SuicideFuel To maintain friendships is to maintain a dying fragile illusion.

[Pinpoint]

Chads only get understanding/ likes/ looks/ love not because they care about the state of his emotions, but because of the material substance he provides in his presence/ genetics/ halo effect/ abilities/ etc.
Outside of that, when you take someone who had prior status, then foids won't care, and the novelty he has will be in relation to his former self.

People care about material substance, and not your emotions/ soul in of itself. Our mothers might, but no one else. People like to come off very material based as it makes htem have the insensible dominance hierarchy champion bravado.

Even in the mushy mushy moments, we are maintaining friendships through trying to qualify, or analyze the material qualities of others. It's sick.


All friendships are material substance based in all reality.
We think there's some mushy mushy feeling of togetherness/ vibe sharing we want, but in reality it also depends on the literal

I want to be grounded in heartful sensibilities. Women seem to not be that way. They're drawn to primal value, and make you feel like you're in a chasm of irrelevance and worthlessness without it. Heartful love is something kind of understandable for them not to have, when they deal with creeps and pervs. But I think they use that as a distancing mechanism. And because that is their distancing mechanism, then to say they shouldn't be cold and distant is to also deny them defense from rape/ unwanted approach which just makes you the antagonizer, and her the victim.

Biggest issue is that people don't like to be a shepherd of communality/ people's souls. People's emotiosn aren't really people's thing. It's the primal capital search that is.

 

[Zaetheus]

My weaboo friend got a gf and ascended . Fuck friends

 

[WillyBlogAndFriends]

cope. individualism is an evolutionary trait that persists across all species

 

[Pinpoint]

cope. individualism is an evolutionary trait that persists across all species

But that's why friendship is pointless.

It will never be genuine. There is no heart/ soul/ you that's admired... simply based on good intentions, or when they try and glean for the good that's in you, and making you feel loved/ valued. It's the material substance.

 

[Deleted member 4999]

True black pill = no one is actually your friend. If you were ugly they wouldn’t be your friend.

 

[Pinpoint]

True black pill = no one is actually your friend. If you were ugly they wouldn’t be your friend.

Exactly. Friendship as we connote it is a myth.

 

[WillyBlogAndFriends]

But that's why friendship is pointless.

It will never be genuine. There is no heart/ soul/ you that's admired... simply based on good intentions, or when they try and glean for the good that's in you, and making you feel loved/ valued. It's the material substance.

examine evolutionary relationships, some are parasitic, some are mutualistic, some have are net zero (give, take)

all are driven by biological needs wired by DNA

 

[rudolfhess]

Everything is currency. "Real" money is only a proxy for any number of other forms of wealth. All of these have an objective value in a vacuum, and then the subjective values we label them with. The male perspective tends to place more worth on some things, while women tend to place place more worth on other things. Both same gender female-female relationships and heterosexual relationships run on a capitalist system of exchange. There is a zero-sum "market" with winners and losers and objective goods and bads. Male-male platonic and sexual relationships are different because men, unlike women, are not interested in exchanging "currency" in this domain, only in other areas of life. This is why male friendships or gay relationships rarely have economic class as a significant factor. A poor man and a rich man can be friends without a second thought, while a poor woman and a rich woman are much less likely to become friends. In this domain, male relationships could be seen as "communist," opposing the "capitalist" female sexual marketplace. There's an inherent harmony built into male friendship, a harmony that creates lifelong bonds across race, class, etc. There's an inherent disorder among equivalent female relationships that leads to much more instability among lesbian couples than among gay couples. Lesbian couples and heterosexual relationships (obviously involving women) are the pound sterling leading into the Great Depression: overvalued, with nowhere to go in relative value but down. There's an exchange rate between men and women that fluctuates constantly, with the male usually at a disadvantage.

Of course, in other parts of human existence, men operate on a similar "capitalist" market, but not in relationships. You, OP, are using a heuristic model to understand your interactions with females that could be likened to the scholastic economics of, for example, Thomas Aquinas. A just system, a fair system, a system that places morals and idealism over realism. When faced with the Hayekian model of relationships used by women, you're left confused and betrayed. The scariest thing about the female is not their penchant for overly-emotional thinking, but instead the opposite. What is truly frightening is the hidden rational calculations they make that leave you on the back foot from square one.

tl;dr: Friends are gay and you don't need them

 

[StaroRavager]

High IQ thread

 

[NeuroscientistCunt]

What if my friends are just as ugly and incels lol

 

[platypus]

If I do have a soulmate, I know it's not a woman. And I don't mean that in a gay way.

Yes I agree with your thesis. The vast majority of so-called friendships are a sham.

True friendship arises out of mutual struggle toward a common goal. Your friends are the ones who stick by you to the end. A true friend might not even be someone you like but who always looks out for you nonetheless.

The idea that people who go out partying together on the weekends are friends is laughable. None of those people would lay down their lives for each other when it actually counts.

 

[SOCIALSUICIDE]

If I do have a soulmate, I know it's not a woman. And I don't mean that in a gay way.

Yes I agree with your thesis. The vast majority of so-called friendships are a sham.

True friendship arises out of mutual struggle toward a common goal. Your friends are the ones who stick by you to the end. A true friend might not even be someone you like but who always looks out for you nonetheless.

The idea that people who go out partying together on the weekends are friends is laughable. None of those people would lay down their lives for each other when it actually counts.

I'm still waiting for you to say no homo tho you got me haha bro

I'm still waiting for you to say no homo tho you got me haha bro

finding someone that will give his life for you is super rare bro... if you dont have a super best friend since childhood it's over.

 

[platypus]

I'm still waiting for you to say no homo tho you got me haha bro


finding someone that will give his life for you is super rare bro... if you dont have a super best friend since childhood it's over.

Well how could anyone who's blackpilled think that their soulmate would be a woman?

I imagine a soulmate would be a non-sexual entity. Are souls sexual?

 

[Lord Byron]

The idea that people who go out partying together on the weekends are friends is laughable. None of those people would lay down their lives for each other when it actually counts.

Willingness to lay down one’s life is a very high bar for friendship. That’s something parents usually only do for their children, men do for each other in wartime, and men do for any random foid who was retarded enough to drive into floodwaters etc.

“Hey Steve, you want to go to the game with me on Saturday?”
“Sure thing man. I have just been wondering one thing, would you take a bullet for me? Are you really my friend?”

 

[SOCIALSUICIDE]

Well how could anyone who's blackpilled think that their soulmate would be a woman?

I imagine a soulmate would be a non-sexual entity. Are souls sexual?

I was just teasing you bro and no, I dont believe souls are sexual, i dont even know if souls exist but, sexuality is just hormones trying to make us biological beings to procreate, you might not understand me rn but I believe true love exists in the 5th dimension where beings are separated, unlike this dimension that contains nasty duality

 

[platypus]

“Hey Steve, you want to go to the game with me on Saturday?”
“Sure thing man. I have just been wondering one thing, would you take a bullet for me? Are you really my friend?”

But true friends wouldn't have to ask the question because they would already know that the answer is 'yes'.

These trivial relationships like going to a sports event together are not friendships. They're just relationships of convenience because most normies cannot handle doing anything on their own. So they band together in groups of 'friends'.

I was just teasing you bro and no, I dont believe souls are sexual, i dont even know if souls exist but, sexuality is just hormones trying to make us biological beings to procreate, you might not understand me rn but I believe true love exists in the 5th dimension where beings are separated, unlike this dimension that contains nasty duality

All good. I think you've got a good theory there.

 

[Pinpoint]

If I do have a soulmate, I know it's not a woman. And I don't mean that in a gay way.

Yes I agree with your thesis. The vast majority of so-called friendships are a sham.

True friendship arises out of mutual struggle toward a common goal. Your friends are the ones who stick by you to the end. A true friend might not even be someone you like but who always looks out for you nonetheless.

The idea that people who go out partying together on the weekends are friends is laughable. None of those people would lay down their lives for each other when it actually counts.

No Marriage, or bond would continue if the material substance structure were lacking. So the soul, your feelings are not there for you. Maintaining a hold on something that isn't based around your own emotions/ wellbeing/ feelings isn't good for you, and you should really consider not caring about any of it as it would probably lead you down a very detrimental path. A path so detrimental that the detriments outweigh the benefit, and shouldn't be pursued.

All friendships are material substance based in all reality.
We think there's some mushy mushy feeling of togetherness/ vibe sharing we want, but in reality it also depends on the literal material substance being considered. Without that, then no soul would be appreciated. Not a single one would be taken lovingly if you removed all material substance, and put them in the bodies of incels/ dying african slaves.

It's an illusion. Our bodies/ psychologically evolved habits are designed merely trick ourselves into feeling it's right/ just/ natural/ wholesome to keep the juggle game going in order to have companionship. It's based on a narcissistic need to be validated more than maintaining real connection. Or else, if we truly valued, connection, then we wouldn't associate with people whose primary criteria isn't about love/ compassion/ human togetherness/ spiritual substance... but instead it's about material value substance.

Humanity is a very narcissistic crude vile species underlyingly, but our illumination patterns from our perception are typically bluepilled by society.

No friendship is really predicated on your soul, feelings, inner identity. And even if it were there is still a system of relation/ taste patterns/ judgment on how much it can be appreciated at one time. People's inner fluctuation of appreciation is also a hurdle that makes it about how it's judged by them personally, which can contrast the way you personally feel.

Willingness to lay down one’s life is a very high bar for friendship. That’s something parents usually only do for their children.

Lol my dad never did that for me.

 

[technology]

There are many people both men and women who help you throughout your life not because they are getting something in return.

 

[ICanOnlyFapToBDSM]

i have no frens

 

[GetFucked]

Most friends aren't even really loyal. You might put in an huge amount of effort in maintaining the friendship but they really couldn't give less of a shit. I've learned its better to just drop them.

 

[Lord Byron]

But true friends wouldn't have to ask the question because they would already know that the answer is 'yes'.

These trivial relationships like going to a sports event together are not friendships. They're just relationships of convenience because most normies cannot handle doing anything on their own. So they band together in groups of 'friends'.

It seems to me that you have developed a wildly unrealistic expectation of what friendship entails. I wouldn’t expect my friends to lay down their lives for me, and I wouldn’t do the same for them. What you are describing is what husbands and wives might do for each other.

By this definition only a handful of people in the world have ever had “true friends”. It just seems like a silly test to me. A friend is someone who’s company you enjoy, and has consideration and affection for you. They aren’t a fake just because they won’t give you a kidney, let you fuck them, or sign over their house to you. And all of those things are lesser than dying for you.

You have some weird ideas.

 

[Animas]

just take the 2D pill 2D will never betray you it iz pure

 

[Pinpoint]

Of course, in other parts of human existence, men operate on a similar "capitalist" market, but not in relationships. You, OP, are using a heuristic model to understand your interactions with females that could be likened to the scholastic economics of, for example, Thomas Aquinas. A just system, a fair system, a system that places morals and idealism over realism. When faced with the Hayekian model of relationships used by women, you're left confused and betrayed. The scariest thing about the female is not their penchant for overly-emotional thinking, but instead the opposite. What is truly frightening is the hidden rational calculations they make that leave you on the back foot from square one.

tl;dr: Friends are gay and you don't need them

Everything is currency indeed because of the human propensity to desire the un-communal bravado. They try to obscurify this with their bluepilled positive perspective. But in reality, negativity/ primality emerges from the inner essence of these people. Hayekianism is predicated around material/ performative/ domination resources. But not around making humanity great. Everyone is conscientious of how to be a better person, but they either choose to be isolated/ introverted/ self orientated when they cannot dominate.
There are profound pindowns of all these ideas. but ideas and illustrations evaporate. Discernments dematerialize when faced with dismissing disinterest.
Ideas/ relayings of reality are only as solid as how they're regarded. We have prehistoric programming to care about some relayings of reality, but reality will go on unreceived if people have a primal incentive to be bluepilled.
Remember, all people have is a self-image they want to create, or an impression they want to push. So they usually respond in a way that retains their self image, but the point isn't pindowned in their perception. They just want to make it look like they have the typical things that retain the unguilty of wrong identity so they don't have to haul for a humanitarian duty that needs to be done to give them the moral points/ identity they want.

It seems to me that you have developed a wildly unrealistic expectation of what friendship entails. I wouldn’t expect my friends to lay down their lives for me, and I wouldn’t do the same for them. What you are describing is what husbands and wives might do for each other.

By this definition only a handful of people in the world have ever had “true friends”. It just seems like a silly test to me. A friend is someone who’s company you enjoy, and has consideration and affection for you. They aren’t a fake just because they won’t give you a kidney, let you fuck them, or sign over their house to you. And all of those things are lesser than dying for you.

You have some weird ideas.

You don't need someone to be willing to die for you. I'm saying that people don't predicate love and intrigue on spiritual elements as much as material. If you had to choose between living for your kids, instead of helping someone out then that's understandable, and still spiritual. Whereas if a woman would rather kill someone just so she can somehow get the money for a plastic surgery she wants, then it'd be a scary (but near impossible concept to pindown with their habitual dishonesty) proportion.

The prominence, of a reality being relayed is only as strong as those who are willing to solidify its evidence, and not run away from it. And often the motivation for most people to solidify any aspect of it isn't to be honest about reality, but just to put on airs.
The daybyday mundanity is pervaded by people who have no imagination, and want to keep the mundane anchoring society, by allowing no blackpill to be prominent. It's people who pervade the daybyday mundanity, and dominate through the tiedown treadmill. They are the ones who really rule the human race.

 

[technology]

You don't need someone to be willing to die for you. I'm saying that people don't predicate love and intrigue on spiritual elements as much as material..

Nice post , Could you name those spritual elements.

But some brothers give kidney to their brother , or in many cases wives give kidney to their husbands too even if they are not financially benefiting from their husbands , what you call it ?

 

[Pinpoint]

Nice post , Could you name those spritual elements.

But some brothers give kidney to their brother , or in many cases wives give kidney to their husbands too even if they are not financially benefiting from their husbands , what you call it ?

Just valuing people for their spiritual substance, and making it their life aspiration to spread spirituality, love, compassion, belonging to people. It wouldn't be an issue for uglies to live if people look for different things.
Although people would become more ugly/ diseased. But you only need to be darwinial in an "everyman for itself" society where your own survival is on your own shoulders. But we can carry the diseased, and post sensible understanding regulations for overpopulation/ abortion too if we know it would come at the expense of others.
We can have a rational slant on the way how some must lose, and some must win in nature. Like in the animal kingdom. Preds and prey.
But a lot of people use the inevitability of how the world can't converge and be cohesive and caring overnight, and will have issues adapting to it as a pussy ass cop out.

If the kidney were something they needed, and it was a part of their general spiritual substance trend to care, then that's compassion. But the spiritual enrichment of those around us can manifest differently. The point isn't that people aren't compassionate though. But that they don't find enrichment with spiritual substance that has to do with people's sols. We want compassion and understanding. That can even lead down to things we deem uncompassionate like killing spree for the sake of spiritual enrichment. Like a religious nut bringing people into heaven by killing them by his hand or something idk.

But the primal wiring is material substance dominance based. Not communality based.

 

[Darth Incel]

I dont need a soul mate. Just a hole mate.

 

[platypus]

It seems to me that you have developed a wildly unrealistic expectation of what friendship entails. I wouldn’t expect my friends to lay down their lives for me, and I wouldn’t do the same for them. What you are describing is what husbands and wives might do for each other.



You have some weird ideas.

Wives lay down their lives for their husbands? And you say I've got weird ideas. That's just plain delusional.