Be a wolf among sheep until you're the sheep among wolves. Once you've dominated your domain, to the point where the people around you are patently pathetic, you must seek out those men whose brilliance outshines yours; and then, remain quiet and observe. Like I've said before, the men who surpass their peers, and become powerful, are those who are fearless and wise, gifted with a cognitive ability to strategise in cunning, calculate their moves, remain humble when necessary, and attack at the right time.

You don’t ask a woman what she wants, you make a calculated assumption based on what she likes, and decide yourself. Even if it’s not the best choice, at least you decided for her, without hesitation and without delivering uncertainty to her door. Then it’s easier for her to go along with it as she is apt to do. Questioning her, over and over, or blaming her for indecisiveness doesn’t resolve the problem, it only aggravates her anxiety. Decide yourself, no questiond asked, and move on.

It only takes one or two heartbreaks to end overcaring or overinvesting. After that nothing will be the same, even the colours of your romance will assume a different shade by your lack of idealism. Your craving to preserve is the greatest when unexperienced. What you learn from experience is that your chances of preservation are greater when you’re not concerned with preserving a woman, but less when you’re too considerate. Women respond to stoism and detachment in kind as it reassures them of the man’s security.

I can assure you with certainty. If you’re not a coward, it is not difficult to get a woman to respect and adore you. It is when you lose the heroic aspect that you start to get comfortable and soft; you’re limp, there’s nothing hard and piercing about you. Cowardice is cancer, it poisons your virility with all the adversary effects of being timid, fearful, shy. You can never draw in a woman with that kind of attitude; women will rarely make the first move generally, unless you’re exceptionally handsome.

You can’t not be cunning with modern women, that’s the conclusion. If you can’t handle provocations, power tests and probing, you’re going to plummet. If you’re not discreet, ambiguous, indirect, and bold, you’ll run into trouble. Can’t be too transparent. Sociopaths are not a model for lasting love, but how they employ wit, their frame of mind is superior in this regard; evasive, script-shifting, ambiguous, sarcastic, unresponsive in argument, cold in hard-pressed situations.. you can learn something.

My father always used to tell me about women; once you let her stand on top of your head, you lost the battle. In other words, once you let a woman bamboozle you into bowing to her demands and excuses, you are her slave, and you’ll be miserable. It’s interesting how you often forget classic axioms you’ve been brought up in, only to return to them later and discover how relentlessly true they are. Women are formless vessels, and men of spine fill the form as they choose, granted they are daring.

Women like a busy man, and by busy I don’t mean the fake busyness that aimless men try and use to exercise power. I mean evident ambition which need not be faked. Forgery will only get you so far, ambition needs no filters, and women know it. And a woman who loves younwill try and steal your time and attention, but deep down she doesn’t want you to indulge in that so heedlessly either. It’s a paradox, you reward her with your attention but you don’t quench her appetite that she gets bored.

I hear people advocate against long distance relationships, even if it’s temporary, mainly because they’re scared of being cheated.

But realise: a woman who doesn’t want to cheat will not do so under any situation, and one who does will do so even if there’s no distance.

Ps.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… Maybe I have a far out conception on this topic, but a chivalrous man isn’t going to terminate love as a consequence of temporary distance. He shoulders the burden of the sacrifice, knowing and trusting totally the fondness and adoration of his woman.

Without heartbreak, man doesn’t outgrow his inexperience and immaturity.

🧵 There does come a point, as defeatist as it sounds, where your connection with a woman is so impaired and tarnished that it is beyond repair. Unfortunately, letting go is painful, a part of you must die and be reborn, and that’s difficult to accept.

If you're in your right mind, your gut is hardly ever wrong, deep down, about a woman's true morality and principle.

Even just by observing a woman's etiquette and word, it's enough to get her general scent and character. Many people say that appearances are incredibly deceptive, and I generally agree with that, but women drop inklings of their intention and nature even at first glances, they're just subtle enough to be dismissed or pushed aside.

If you try to control a woman by restricting her, you’re going to achieve the opposite of the desired result. If only you cared less and threw her to the fire, you will find the truth. When nothing else works, you surrender your will, not fight the current. Even if you don’t like her friends or something she did, more often than not fighting it upfront and abruptly only makes her more rebellious. You can’t give the woman the impression that you’re controlling the choices, you must resist giving that impression.

Idiots always arguing about how conditional a woman’s love is, and how she would hop off the wagon or betray you if you go broke or lose your job. If she does either of those things, she was with you for the wrong reasons, and love wasn’t one of them. It simply hasn’t been my experience that a loving woman would just call it quits because you hit rock bottom. On the contrary, I’ve seen women jump ship even while having rich husbands or boyfriends. That says more about them than it does about the man.

Yes, women love a cunning man, and to some extent, it signals status, because to tread the line between permissiveness, and tyranny, you must not only be clever, restrained, and stable, but you need to be a little cagey, to dodge bullets and pierce her soul. I’d say a man who’s got his shit together, who’s got a little attitude, and knows his place, is almost always cunning in his own distinct fashion, and the harder it is to discern, the more clever the man. Subtlety is difficulty where passion is concerned.

I’ve been on either side, and what I can tell you for certain is that no matter how hard you try to rectify things, how solid your presence, some women will simply do as they please, no matter how restrictive you get, if she wants to, she will. And this is just as relevant to seemingly good girls, and seemingly bad girls, because you can no longer tell them apart. If you want to love, you have to gamble with the devil. If you don’t want to gamble, you can exit the game, but you’ll still be played.

This is what it means to be exemplary and kind. That young boy will carry it with him for the rest of his years. Many people questioned the candidness of the act, but too many seem to miss the point. Whether it's staged is irrelevant, the message doesn't change. Dimwits really concentrate on trivialities without catching on the crucial insight. Typical.

Lmaooo I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter anymore if a woman appears gracious, classy or upright, I’ve seen devils concealed as the purest angels. Most unruly women want to downplay their immorality and ‘get away with it’.

One way to gauge a man’s character is to see how he behaves around beautiful women, one of the most compelling baits known to man. If his composure speaks for itself and his internal dialogue preserves its integrity, you can be sure he’s worth something. Men have lost empires over women, even the most towering. There is no dismissing the fact that a woman’s influence has steered and unsettled even the most vigorous of natures, which tells us that mere strengrh of character doesn’t avert this weakness.

If women didn't care about their bodycount, they wouldn't have any reason to lie about it by deflating it, but that's what they do, which only tells you that they're secretly ashamed of their past. Those who need to lie about their past can't stomach it. Think about it, they're always parading the idea that one shouldn't judge a person's sexual past, that it shouldn't be a defining factor, but then anxiously make an effort to bullshit their way into making others believe they haven't loosened their morals.

To mistake my kindness for weakness is an erroneous judgement from your end, not mine. If your sense of morality is such that a good deed appears to be a demonstration of cowardice or inadequacy, you're simply of a weak and degrading spirit. That's all. And know this: the kindest of people could be the most brutal of humans, for there is a shared tenet among the deceitful; the easiest way to deceive a man is by helping him. How many people have come to lend a hand, only to spill their dirt over your back?

Men are romantic idealists, it's embedded within us. We have vivid visions and dreams of what could possibly be, the vast empire we aim to establish, the mighty legacy that will influence our successors. Many a man are far-sighted visionaries, giants. But the inherent contradictions of manly nature are fascinating, profound, beautiful. Is it not odd, for instance, how the savage, the brute, the protector, happens to be more idyllic than his opposite, in spite of his rough and sharp qualities?

They don't like it when you speak the truth, because the bearer of bitterness, of truth, must sacrifice his image to shine a light, for the truth being so ugly and unacceptable, casts a shadow on the messenger, making him look spiteful or angry. Because the messenger, being the truth-bearer, reveals them to their own ugliness, which in turn makes them feel substandard, which in turn compels them to turn down the truth, which in turn keeps them ignorant of their own insufficiency and potential.