revolutionnow
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Messages
- 119
- Reaction score
- 6
- Age
- 43
Madman or truth seeker
She says the movie looks dumb; you suddenly agree. She tests you with a little attitude; you apologize for nothing.
You think you're being easy to get along with. She reads something else entirely: a man with no edges. Nothing to hold on to. No friction, no tension, no reason to wonder what he really thinks.
The "22 Rules" taught me to push back — playfully, calmly, without needing her approval. Strange things happened after that.
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.
Attraction runs on a clock.
She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.
The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."
One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.
Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near you.
I actually think that he has a fairly narrow focus of what he talks about. He seems to deliberately only make the points that can be backed up by research, and doesn't like to go beyond that. There was another video on here somewhere of him being interviewed by a female who kept trying to bait him by making broad accusations, but he kept pointing out that he had not said that. He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.I think he might have gotten in over his head. He started filming all his lectures a long time ago, and put them up on YouTube and was asking for donations via patreon. Then one thing led to another and now he's more famous than I think he ever thought he'd be. Most of the stuff he says regarding sosuave type stuff is common sense. I think he leans a little too heavily on the Jungian archetype stuff, sometimes confusing metaphor for reality.
I think that sticks to him because of christianity. Otherwise, you could always learn sth from listening to him, I think.he is blue pill
brilliant.... but ultimately blue pill
That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.He kept bringing the conversation back to the narrow position that he was actually espousing, and would not allow himself to be tricked out of it. That's one reason he's so successful, IMO.
You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.
She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.
Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.
Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.
Well, maybe I haven't seen those videos. The videos that I have seen with him, most of them are very repetitive, and the things he said in them didn't strike me as being esoteric or controversial. Seems to me he just sort of stuck to what he knew.That's the "one" video that made him famous. He's got hundreds (maybe even thousands) of others where he is mostly making unproveable philosophical points that are based on esoteric Jungian, mythological, etc. ideas.
Rolla says the same thing. That he likes him/his views but a lot of what he says his steeped in blue pill idealization. Rollo did the opposite of you: he wrote a 500 page essay to explain why (I think there's a two hour video interview with him and two other "red pillers" where they basically talk about Jordan Peterson. No time or desire to read/listen to that much chatter about why they disagree with the man/think he's blue pill. Where as you don't really expand or express adequately why you think he's blue pill.no.
its because his philosphies are too idealistic.
if you pay close enough attention, he doesnt nearly address reality as much as it seems.
his ideas remind me more of the beta kid who promised himself to "never be like his father"
You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.