Primalescent Pull is why the majority of us care about LMS more than inner connectivity. Society isn't taking a stand towards inner connectivity, and the humanitarian hubris of liberalism and PC is just a ruse. So that whites can cuck their own racial supremacy for the sake of individual social capital. Pretty funny, to expend all western civilization for your own personal glory.
We prioritize things like animals seeking primacy/ to thrive high. Only tubby tumblrina type cunts wanna live by romanticism quotes/ pinterest fantasy alone. We thirst for stimuli "of a different sort", one that is rare, and holds higher novelty. When women get a full taste of romance, they'll hunger for something else. Yes, it is nice if we incels, and fecels (female-incels) get what they we in terms of sexual gratification. But our desires are innately primalescent. Mostly our gratifications of humanity is when we primalesce on something else. Humor is critical. Playing video games and hunting is primalescent above nature. We're a pretty domineeringly desiring species.
I personally don't think even incels should, ultimately if you inspect our geno-patterns, get their gratifications. We are evil creatures, and geno-ingrained capacities for human empathy are NOT adequate enough to see that. The universe leans towards negativity. And MOST PEOPLE (as evidence by libtardism being prominent) are overly optimistic in order to protect their egos and keep themselves content. By numbing themselves to negativity, by disregarding and deceiving themselves denialistically in a daisybraided bullshit perception parade, they do not neutralize but become a NUCLEUS of the negativity as well. As we all are innately. But it's a negative thing to be so numb to our own darkness, and not to correct/ fix it.
Positivity is never a natural resource. Positivity is most usually negativity distilled from space it used to occupy. You ignore it, you get beaten by it.
Most romance novels don't work in the hood, or in 1980 India. You need to be insulated, white, and have emotional trials/ tribulations that give off the vibe that they represent something "non-ideal" for people with ideal lives. Jennifer Aniston - Picture Perfect. Even Twilight with the biker gangs gave off complete disgust with the screenplay/ pace and projection of them in the movie.
Vampires work because they're beautiful. Not grungy dirty biker gangs. A bitch would have to be pretty disenfranchised to wanna see that, or at least the general consensus would think.
It is the desire of most women to primalesce over social situations, where eveyrone will pretzel themselves to socially situate and sustain relationship... while the woman can be a sluggard. Women are so SO predicated on this singular station of status alone... all else bears the affinity of non-tangibility in their brains. They personally hold to the ONLY track of traits which define a person's worth as pillared/pendulumed around being a primal prodigy... having looks, money, status, etc. Women are destined to be sluts because they are constaconscious of the primal prodigy traits (LMS) because of the impulse to undercut/ short-circuit into primescing over people.
The female psychstructuration is made to mind the census' perspective because they need it as a compass to dominate the majority. Because they wanna primalesce (be cunty, and treat people like trash). But they want the census' perspective so that they can fit their standards, treat people like shit... and then fire from their house of stone at people who can't fire back... in their houses of wood. (Durability of the structures determined from their primal-value capital, and weaponry determined from their actions of social subtraction/ being a bitch/ etc.) THAT is why women wear makeup. So they can primalesce once they get everything in place. Then they can strike and dominant their peers. INCELS want that for themselves because of the urge to primalesce, the ultimate form of gratification.
There is no room for true loved in an inner essence psychstructure as endemic, and as fucked up as this. It's the desire of women to be relational sluggards, and they find themselves weak if they are the relational sustainers. Women get disgusted with their own extreme self-criticism when they are weak. Any flaw anywhere goes straight to the frontal lobe.
There is always resource transaction, even in the most beautiful/ esoteric/ non primalescent relationships (which is less than 1%). But of the 1%- which ISN'T Primalescent, people still are selective. Esoteric college bitches (who in this scenario DON'T go after men for primalescent purposes) still will have a hormonally held hierarchy of selectivity. Or perhaps not hormonally held, but intellectual. But in any case, whether a woman's constaconscious, or nonconscious of what they want, or linear/ nonlinear criteria of traits for association that their mate must have... they still have a system of intimacy steeped in selectivity. We are human. Diamonds are valuable and precious because they are rare. And we want to have something uncommon, different, special to ornament our life. It's never the first instinct for a human being to be average, their bottom lip juts out, sweat, tears, hatred before they submit to that.
Selective/ scrupulous system of intimacy.
Unselective/ indiscriminate system of intimacy and association.
The highest possible ratio to 100% of women is towards the former. Women will want to be as refined in their judgment on the channel of traits for their suitor typically if they pillar their self esteem on the remarkability of those traits. The trajectory of the inner criticism of almost all women will fault them on their own traits dearly, and the ideal value level/nature of the traits are usually evaluated positively or negatively when pendulumed around the traits which coincide around concept of what their own worthiness is defined by. Cunts want prominence. So they will have the proprieties suited to a cunt of prominence who will judge men by the same medium they want residency in. Their ideal identity.
Tl;dr. We're not wired to predicate our selectivity on love. Not man nor woman. We willingly choose vanity over the welfare of the world, and the geno-gratification of giving. Our mindset/ ordinances will follow that rationale, our geno-self bleeds into our psychsequence. We're geno-programmed to hope and hone for leveraging a primal position so that we can primalesce (dominate) people. Women will choose someone on those grounds, if you are nice and insistent, then you are a beta lurker. A shoulder to lean on is almost never a dick to ride on. You can manipulate the situation to fit that, but that is not her first choice. And you won't be either.
Inner Bond/compatibility/ synchronization is only noteworthy in the female system of emphasis in relation to your primal capital. The most major constituents of value surround primalescent properties. Always. A woman could be more in common with someone she walks across the street with. She could have a better inner essence bond. But if she doesn't like his jawline/hairline, whelp so much for that. The primarch/prodigarch fits her criteria more than the bondarch/ soularch.
Bond to a lot of girls is within the "fill in the rest later"/ non essential trait. Where they will just shortcircuit alignment in that trait tree so long as the essentials are put together. Like imagine a car with the engine, transmission, brand, color, etc. The non essential element would be a windshield/ tires/ etc. she'll instapurchase so long as the essentials are aligned right. If the non-essentials aren't, she'll just grin, bear it, be indifferent whether it becomes ideal or not to her.
Primalescent properties = Essential. Personality = Non-essential. More emphasis is on the conditions/ properties of this which impact the overall definement of her system of selection and association than if the non essentials. The non essentials could have their properties inverted, and it would matter significantly less than if the essential's had their properties partially tampered with.
Women want men who derive their identity on the primal plane anyways. You come off gay if you're too bondbent.
Disneyfication of shit believes that love has some lightness in its constituents. When in reality it isn't. They just shroud the shrewdness of love/ human judgment systems by cleverly pacing the movie inspirationally. Beauty and the beast, alladin, etc. Each of the men/protagonists having the right balance of traits so that the conflict doesn't swing into the greater message of human judgmentalism. Aladdin, teenage arab... not too ugly or fat like the fish mongers in the market? Sure, you can establish a conflict so that the movie can happen... and not have the conflict revolve around incel trying to get with a girl who would be repulsed. Belle is a misrepresentation of women. And it's believable because he was a charming prince once. And QUASIMODO in hunchback didn't actually get with Esmerelda... that would have been too fantasy and daisybraided to believe. Disney can't make gigantic leaps, it's why the nigger finn didn't kiss rey. You need to cut down society's inhibitions through condition, like slow poison. If you used fire in their face, they'd just fight back. No, the media wants people to believe in equality/ non discernment/ non judgmentality on the primal-hierarchy... but not so fast. Not until everyone is conditioned until they are subhuman/incel.
Love being reciprocated is less dependent on the constitution of the inner essence of the person who loves... but on the mutuality... on the opinion of the other. Which is dependent on their interpretation/ standards/ tastes. On the one bidding for love possessing the substance to be intimacy table capital for the recipient of the love, which requires the recipient of the love to lock the love back at them with mutual interest. Mutual interest requires two-way captivation. TWO minds are never utterly joined in opinion. But even amongst being different as individuals, both must have traits which meet eachother's criteria of intimacy. It's never a completely surefire bid to get someone to love you back if you love them unless you are ultrachad (99% surefire amongst the general female population).
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
― Charles Darwin