What do working out, *WINNING*, sex and getting paid all have in common for a man?

They make you feel powerful.

And it's crucial to a man's mental health to feel powerful. Regularly.

I believe this is the cure to depression in men. Depression in men = sense of powerlessness. This is why men tend to be solutions focused rather than catharsis focused (though the latter does happen too) - just give them a way to feel powerful again, and you'll "fix them" - that's it. Being understood is great too, but it comes AFTER that, not BEFORE it.

The greatest lie the devil ever convinced you was that beauty is weakness, and ugliness is strength.

This is a widely believed illusion - a state of mass hypnosis almost, but it is functionally, archetypally untrue.

Being negative takes *ZERO* skill - so how can it be strength? Just because some are more talented in the negative than others, as in, more creative and forceful with it, doesn't make them strong - makes them dangerous, yes, but not strong - dangerousness is not strength if we define strength as the capacity of a soul to resist impurity.

If you know a couple and they both vote for different political parties, then the woman doesn't really love the man. Woman should either just not care about politics at all, or be mostly aligned with her man's preferences and reverent of him to the point she wouldn't defy him. That's actually what it is. Lack of reverence.

"Making my dissenting opinion known and felt is more important than showing you respect"

And lack of respect means lack of love

Because love is egoless and self-sacrificing where ego is intolerant and selfish

Devil in the details

When a woman overrides her man thinking she knows better, and she's wrong - that's a sin. Like an actual sin. It is an insult both to God and his image in her husband as her guardian

The only time rebellion's divinely permissible is when the woman saves her man from grave error. So if the wife's wiser than the husband on a specific matter of disagreement, and it's severe enough he'll bring about some calamity if his authority is upheld, it's her moral duty to defy him not out of malice, but in his best interest out of love, and to seek forgiveness later.

Yes, but marriage - as in, the merging of souls - actually begins when you both agree to it, not when you have the ceremony. You don't need a party or legal documents for it to count. The marriage truly begins when you both agree to belong to each other.

God sees everything.

https://twitter.com/kingsleypst/status/1909565300254589238

I will even go so far to say that two people who signed legal documents to be married but never agreed truly in their hearts they belong to each other are unmarried, or fake married (married legally, but not spiritually) whilst those who did agree but don't have documents are.

The worst thing about ageing is a day feels about 10 hours long, a year ago feels like 3 months, summer's almost here and then 2 months later it's Christmas, everything you enjoy happens in minutes instead of hours, and all your dreams seem like they're an eternity away. Basically the clock is always fucking lying to you.

Time *DOES NOT FEEL* what it claims to be - it's like you're being constantly gaslit into thinking more time's passed *THAN ACTUALLY HAS*

Like your internal chronometer's out of sync and everything's artificially speeding up.

Inconsistency is the fastest way to destroy trust, because trust is the belief there’s a high probability you will deliver, not just the belief you have good intentions. So there’s two facets to it - but ultimately it is dictated by reliability, not intentionality. Intentionality is sentiment. Reliability is sentiment married to efficiency, and efficiency comes from strength. Good sentiment but weak or undisciplined means inevitable and repeated disappointment as cannot uphold oaths and truths claims. Word loses weight. Requires distancing.

Why should you hold authority if you don't incur a greater burden?

The strong should endure what the weak cannot, right? Which is why they get to lead in the first place - because *they are best suited to the job* and that's what ensures enough order within the chaos to have sustainable joy and fun, whilst also providing structure, protection and learning.

Power is not free. You have to be capable because a leader is a servant that's relied upon, just not in the same way a follower is - they serve by protecting through discerning rather than by obeying. Both serve one another, but in different ways - in line with their natural strengths. It is fully complementary if you don't get in each other's way, or try to step in the other person's lane.

A leader who does not provide structure or assurance or anticipate what is required is an at best suboptimal if not outright bad leader.

A follower who rebels against the very structure they require, is resistant to comfort and/or reason and is seemingly unhinged to the point nothing except doing as they please irrespective of the consequences will satisfy them is a bad follower.

Cooperation is as simple as not letting your ego get in the way whilst doing your best to respect the other person's ego.

But truly, beyond that surface level, in the depths of actual love, assuming it's there, ego melts. A man always regrets his anger and a woman always regrets her disobedience when they remember how much they love the other person. Conflict is not the end of the world. Momentary dislike or disappointment or irritation is mere transient and fleeting emotional state easily forgotten, and not the same as fundamental soul defining symbolic dislike.

Dealing with a bit of discomfort is normal. It's not the end of the world. There is no such thing as a perfect relationship, you will never find it - but you can have a pretty fucking great one if you know what you're doing and want to be as great as possible.

I feel like people overcomplicate things. Maybe you think everything I just said is complicated, but to me that's post-complex simplicity. Like I intuitively get this. These are not new lessons for me (but if they are for you, good - learn them!). "What if you are both strong"

Then the man should lead on the basis WOMEN HATE TO LEAD not because they CANNOT

Trust me, I can sidestep your every quibbling objection

Where there is not inability, there is the absence of preference

Women loathe men of insufficient competence.

If you think about it, women fucking the enemy's archetypally accurate because how else do you survive being taken from your village when every man in your family has been killed by a stronger enemy? The women who fought back would be killed right? So that SELECTS for disloyalty. Women who have it in them to betray would survive, whereas women who can't "bring themselves to do it" would not.

Natural selection

This is why women are FAR MORE RUTHLESS THAN MEN in matters of (perceived) self-preservation (eg: divorce)

Psycho switch flips into backstabbing.

Testosterone actually increases clarity of thinking, executive control and pretty much every trait you would associate with stoicism up to a bit beyond the top end of the natural range (1,200 to 1,500ng/dL)

This only ceases to be the truth once you start hitting supraphysiological levels much higher than this (which aren't naturally possible) with true active cognitive decline beginning at around 2000ng/dL (hence the term "roid rage")

But that does not mean you, a guy with a 300ng/dL T level who manages to increase it to 800ng/dL will suddenly becomes a moronic ape - if anything you will actually be far more mentally stable, not less. Your aggression will be more akin to assertiveness and boldness and calculated risk taking - not getting into fights for no reason or being generally unhinged (many women are plenty unhinged, and their T is far lower than yours) So yes, contrary to YOUR biases, a higher testosterone level would probably allow you to know better restraint in executive decision making, not less - so long as you aren't blasting mega doses trying to grow a second forehead and a Jocko Willink tier eyebrow ridge.

It's far easier to have sex with an unprotected woman you don't care about, than to intelligently lead one that you do.

That's why sex was always gatekeeped behind marriage.

Because if the incentive structure is set up to give less responsibility more reward, you break society. The modern man realises he gets the best of women by giving her the least, and that in scaling his commitment the tables turn as he begins to give more to get less, with many a dead bedroom as testament. If women can't make men think they're worth the hassle, the men won't bother

Everyone is insecure, uncertain, lacking in faith, lacking in belief

"but what if this"
"but what if that"

How about you just join a fucking cult and get some actual conviction I can actually give you an intellectual argument for this, if you would like to hear it

If you attack a man and get no response

You now have to worry about *WHEN* he will respond

Could be a month, could be a year

Could be at your weakest point when you've forgotten about him and what you even did to him

THEN BAM

Delayed karma

He's there at your next low point You can just assume he let it slide and has no capacity or desire to respond.

But that's an expensive assumption if you're wrong.

Congratulations.

You now have long-term random revenge potential to anticipate.

And if you pick many fights, this grows beyond you very quickly.

Gratitude and empathy are honestly two of the most attractive qualities a woman can have.

Imagine being with a woman who appreciates every single thing big and small that you do, takes nothing for granted, and really *KNOWS* how hard it is for you.

Practically unheard of! Many of them act like you giving them the Earth is bare minimum, that they deserve it, and that if you can’t do it you’re not even a real man.

Zero empathy or gratitude for actually how hard it is to provide as a man, just entitlement.

Not very wife tier behaviour tbh.

Following emotion makes for a bad compass.

As there's morally bad things that feel good, and morally good things which feel bad

And it takes a sufficiently benevolent and cunning man to ensure you only feel good whilst doing good.

This is essentially the art of managing women. But it's that inherent propensity to trust, obey and be compelled by emotion that makes women a liability - it's what makes them more manipulable and influenceable even at advanced age.

It's why a "woman who knows better" will still make mistakes.

Because he made it feel right.

If we define maturity as having empathy for you as a man, and we define empathy as having some insight into male psychology/your struggles and complementing that.

Then yes, most women never mature.

Only women who really have empathy for men are outliers with good dads.

https://twitter.com/FadedGravity89/status/1844227330572681352

Most women idolise you when they like you

Idolising is childish

Because it's not to truly understand you and connect with you, but it's to worship you for so long as you do not destroy the illusion they have of you

So you see, there is no empathy, because there is no maturity

From her perspective it’s accepting less than she thinks she’s worth because she’s not truly respectful of or attracted to the man she decided to marry

That’s why she calls it settling

In reality, she’s lucky to even have a man who thinks she’s worth the bother

She’s conceited Imagine you have multiple potential investors and the least intelligent and poorest of them’s the only one who agrees to invest

And instead of being grateful you got the help you needed

You resent having to settle for your least preferred investor

The arrogance is breathtaking

Competing with a woman as a man is like competing with a child as an adult.

There is no upside for you.

If you win, you’re a bully, and if you lose, you’re a gay that got beat by a child/girl.

The asymmetry is inherently not in your favour.

This is why you need a pet woman as your champion to fight battles you can’t.

You actually see corporations do this all the time, even the police do it.

The police will use women to arrest women so they can’t fabricate a sexual abuse claim and so it doesn’t look as bad to the public

Elon has Linda Yaccarino to be the aligned HR mum for his company to offset all his “advertiser unfriendly” aka based masculine behaviour.

It’s amusing when you see it, but also an invaluable tool for you strategically.

All I will say is that the typical woman is not up to the task to “be your champion”.

It won’t be your wife, unless you married the wrong woman.

You’re looking for an unmarriageable, intelligent but knows how to be aggressive type of careerist woman who is tough and less delusional but has both positive masculine and negative feminine traits. The whole “power couple” meme is very rarely done right and for the most part is just a man who married a masculine woman getting dictated to but thinking he’s in charge because he relies on her the way you would typically rely on a man.

It’s almost homosexual as zero polarity.

Being a top 1%er in any domain is shit because you have to suffer the tedium of almost everyone being shitter than you before getting curb stomped by an absolute alien who outpaces you by a factor of 10.

In chess that’s Magnus.

In football it’s Ronaldo.

In business it’s Musk. Play literally any video game competitively and you will always find one absolute alien who makes all the other pros look shit (even though they’re all better than you)

It’s a universal phenomenon

Women used to dealing with men who are always trying to prove their worth to them, don’t know how to be unannoying to men with nothing to prove to them.

They’re so used to getting to choose, that they haven’t actually developed the elegance necessary to get a man to choose them. I can always tell when a woman who’s used to men trying to prove their worth to her is trying to get me to prove my worth to her

But what she fails to understand is:

I don’t give a shit what she thinks

It’s an affront to me she thinks she’s so above me she gets to test me

No.

The very dirty and messy work of being a man is having to be mean and punishing and villainous sometimes, BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT we'll get treated like subhuman garbage and so merely to be afforded even a basic level of respect we have to teach you to fear us so you treat us well. Exceptions notwithstanding, the vast majority of people seem to be incapable of treating men well if they do not possess an element of fear in regards to that man, as in, an acknowledgement of his destructive capacity/threat potential and a desire not to be on the receiving end of it.

Awareness of this capacity is the basis for all rudimentary respect and civil behaviour, and guides one's conduct towards him going forward. The absence of a dangerous element, or the belief it is not there leads to repeated violations of said man's dignity by the unafraid, who in its absence perceived or otherwise takes that to mean he is prey and thus exploitable and expendable.

If you are a man dealing with women or children this is especially true (due to their immaturity and dependence) and if you're dealing with low IQs it is likewise amplified because the stupid are best persuaded by aggression they can feel rather than reason they struggle to grasp.