dominar uma mulher do que conquistar uma, espero estar certo.

Agora algo que está me incomodando é dinheiro, eu vejo que somente trabalhar e economizar não me levará aos meus objetivos, então se alguém puder me ajudar nesse quesito. Vocês sabem se nos dias de hoje vale apena investir e onde? Sou totalmente novo nisso, quanto na vida também, então qualquer dica referente ao financeiro será bem vinda, principalmente se tiverem livros ou sites para passar.

Editado Maio 9, 2016 às 04:22 por McAffe

C.Golden · Maio 9, 2016 às 12:21

8 horas atrás, McAffe disse:

Agora algo que está me incomodando é dinheiro, eu vejo que somente trabalhar e economizar não me levará aos meus objetivos, então se alguém puder me ajudar nesse quesito. Vocês sabem se nos dias de hoje vale apena investir e onde? Sou totalmente novo nisso, quanto na vida também, então qualquer dica referente ao financeiro será bem vinda, principalmente se tiverem livros ou sites para passar.

Não entendo de investimentos. Aqui tem uns caras que entendem mais que eu.

Porém lhe aconselho a guardar dinheiro. Comprando um lote parcelado sem deixar atrasar parcelas, pra depois vender, pode ser um bom investimento dependendo da sua região. Mas tem que escolher bem o lote. Em 1 ano e meio fiz R$ 17.000,00 só pagando o lote.

Ou jogue dinheiro numa poupança e não mecha nela (não saque), mas estipule um valor fixo pra depositar todo mês. Não fique nessa de esse mês vou por R$ 300,00 ; Ah esse mês to meio liso vou por só R$ 100,00. Coloque um valor fixo e a trate como uma conta que tem que ser paga. Se possível dê o cartão a alguém e mande esconder se vc for descontrolado pra gastar.

Em 1 ano colocando 300,00 vc tem 3.600,00 fora os (pequenos) juros.
Se conseguir por 500,00 terá 6.000,00.

Bruno Rafaelt · Maio 9, 2016 às 12:58

8 horas atrás, McAffe disse:

Agora algo que está me incomodando é dinheiro, eu vejo que somente trabalhar e economizar não me levará aos meus objetivos, então se alguém puder me ajudar nesse quesito. Vocês sabem se nos dias de hoje vale apena investir e onde? Sou totalmente novo nisso, quanto na vida também, então qualquer dica referente ao financeiro será bem vinda, principalmente se tiverem livros ou sites para passar.

A dica do Cassio é bom em relação á poupança, mas ela rende uma pequena esmola, então nao vai te render um futuro, te indico o tesouro direto, que funciona igualzinho á poupança, com diferença nos rendimentos, que atualmente então em 17% ao ano, eu tenho a meta de juntar 100k no tesouro, com esse valor eu vou estar ganhando aprox. 1500 por mês sem fazer nada, claro... isso daqui a alguns anos.

Se vc for mais sangue no zóio tem as ações tbm, mas ai eu já nao arrisco palpite

busarello · Maio 9, 2016 às 13:02

3 minutos atrás, Bruno Rafaelt disse:

A dica do Cassio é bom em relação á poupança, mas ela rende uma pequena esmola, então nao vai te render um futuro, te indico o tesouro direto, que funciona igualzinho á poupança, com diferença nos rendimentos, que atualmente então em 17% ao ano, eu tenho a meta de juntar 100k no tesouro, com esse valor eu vou estar ganhando aprox. 1500 por mês sem fazer nada, claro... isso daqui a alguns anos.

Se vc for mais sangue no zóio tem as ações tbm, mas ai eu já nao arrisco palpite

Tem certeza deste valor? Qual produto você investiu, dentro do Tesouro Direto, com esta taxa?

Em tempo, há um topico sobre investimentos, sugiro que olhem, há boas referencias lá. Começando por esquecer poupança e, na imensa maioria dos casos, imoveis.

Maio 9, 2016 às 13:05

6 minutos atrás, Bruno Rafaelt disse:

A dica do Cassio é bom em relação á poupança, mas ela rende uma pequena esmola, então nao vai te render um futuro, te indico o tesouro direto, que funciona igualzinho á poupança, com diferença nos rendimentos, que atualmente então em 17% ao ano, eu tenho a meta de juntar 100k no tesouro, com esse valor eu vou estar ganhando aprox. 1500 por mês sem fazer nada, claro... isso daqui a alguns anos.

Se vc for mais sangue no zóio tem as ações tbm, mas ai eu já nao arrisco palpite

O problema é que essa modalidade não acompanha a inflação, se for por IPCA ou SELIC que seguem as taxas de inflação, o rendimento mal chega a 6% a.a.

FSgtLima · Maio 9, 2016 às 14:14

Pra quem tem idade, ESPCEX E EsSA estão com inscrições abertas.

Bora ser militar

planeta · Maio 9, 2016 às 15:44

pra quem aposta na saida da dilma compra titulo do tesouro pre fixado porque o juros tende a cair no futuro

...

tem uma graninha extra? compra e venda coisas, suplementos, jequiti, avon, caneta na porta do enen, cerevja na porta da balada... só fica rico da noite pro dia quem tem uma ideia genial nova ou tem muuita sorte, dentre os 0,1% mais sortudos

sucesso só vem antes do trabalho no dicionário haha

ficar rico é pra poucos, uns tem sorte, outros tem que que quebrar a cara muitas vezes,

os livros ajudam a fundar a base mental... ensinam coisas preciosas... principios que ajudam mesmo,

todos tem pdf gratis, mas boas decisões, trabalho duro, definir metas, são coisas essenciais

homem mais rico da babilonia

pai rico pai pobre (desconsidere a parte sobre marketing multinivel)

segredos da mente milionária

pense e enriqueça - napoleon hill (think and grow rich)

Editado Maio 9, 2016 às 15:47 por planeta

planeta · Maio 9, 2016 às 16:09

o ponto em comprar e vender coisas com pouco dinheiro, coisa baratas, faz parte do inicio da multiplicação do capital...

só vai fazer isso uns meses, depois quando tiver mais capital vai cnecontrar coisas novas a fazer...

mas pode continuar fazendo algumas, por exemplo se pega uma fonta barata de qualquer coisa e vende no ML livre e ganha uns 300 por semana trabalhando 1 hora por dia ou menos, dá pra fazer isso por bastante tempo, enquanto faz outras coisas... tem que ir adicionando rendas, mesmo que sejam pequenas... e ir deixando de dar atenção pra coisas que dão muito trabalho e pouca renda

interessante que falei que precisa muito trabalho, mas depois devemos buscar manter as atividades de melhor renda x tempo, como custo x beneficio.... achar coisas que dão bom retorno com menos esforço, pra podermos fazer várias dessas... e aí sim começar a ganhar bastante... e algumas delas podemos colocar pessoas proximas pra fazer...

ficar rico tb serve a ajudar pessoas proximas que queiram trabalhar com honestidade, ajudar não é dar dinheiro, mas um bom trabalho, de bom retorno

Bruno Rafaelt · Maio 9, 2016 às 16:14

3 horas atrás, busarello disse:

Tem certeza deste valor? Qual produto você investiu, dentro do Tesouro Direto, com esta taxa?

Em tempo, há um topico sobre investimentos, sugiro que olhem, há boas referencias lá. Começando por esquecer poupança e, na imensa maioria dos casos, imoveis.

Sim, meu invest está no Tesouro IPCA+ 2019 (NTNB Princ) tenho taxas entre 7,06% até 7,74% + inflação.

Meu primeiro depósito foi em 11/08/2015 hoje quase 1 ano depois já tive 15% de retorno, não vejo outro investimento que seja tão vantajoso assim

planeta · Maio 9, 2016 às 16:16

como ser alfa ??

tem um ponto importante que não discutimos... ser alfa é ser um líder ou um poderoso, um líder de qualquer tipo exerce influencia, quem exerce influencia tem poder... aqui não há discussão, quem influencia pessoas tem poder sobre elas

existem vários tipos, aquela gostosa do insta/face que posta fotos pra receber milhares de curtidas tem vários betas ofereecndo presentes, caronas, atenção,

ela usa sua sensualidade como poder, as mulheres sempre fizeram isso, ou fazem a seculos

quando vc consegue gerar bons sentimentos nas pessoas, sendo legal, legal mesmo, carismático, mas se faz escasso, as pessoas querem estar mais com vc, isso tb te dá poder...

seduzir varias mulheres e deixa-las sempre querendo mais, tb te dá poder, mulheres que oferecem sexo e favores em trocar de nada, sem pedir nada além do seu tempo com ela as vezes...

... no fim, como ser alfa???

adquirindo poder... como adquirir poder... manipulando pessoas....

perceba que ser legal, carismático e gostoso manipula pessoas, mesmo sem esse objetivo

THE GAME OF POWER

“It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.” – Niccolo Machiavelli

Contents:
1.) Introduction
2.) Bluffing
3.) Judgement, Self-Perception & Self-Discipline
4.) Silence, Saboteurs & Platforms
5.) Family Power Dynamics & Parental Investment
6.) Concluding Statement
7.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

This piece discusses the relevance of power in comparative as well as absolutist terms. One thing I have found is, the word “power,” contains specific connotations to most people. They hear the word “power” and it conjures up an image of absolutist, concentrated power. A king, judge, dictator or some other esteemed or highly influential individual. However, these roles are merely the symbolic embodiments of a concentration of power, saturated power. Power permeates the entirety of the societal structure in subtle and not-so-subtle nuances that dominate each and every social interaction. Everyone has a place. There is a pecking order. Sometimes the contrast is oblique, other times it is resounding.

Power and popularity have an incestuous relationship; they fellate each other, reciprocally. One would argue that popularity itself is a manifestation of power, although popularity is certainly possible without power. Some would say popularity is a form of soft power that can precede hard power. Of course this begs the question “of which comes first?” and we find ourselves facing a “chicken and the egg” philosophical conundrum.

Regardless you can escape neither power nor popularity. You must learn to understand power as the social equivalent of water. You cannot avoid it. You need it. Without any power to command anything, you would have nothing. With minuscule amounts of it, you would subsist minimally. With moderate amounts, you live comfortably. With excessive amounts, you risk corrupting yourself, probably becoming narcissistic, potentially becoming sadistic.

So what should you care for? This is an introspective question common in a culture obsessed with seeming not to care (or at least, caring too much.) Regardless, everybody cares for the opinion of at least one other. This is normal and natural behaviour. Yet many of us realise in the quest for social dominance that one must be able to outbluff a bluffer should one wish to get their way. He who shows the most indifference and composure is oft the person to come out on top in negotiation or argument. In the theatre of masks, he whose mask begins to crack and shatter first, loses. This is what the manosphere means with all its talk of “holding frame.” From a Machiavellian viewpoint, the person who retains more composure relative to the other is forcing the other to play the cards they deal. A person with a solid frame forces others to react rather than dictate. When one is indifferent to the behaviour of another, where that other would expect you to be upset or angry, you can command shock value that can flip a power struggle on its head. By “letting it go over your head” you retain emotional independence, with independence there is respect and social dominance within the interaction. He who sets the frame effectively controls the rules of engagement. He who is definitively reactive, or at least, comparatively reactive, communicates himself to be a social inferior.

2.) Bluffing:

A bluff is when you hold a deceitful frame to get what you want. If you can maintain the bluff with congruence, with minimal cracking in the façade that is your mask, then it will pay its dividends. It will allow you achieve things that your “true self” is normally incapable of achieving. At least, not until you integrate the themes from your bluff into your natural personality. Which much like any significant process is a timely one. This is where the idea of “fake it ’till you make it” comes from. Of course there are different levels of bluff, characterised by both depth of temerity, and severity. Who you’re dealing with and what you’re trying to achieve affects how much your bluff will be challenged/tested. Some bluffs are fairly inconsequential, seeking small measures of power in the form of small favour. Used repeatedly and in increments, they can lead to big redistributions of power and a sense of responsibility or obligation in the mind of the bluffee (he who is being bluffed.) This is particularly true once the bluff becomes ritualistically ingrained, an act of habit.

Other bluffs are however more ostentatious, and thus due to their noticeability far more likely to arouse conflict. They will be more rigorously tested by the individual you are trying to persuade or intimidate than smaller bluffs. Cumulative bluffing is a form of systematic desensitisation to an expectation and thus effectively, a form of social conditioning. The power of a bluff comes from the boldness of its misdirection, implication and plausibility. An implausible bluff exposes itself and commands no credible pretence for power acquisition. It is for this reason that in the game of bluffs half of the game is based upon deterrent, the other half being the ability to execute the implication that the deterrent puts forth. This is typically characterised by the utilisation of fear and an absence of any threat or promise that is empty. The instrument used to instil fear and assert control can be characterised in a multitude of ways. There is the physical: a capacity for violence. There is the emotional: a capacity to overwhelm another’s reasoning and state of mental-being. And there is the economic: a capacity to deprive someone of resources they rely on.

A good example of a bluff no matter how unintended that bluff may be would be a person’s height. Say you are 6’2 tall; it is unlikely throughout life you will have been challenged to a fight very often. Those who do challenge will quickly renege if you back the ferocity of your height with a congruently menacing attitude. Could such a man defeat a 5’5 man who trains in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu? No, he could not. But who is more likely to be challenged and thus need that skillset to begin with? The 5’5 man is. Most people are too fearful to even escalate with the larger man because of his stature. His stature is a bluff of sorts, implying the taller man is perhaps more physically power than the mind of the onlooker should be led to believe. On a biological level it communicates to another person’s instincts “this man is capable of physically overpowering me.” Resultantly, said person is trying to cope with their involuntary fear response whilst trying to make a rational decision whether or not they should issue a social challenge. This is a primal feeling a small man cannot invoke in others regardless of his abilities. He must demonstrate his abilities to elicit the same effect, merely standing there is insufficient. The power of dominance via stature (known militarily as command presence) is an avenue of passive power closed to men of a small stature. Instead such men must express their power in other ways, such as by utilising displays of: wealth, wit, proxy muscle and etc.

Whilst a bluff is oft an aggressive manifestation, a deterrent is inversely, defensive. This is not to say outward bluffs can’t be defensive and deterrents cannot be aggressive. They can. But typically, they are not characterised as such. On the deterrent side of the bluffing game, there are tools available at one’s disposal such as selective validation (operant conditioning.) This is something that can be utilised to encourage the behaviours you prefer in another whilst discouraging behaviours you don’t. Half the game is mentally and physically passive in nature. These things manifest in both how you present yourself and likewise, how you behave in the company of others. The other half of the game is your raw power. Being able to put stock in the collective illusion your outward behaviour and appearance summons with tangible talents, wealth, social capital, aptitude and other substantive elements capable of enacting change through sheer substance of will. Raw naked knowledge is useless in the game of power. If you cannot apply knowledge to execute effectively, then that knowledge despite its relevance is useless to you until you can wield it properly. Power, much like knowledge, is ineffective if it cannot be suitably wielded.

3.) Judgement, Self-Perception & Self-Discipline:

If you’re not sure what should be important to you, the bottom line of your agenda should be to increase your power and connect with and co-opt those who can aid in the endeavour that is power acquisition. Spending much of your mental faculty on people who cannot help you (tangibly or intangibly) when you yourself are weak, is a demonstration of low self-esteem. As a person who seeks growth it is a waste of time in the face of self-betterment to invest your time and attention in those who offer you negligible benefit. Caring about those of low value, those who cannot bring you anything you need superficially, intellectually or spiritually may in fact put you at risk of degrading your own faculty as they seek to parasitize you. It surreptitiously communicates to your self-esteem and the perception of others that you are in fact yourself a powerless individual by mere method of association. Philanthropy can be a great ego boost now and again, but one must not become the very thing that they set out to help, should they not seek to become a member of the needy.

People judge you not just by the company you keep, but by how opinion affects you, and lowly opinion should bounce off you like the irrelevant banality that it is. This doesn’t mean you must be horrible to the downtrodden, but do not be seen to be strongly associated with them. Unless you’re so powerful you can use the weak to amplify the perception of your benevolence and solidify yourself a healthy reputation eg: engage in decadent acts of philanthropy, you have no place to be seen with the weak. As an addendum it is important to add that investing stock in the opinions of the powerless and those without a potential for power is an idiotic endeavour that yields little to zero return. If you see potential in a powerless contemporary, like any stock, they are investable.

Not disappointing yourself in an endeavour is an act of self-validation. Do not forget that self-esteem can validate itself when you do something good and are impressed with yourself for being able to fulfil your own objectives. A lack of self-discipline comprises the core of low self-esteem. The repetitive nature of personal failure owing to low self-discipline creates a negative mental feedback loop. This is something inverse to the cultivation of narcissism, more akin to the creation of insecurity and poor self-worth, or “anti-narcissism.” That feedback loop then reinforces the idea to the psyche of the individual in question that they are intrinsically useless by mere absence of achievement. In all its emotive sense of helplessness, this creates momentary low self-esteem. The dichotomy of low self-discipline is that inevitably, personal failure will recur, reinforcing the idea that one is in fact useless or lowly. And indeed without this self-control, one does become that which they believe themselves to be. The consequence of subsequent failure to adhere to one’s goals becomes a form of learnt helplessness which solidifies into a personal belief that one is unworthy, stripping them almost entirely of personal power. With no belief in themselves, they look to latch onto others parasitically to maintain themselves because “they just can’t do this on their own.”

If you keep failing at things because you cannot discipline yourself to do them or get good at them then you’re going to feel like a failure. Decide what you’re going to do. Start off by “just doing stuff” and then repeat it with intent to develop a healthy habit. Eventually as it becomes more natural to you, you will become sensitive to technique and look to subsequently refine the thing it is that you’re doing. When you can do something well, it will give you power. It will give you confidence, a degree of certainty, and pride. You are not only useful to others for what you can do, but internally you will begin to respect yourself and gain some justifiable confidence. Confidence is the primary ingredient in the fuel of power, there is no power without confidence for they are intertwined. You can (appear to) be confident without power (a bluff) but you cannot be powerful without confidence. Confidence within the realm of subtext implicitly communicates you are powerful. It creates the assumption in the mind of others that the confidence is a product of power, regardless of whether this is true in nature or not. As such it can be perceived that confidence in and of itself is a type of power.

4.) Silence, Saboteurs & Platforms:

Sometimes the best move you can execute in a situation is to simply do nothing, ignore it, be aloof. Do not feel compelled to act in the discomfort of uncertainty. You should not act for the sake of acting, but rather, with meaningful, wilful intent. You should ignore unimportant and irrelevant opinions that look to sabotage you from those who you have reason to suspect look to undermine you. The people who issue these challenges want to destroy or at least, reappropriate your power. They are saboteurs and thus one should always be seen to look down royally on those who oppose them, rather than validate the basis of their challenge.

It is not necessary to completely destroy them, but you must refuse to validate most if not all of their attempts to be an upstart. By validating detractors you give their ideas no matter how banal or asinine a measure of your credibility. You lend your power to their comments by giving their criticism a platform. It is within these words it should become apparent to you that this is the inherent utility of censorship. Indirect censorship via the refusal to entertain a challenger (rather than direct, which is forceful silencing/covering up) gives said person no opportunity to latch onto your reputation and thus by extension, no avenue of entry to bolster their own power. When people like this happen to appear in your life it can sometimes be an indication that you’re doing well for yourself. That you are succeeding at something and it has been noticed and flagged as threatening. When others feel threatened by you it often means you’re gaining power, although you may simply be violating one of the laws of power, such as outshining the master. Be situationally self-aware.

When those who oppose you invest a lot of energy into hatefully disagreeing with you, in all its ironic perversity it’s the closest thing to a compliment that such a person can give you. By forcing them to act on emotion, they give your cause energy, and it matters not if that energy is negative, for all energy is relevant to the sum of an ideas prevalence. Energy is the stuff platforms are made of. Energy gives your ideas a platform by helping them to gain recognition from within the flamboyancy of detractive hatred. Inadvertently and unwittingly to the dismay of the jealous critic and obsessive saboteur, they garner you more supporters, further attention and increased notoriety. Acknowledgement is the fuel of social status. Gods as entities unproven and fictional as they may be got their power from within human civilization via acknowledgement. Do not underestimate the power of acknowledgement and the components that form it, recognition and validation, for it is central to everything. It is these things which form repute. Reputation is a cornerstone of power, in fact reputation is more important than reality itself when one wishes to exercise or protect their power. Like confidence, reputation in and of itself can be seen as a form of soft power rather than merely an ingredient of hard power.

You gain power by doing things that are effective in and of themselves, or by undermining the power of others. These are two very different styles of power acquisition. The first being creative: build yourself up so much that you tower over the opposition. The second is destructive; topple the opposition’s reputation to the extent that their power is lesser than yours. You outbuild the competition via accomplishment, or you sabotage theirs whilst preserving your own. Indeed if you are neither powerful nor the target of someone’s personal investment, then nobody would give breath for you. They would not even summon energy to criticise you. They’d simply ignore your existence. Hate is a reactionary emotion which spawns from other emotions, predominantly from fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of self-preservation, fear of a loss of personal power and up there with self-preservation, the fear of making a bad investment.

5.) Family Power Dynamics & Parental Investment:

This is my belief as to why so many parents fear their children being failures. Some opt to lie to themselves that their children are not losers even when it is quite evident that they in fact are. What they ultimately fear is having put all this time and effort into their legacy only for their child to squander that effort by yielding them nothing in return. No power, nothing for them to be vicariously proud of, no return on investment, zilch. This I believe to be the fear of every parent and by extension, grandparent. The fear that their own lives were a waste of time as they will not leave behind a legacy built upon their core values. This idea is of course closely linked to the fear of self-preservation, albeit a type of preservation that the mind seeks to enforce past the cycle of one’s natural life.

6.) Concluding Statement:

The bottom line is that everybody cares for power. Don’t believe otherwise unless you opt to be taken for a fool. Power (or the lust for it) is the imperative to spawn all imperatives. Do not be fooled by romantics and the esoteric gooeyness of emotions that elicit idealism and compassion. Sure, these emotions play a role regardless of power and in relation to power, but the balance of power is inescapably present in all things. Sink or swim. Succeed or fail. There are no alternatives, by opting out of the game, you lose the game by merit of forfeiture.

...

Entrar

Como Ser Alpha?

Posts Recomendados

Mais Ativos no Tópico

Dias Populares

Mais Ativos no Tópico

Dias Populares

Postagens Populares

radec2033

A_Almeida

Leandro H F

Imagens Postadas

UNDERSTANDING THE DARK TRIAD – A GENERAL OVERVIEW

Visitante

THE GAME OF POWER

Crie uma conta ou entre para comentar

Criar uma conta

Entrar

Quem Está Navegando 0 membros estão online

Conteúdo Similar