Switch to full style
Bash the pick-up art community. Challenge the assumptions and techniques used by pick-up art, discredit the effectiveness of pick-up art, expose ripoff products, and reveal secret info of dating gurus.
Post a reply

Women are what I call "impactists"

by Eugenicist » 2 months ago

Women don't give jack shit about immaterial conceptions like "love, political affiliations, personality, identity, race" etc. Women don't itemize with conception. Their brains don't even itemize, or compartmentalize clearly; their psycoordination is a trackless stream of stimulus around them. Like aurora borealis that if surfing on = 1 feeling, and a different another. They're extremely right brained. One Aurora = Green = Glee. Red = Angry and so on. And their mind is too feeble and weak to tell itself what it is. And if they do, it's extrinsically motivated for their heavy-draw for one thing they are intrinsically motivated for. Impact. Or domination. And all things women like are not clearly defined. It's the psysurge they want. Like how a caveman neanderthal or a teenage kid can't describe why they like to fight and horse-around. They just do. That's women from womb to tomb.

Imagine a world where mouth-breathing numbskulls watch michael bay's transformers. Only the entire theater has those movies ALL the time. That's basically women 100%. They think the only thing which matters is impact. How you affect things, the physical realm is all that matters.And anyone who is a conceptist is a dweeb loser/ beta-inclined rotter. "It's the alpha way to always care about the impact, only losers are artfags". This is what gave rise to the rockstar trope. You combine musician and jock = rockstar or rapper. Musician is a more sensual person who has an undefined/ phenomenological intelligence. Women like that. They don't like people who have depth, or things that have depth. Organizing their psyche to prolongue animalistic phenomenology is a drag, a slog.

I mean women are so predicated on what is primal, phenomological, they must have a more superficial libido than men. They're more materialistic and everything. You can't realistically beleive women give a fuck about anything immaterial. That's a feminist fallacy.

This is what makes me believe women are so insecure about appearance and care more about the census than their actual merit/ substance. Women want to have the primality of power/ popularity. They can't achieve it without makeup/ deception/ careful presentation. So they choose to secure/ fasten and fashion the impact from gauging the census' view of them... than to produce substance independent from that.

This girl I knew, always kept her house superficially clean until I looked through her desks. Saw that they were all crammed and jumbled with stuff htorughout the house. I think girls take pride in the fact of being primally-predicated impactists with no reverence for conceptualism/ depth in anything... because it has a nastier/ snoot kind of vibe/ taste to it. And implies they are more adapted/ synchronized in the value systems of primality, and will give off the vibe they will one day succeed in it since they sacrifice so much in indiscriminate scuffle to meet those expectations.

by Eugenicist » 2 months ago

Impactists: Believe the only real aspect deserving of emphasis/ significance about something is its implications/ effect in the physical external world.

Intentists: Believe the intent is all that matters.

Conceptualists: Believe in the mental content behind something is defines its significance.

by mopdop » 2 months ago

females are extremely looks orientated/superficial, good post OP.

by Eugenicist » 2 months ago

mopdop wrote:females are extremely looks orientated/superficial, good post OP.
They're also very meticulous in their presentability. None of them come up to you without pre-emptive premeditation. That is essentially manipulative. And most of them do it. So much, so pre-instilled (because it comes as the natural course of their urges/ impulses) that it's fair to say that it might just be the way they're geno-programmed. The same way a cat gives itself a bath or a beaver builds a dam. If most of them are willing to undergo that process, then they don't want real friends. They don't hold true bond/ love/ compatability/ immaterial connection in such a high esteem as being someone of high impact in the external world. The main virtue underlying having high impact is being superior to other people, as that is the ultimate end goal/ source of stimulus. They're obviously not doing it for survival. They can definitely make it without acting regal to this extent.

But even if they didn't want to do it for the sake of being regal, their geno-pressures still will take over and fight for regality outside of what they're consciously aware of. There is no free will. Women are geno-programmed to be cunts. That seems like an extreme label. But in reality the world was never supposed to be as tame/ civilized as this in 2018 to build a moral-stance for women to be considered dark/ cuntish for doing any of this. This was only natural, and not any less brutal than the world when you get to the bare bones of it/ uninsulated to the point of intangibility with all of these social constructs/ contraints/ laws/ faux-ethics.

Sure, you can say they need to do that for connective reasons. To be superficial/ good looking so they can get men to like them back for survival capital. But that's ultimately unnecessary at this point. And probably a red-herring reason for their behavior. It's for status-capital. Women just want to hide their identity to gain the best machiavellian-vantage-point.

Women are hormonally built to desire men. And to desire vanity. If they were as hard pressed to get love from men for internal/ immaterial connection reasons, then they would probably know that they wouldn't find it from a guy who would like them from their appearance, and thus stop altogether. Women have a primal-impacted viewpoint of the world. That men are psychsluggards who are primally predicated and only care about LMS (and they're not wrong). I think this viewpoint has pervaded for so long that their neurology has put such excessive emphasis on the material capital as a bio-ingrained psychstance. They couldn't be not- superficial even if they wanted to be.

But this also essentially means they don't want friends who have a morale which accepts people for who they are truly. Women don't value genuine connections, just ones with more primal capital behind them. Women put weight on certain methods of gaining gratification. The one that is rarer, has higher novelty, more primal regality behind it is the one that they will get their real gratification from. There is carnal gratification - sex. Sugar/ Food gratification like eating a Reese's peanut butter cup. But the one that women put the MOST emphasis on is hierarchical gratification/ primarchial gratification. In the primal-hierarchy, those who have higher Evolutionary Capital get more rare/ status indicative gratifications. It's a relational gratification system that their criteria for satisfaction is dependent on. Primal satisfaction I call it.

They want to gain the attention of people who have a system of criticism/ discernment/ judgment that posits the worthiness of people purely on primal traits/ primal vibe/ being the clear winner/ being of predatory existential affiliation/ cosmic significance. Those men are harder to get because of social crowdation/ high value emphasis. The higher up the ladder of status you go, the less people you'll find. And women want those people, as they are more of an achievement.

Women are drawn to people who have the existential affiliation of a bad ass/ primal prodigy. Not incels or betas. And they want to qualify for men who have the dismissiveness/ darkness/ identity acquitted to an alpha who can treat people like shit but still get his way. They want THAT at the expense of genuine relationships. So that's why they fall into such anxiety when they can't qualify for HIS criteria of association, as opposed to the criteria of association that is humble/ meek/ for the people around them.

It's quite funny that people can't put these nuances together and build the proper portrait of women and what they really represent. And what their vanity-consumed identity revolves around.
Post a reply