Open Thread

Open Thread #255

Aaron "Sleazy" Elias

The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!

The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.

Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.

53 thoughts on “Open Thread #255”

  1. Disney is going to lay off lots of people:
    https://www.ign.com/articles/disney-set-to-begin-layoffs-alongside-a-targeted-hiring-freeze-and-travel-limits
    I wonder why this is necessary. Could it be because of people getting sick and tired of their woke garbage? Well, Disney could afford to ruin Star Wars, but it seems that there have been too many missteps. The critically acclaimed (but widely reviled) recent TV show “She-Hulk” was just another nail in the coffin. Of course, the question is whether Disney is run well enough to get itself back on track. It could be that woke managers use this layoff as a chance to get rid of the last remaining white guys in the organization, after all.

    Reply

    1. What is this groveling? I’m not sure I can stand to watch it. You called it years back when you claimed he was merely a shill for the system. It seems his modus operandi was to gain to trust of straight white males by saying edgy things about feminists, for example, but then instead of leading a charge against the people responsible for societal decline he instead tells you to clean up your mess as you go along and to more or less keep your head down while your dick is nailed to the grindstone. At least it gets easier to see through this shit as time goes on. Trump is no different, and he was even campaigning back in 2020 to give black communities tons of resources for their vote while avoiding eye contact with the whites that put him in office.

    2. Somewhat unrelated, but about the Jewish communities, I was recently at a get together with my folks watching a Christian flick about Saul’s journey to Damascus. I had a revelation during the viewing, and asked my grandfather (he and his wife have been to Israel twice and love the Jewish people), “hmm, would you say their are still traditionalist Jews today that still deny Jesus while following the old teachings of Moses.” He stumbled through some sort of reply, but I think we both ultimately agreed that once Jesus had come forth that the Jews who refused to acknowledge the Messiah from then on out were essentially blaspheming God. It stands to reason that Christians ought to outright reject any Jew who stands with Yahweh, as they’re doomed to eternal damnation by definition.

    3. Also kind of interesting is that I’ve been getting a lot of of ads on youtube recently about the innovativeness of Israel and why I should go visit Israel because it’s such a beautiful and wonderful land. I’ve been seeing these a lot lately, and I swear it’s a new thing. Pretty weird.

    2. It is safe to assume that all the organizations that screw us over, in whichever way, are in cahoots with the WEF. Surely, there will not be any apology from the WEF or FTX. I mean, what would they even apologize for, considering that the stupid goyim did this to themselves?

    1. His company conducted business in a way that betrayed its historical roots. Among others, they stole the deposits of their customers. I read up a bit about “SBF” — the tribe seems to love seeding acronyms for some of their members, such as “RBG” — and it is quite shocking with what chutzpah he acted: He transferred 10 billion of his customers’ deposits into his own pockets, and pretended to be an overly generous philanthropist when he was just handing out money he had stolen! It almost seems as if he thinks that he is above the law. Well, he very well may be.

    3. “the tribe seems to love seeding acronyms for some of their members, such as “RBG””

      Always be suspicious when there are two last names involved.

    5. The mainstream has long been claiming that any criticism of the banking industry is “anti-semitic”. Now, questioning crypto scams has also become anti-semitic. It is really quite shocking how frequently, and how easily, the tribe finds itself confronted with completely baseless attacks. After all, is it not SBF’s right to take ten billion of his clients’ money?

    6. Fun fact: FTX was an official partner of the WEF and was involved with funding the war effort in Ukraine. I hope no one’s betting against me, because SBF is probably going free. I’m not 100% sure but I think his net worth is still worth hundreds of millions.

    7. SBF is probably still a billionaire. Also, I recall seeing some baseless conspiracy theory that claimed that FTX was used to launder money via the Ukraine. In short, the US gave taxpayers’ money to the Ukraine to support their war against Russia. In return, however, the Ukraine took a big chunk of this money and put it into FTX. As it so happened, SBF took some of the money and spent it on various philanthropic causes that benefit the tribe directly or indirectly, some he kept for himself, and he also “donated” about $40 million to the Democrats. Thus, the taxpayer is funding his own disinformation.

    8. Yes, Aaron, you apparently are well informed and up to date on this whole thing. I saw BTC tank the other day and briefly heard about the FTX news but didn’t really bother to investigate it until today. What stoked my interest was the name Bankman-Fried, then I saw the curly headed fat fuck’s picture and instantly new what was up. Every time.

    9. One almost wishes that news sites posted a big spoiler alerts before mentioning the names or showing faces of the people involved in such scams. I am at the point where I do not even need to hit the Early Life section on Wikipedia anymore, but I do it anyway and, indeed, basically every single time a certain demographic is involved. There were also cases where references to the tribe got scrubbed, which is somewhat humorous as it betrays an unusual degree of self-awareness.

    10. This guy might be the perfect example that the elite bloodline is becoming more and more dysgenic. I’d be willing to bet this guy was groomed for such a role at a young age, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this was some globohomo attempt to hijack crypto and regulate the shit out of for the benefit of the ruling class. We should be grateful that this dysgenic sweaty-looking fucktard failed in the end.

    1. Did you watch the video above? Jordan Benzos Peterson is now shedding tears for Israel. Recently, he visited Israel with Ben Shapiro, and they even had dinner with Benjamin Netanyahu. Meanwhile, he disparages whites anywhere and any way he can.

  7. Computing Forever has started to talk shit about mass immigration:
    https://odysee.com/@ComputingForever:9/mass-immigration-destruction-of-nations:8
    I don’t follow him that closely, but my impression is that his two key topics are climate change and Covid, while avoiding anything that is too risky. It is noteworthy that he is now also talking about the great replacement. I noticed a similar shift in the mainstream, where some newspapers have questioned whether it is really a good idea to bring in infinitely many doctors and engineers from abroad, seeing that we have such difficulties finding adequate employment options for those who are already here.

    EDIT: Later in this video, he speaks of a “cabal” that rules the world. I am getting some serious and very discomforting anti-semitic vibes here.

    Reply

    1. Aaron,
      “…some newspapers have questioned whether it is really a good idea to bring in infinitely many doctors and engineers from abroad…”

      I’ve known historically that immigration has never been good for a nation; cultures disappear, native languages disappear, traditions and beliefs disappear. However, in todays time its seems that America and Europe are now unable to fix this immigration issue. What are some alternatives to fixing these problems, or better phrased what would past leaders like Napoleon, Alexander the Great, etc. have done in the past? Create famine and wipe out these engineers and doctors, or start ww3 and deploy all these immigrants…

  8. Twitter user Autism Capital dug up quite some dirt on Giga-Jew Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and his ex-girlfriend and co-conspirator. I chuckled when I read that his chick, who conforms to a non-standard beauty ideal, uses the handle “fake charity nerd girl”. There is a lot of dirt, showing that SBF is a colossal piece of shit:
    https://twitter.com/AutismCapital

    Reply

  10. I’m going to make a baseless guess that the missile incident in Poland is a false flag event. Just what the West ‘needs’ to ramp things up. It could have been an accident on the part of the Russians, but Richard Dolan has been predicting a false flag event near the end of the year for a while now, so I’m going to go with that for now. Will we ever really know, though?

    Reply

    1. Good call! This morning’s news in Europe already speaks of the Ukraine “accidentally” having fired rockets into Poland. Half a day ago, their comedian president demanded retaliation from NATO. The news site I check every morning had as a top story the one about the supposed accident, and below that, more than half a dozen other stories were about how and why NATO should now get involved. I have rarely seen something so laughable.

      In the bigger picture, this must be one of the most amateurish false flag attacks in history. Then again, all across the Western world we have never seen so many clowns nominally in charge of government. I am waiting for another bomb that has “From Russia” scribbled on it, and the media going crazy. Well, they think that they got away with the story that the passports of the guys who flew two planes into the Twin Towers showed up in the rubble, completely undamaged. This is what the elites get for eating their own dog food, i.e. hiring people based on loyalty, sex, and race, and completely ignoring intelligence as well as relevant education.

    2. “I am waiting for another bomb that has “From Russia” scribbled on it, and the media going crazy.”

      Lmao!

      Compared to the 9-11 event this really would be an extremely pathetic attempt at a false flag. The real deal may actually still be yet to come. It stands to reason that until or unless Russia is able to bring this conflict to its conclusion that fuckery is on the table.

      Btw, I’ve never heard about the passport thing before. That’s completely absurd! I remember a good while back hearing a conspiracy theorist making the claim that the two planes were in fact remote piloted drones.

    3. I am sure that there will be more false flag attacks. A really big one was the US blowing up the Nordstream pipelines and claiming that Russia did it to themselves. It is also quite likely that if Russia had not made so much noise about a planned dirty-bomb attack by the Ukraine, we would have seen this by now. Our Western leaders have absolutely no integrity. Literally any option is on the menu for them.

      Reading up on 9/11 was a key part of my awakening. At first, I was smug and thought, “Let’s see how those whackos argue for their absurd theories”, but the more I researched, the more I realized that the official narrative is total bullshit. The pristine passports of the alleged pilots in the rubble was quite something. It really shows that the elites think that the goyim are total morons, and the press did not even ask the most basic questions, such as wondering what kind of special Wakandan material those passports had been made of to remain unscathed.

      There is a lot more about 9/11, such as Larry Silverstein taking out insurance for the twin towers beforehand (and collecting twice the money because two towers fell, as the result of some kind of legalistic Jew-Fu), some mainstream journalist reporting live from NYC about WTC7 collapsing when it was still standing, WTC7 collapsing for no reason at all, employees of certain firms who had offices in the building being asked to stay home, Silverstein’s “pull it” quote, which, as we have learned, meant something entirely different, and so on. I am also quite fond of the infamous dancing Israelis.

    4. Oh, now that you mention it, I have read on some hateful antisemitic forum about how a bunch of chosenites were told to stay home on a specific day, and how it spared them from some terrible fate. I need to look back into that some more and see if I can find some sources.

    5. Staying at home saved the from anudda shoa, so even if this was fishy, I think we cannot put any blame on them. Here is the Times of Israel trying to be funny:
      https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jew-told-to-stay-home-on-911-still-waiting-for-mossad-to-ok-leaving-house/
      Snopes did some fact-checking:
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israelis-absent-911/
      Scroll to the bottom, to the stupid, little number games:

      A later article, in the September 5, 2002, Jewish Week, stated, “based on the list of names, biographical information compiled by The New York Times, and information from records at the Medical Examiner’s Office, there were at least 400 victims either confirmed or strongly believed to be Jewish.” This would be approximately 15% of the total victims of the WTC attacks. A partial list of 390 Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died (out of 658 in the company) lists 49 Jewish memorial services, which is between 12% and 13%.

      This 10-15% estimate of Jewish fatalities tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. According to the 2002 American Jewish Year Book, 9% of the population of New York State, where 64% of the WTC victims lived, is Jewish. A 2002 study estimated that New York City’s population was 12% Jewish. Forty-three percent of the WTC victims lived in New York City. Thus, the number of Jewish victims correlates very closely with the number of Jewish residents in New York. If 4,000 Jews had not reported for work on September 11, the number of Jewish victims would have been much lower than 10-15%.

      It is incredibly dishonest to take the percentage of Jews in NYC and claim that the same percentage of Jews would also be found among people working in the WTC. Somehow, I have a hunch that the percentage of Jews working in finance and other white-collar professions of the kind for which you would commute to the WTC for is a bit higher than that.

      All of this just does not mean anything, though. After all, even a bank like Goldman Sachs is not a Jewish company but a public company and anybody, “even Catholics”, can just buy some shares on a stock exchange:
      https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126310251

    6. “It is incredibly dishonest to take the percentage of Jews in NYC and claim that the same percentage of Jews would also be found among people working in the WTC.”

      I see. Even if a not so insignificant number of Jews did happen to perish in this instance, it still stands to reason that the high tribe members aren’t above “sacrificing” some of their own if it means taking a few steps closer to their end goal. Surely, Jewish individuals such as Rachel Levine are viewed in such light, as well as Epstein assuming he really did end up dead and not actually laying low somewhere in Israel.

  11. I was recently watching a video on attraction from a psychologist’s point of view based on scientific evidence, and it kind of made me realize how PUA messed me up in the seduction department in certain ways. The claim being made was that, with the caveat that both parties are already physically attracted to each other, the one way to get the other person more invested in you is to express some desire in them. This is basically what PUAs would call having a direct approach vs an indirect approach. It might not all be PUA residual nonsense lingering on either, but also the fact that in many situations most guys are reluctant to make bold direct (socially acceptable ones given a particular context i.e. work or social circle gathering) moves out of fear of humiliation. However, there are indeed easy enough ways to qualify someone as to whether or not they’re attracted to you based of obvious as well as not so obvious signals. PUAs would tell you that having an indirect approach would be more fruitful than just having the gumption to state the obvious. Now that I think of it, assuming you’ve vetted the chick out correctly she would probably be relieved to have you just come out and say that you’re interested in and would like to start talking to her, instead of making up some weird excuse to get her contacts and texting her exactly 3 days later about something completely random.

    Reply

    1. Basically, the scientific evidence suggests that showing sincere interest in a person makes them more attracted to you.

    2. This is not at all surprising. I also agree with your previous post. There is probably little that is more frustrating for young, horny woman who has a crush on Chad to have to wait to get her hands on his dick. There is also the phenomenon that sluts often flirt with multiple guys, and they seemingly are interested in all of them. Basically, whoever makes a move will get to fuck her. This could be used to corroborate the claims of those scientists but, alas, such topics are far too politically incorrect to get any attention by the mainstream.

    3. Basically, the scientific evidence suggests that showing sincere interest in a person makes them more attracted to you.

      Sorry to nitpick, but it’s important. Conflating attraction and interest is one of the main reason why bullshit theories were popularized by both society and PUAs. It’s similar to conflating short-term vs long-term mating contexts.

      Showing interest in someone increases their INTEREST, not attraction. That is, if they are already attracted, it increases their interest on acting upon that pre-existing attraction. Showing interest in someone can not create attraction, it can only uncover it.

    4. It is a question of semantics. I don’t think attraction and interest have been clearly defined in the PUA lingo. When you approach a woman and she gets aroused as a result, it is hard not to perceive it as increase in attraction.

      Although I understand why the distinction is important. Plenty of PUAs used to believe that carefully crafting an approach can guarantee success even if one doesn’t have foundations in order.

    5. Saying it’s a matter of semantic implies it’s an irrelevant distinction. But it’s not. It’s at the core of why PUA wasted years of people’s lives. If people knew this distinction (and the one with short-term vs long-term mating) it would have never picked off the ground.

    6. I’ll give a really geeky illustration.

      Suppose you need 800 pts of attraction for a chick to show clear ‘bang-me’ signals of interest. Chad has 900 pts of attraction so he will get those signals even if he doesn’t make any moves. Chadlite might have 750 pts of attraction, not enough for a chick to show interest from the get go, but making a move might bump his attraction to 800 pts and he ends up getting laid.

      Average guy might have 600 pts of attraction and making a really suave move will bump his attraction to 700 pts. The chick will be more attracted to him than to other 600 pts guys who didn’t make a move, but she will never give clear signals of interest nor allow escalation because he is still under the attractiveness threshold.

      On the other hand there is the interest model where you say that certain baseline of attractiveness is mandatory and only then can you work on woman’s interest in acting on that attraction.

      The two are functionally same models provided we agree that the biggest determinants of success are LMS. It is just that the semantics are a bit different.

    7. Okay, this is a good conversation. I really get a lot out of when Alek and friends nerd out about seduction stuff. Seriously, it’s probably some of the best advice I’ve ever gotten, is reading these rants. It’s also not just PUA, but just bad advice in general that bombards men all over the internet and from their blue pilled family and friends. Realizing the truth about attraction and interest and leveraging your LMS if you can is extremely liberating, because you can either rely on your fundamentals to do most of the heavy lifting for you, or just realize you have low SMV and just eventually accept it and go fuck off doing other things.

      Here’s a real life recent example of how I managed to “pick up” a super cute and young extern at work. Something set off my radar, I’m not sure exactly what it was, but I started with just trying to make eye contact. The next time I saw her and we made eye contact, I waved and she smiled. Another day soon after she positioned herself within close proximity with her back turned to me, so I reached out and tugged on her shirt to which she spun around and we were able to engage in some quick banter. In order to try and eventually get her alone where sexual escalation was possible, I devised a plan to get her phone number so we could talk outside of a professional environment. I basically confronted her and told her that so and so supervisor had requested her presence, then I led her away into the hallway and told her I was just kidding, explaining to her that I just wanted to ask privately if it was cool to start texting each other.

      The moral of the story is that pick up is actually stupidly fucking easy, it’s the getting chicks attracted to you in the first place that takes all the work (and luck) i.e. being tall, handsome, fit, decently well off, socially accepted/likable etc. The liberating feeling comes from realizing that you don’t have to jester max to get results. Even if you’re an undesirable no amount of jester maxxing will ever matter, so either way you can just drop the act and be a normal dude.

    8. @Skepdick

      Average guy might have 600 pts of attraction and making a really suave move will bump his attraction to 700 pts. The chick will be more attracted to him than to other 600 pts guys who didn’t make a move, but she will never give clear signals of interest nor allow escalation because he is still under the attractiveness threshold.

      That’s fundamentally scientifically untrue. A “suave move” can not increase attraction (not even long-term attraction). It can increase interest (you can call it curiosity in this context if you prefer) in checking out if you have the qualities that might increase long-term attraction.

      To spell it out:

      – You say or do something the club that demonstrate that you might have good provider qualities.

      That does NOT increase attraction in fucking you that night, in any way, shape or form. It can pique her curiosity to check out if you really do have those qualities and you’re not faking them.

      That means that it might lead to “giving you” dates and opportunities to prove you really have those provider qualities, and with enough testing, she might conclude you do have tha quality, which would only THEN increase long-term attraction.

      But it will never ever impact short-term attraction, which is only impacted by unfakeable traits such as height, face and other genetic markers, as well as ungodly levels of status (the kind that can’t be faked, such as hollywood celebrity).

    9. I also feel like another reason your analogy is broken because you’re confusing interest, with showing interest. They both contain the same word, but they’re completely different.

      One girl can have a 100% interest level, and another 50%, with the first one hiding it, and the latter showing it.

    10. The latter is also an important distinction. Because some behaviours can result in helping her show interest. Others in increasing interest. Some do both.

      Not a single move ever in the history of the world has ever “increased attraction” though, at least not in isolation. Perhaps a string of actions over a longer-period of time can suffice to put you over that threshold of “ok he definetely has that trait, which makes him a viable provider”.

      A single move CAN boost interest, or it can result in helping her show interest. It cannot, in isolation increase attraction.

    11. What happens if she shows interest but has 0 attraction? That means she just wants to be friend?

      How to tell apart when is she friendly and when is she attracted?

      I can spot signals quite well, but I am still confused between these two concepts?

      What about false positives? As Alek pointed out elsewhere?

    12. Rereading Alek, I think the right conclusion is attraction (both types) is binary, yes or no, while interest is a scale, whatever scale you want to express it.

      Am I correct?

    13. How to tell apart when is she friendly and when is she attracted?

      Due to women’s massive desire for plausible deniability, there is no way to tell. You can only tell and confirm that a woman is attracted if she makes out with you, anything less than that could be for reasons other than attraction.

    14. Rereading Alek, I think the right conclusion is attraction (both types) is binary, yes or no, while interest is a scale, whatever scale you want to express it.

      From a practical standpoint, it’s practical to think of it as a binary, even though it’s not.

      You can be a 5 out of 10 attractive, or a 6 out of 10 attractive, and so on. So it’s not binary in that sense. It is binary in the sense that it cannot be changed on a moment-to-moment basis (like interest can).

      So you can change attraction over time, but not from moment to moment. If it changes from one moment to the other it is interest, not attraction. If you become rich and famous, that can make you go from a 4 to a 7. But you can’t go from rich to famous by “making a suave move” loooool.

    15. I have to add a disclaimer since suave move is apparently a loaded concept. By suave move I meant hitting on a woman in a perfectly calibrated way so that you signal sexual intent and self-confidence without making her feel insulted, threatened or awkward.

      Other than that I think that the whole discussion boils down on how you define attractiveness. If it is a set of qualities capable of inducing sexual arousal then I would certainly add being able to execute a suave move to the list even though optimizing it might have much lower ROI compared to the gym, dressing well, making money and getting in social circles.

    16. By suave move I meant hitting on a woman in a perfectly calibrated way so that you signal sexual intent and self-confidence without making her feel insulted, threatened or awkward.

      I already told you about this distinction above as well. This falls into the category of things that make it easy for her to show (or act on) interest (typically without making her feel shame, feel like a slut, etc).

      That’s the original meaning of seduction btw. It comes from the olden days where women had to pretend they don’t want to bang chads. So a chad seducing a woman into sex was about getting her to act on her urges. To do what society doesn’t allow.

      Other than that I think that the whole discussion boils down on how you define attractiveness.

      We’re not feminists, so we don’t get to invent our own “personal” definitions. They already exist. The part that you’re missing is the distinction between:

      – Short-term attraction
      and
      – Long-term attraction

      Any study that uses the word “attraction” without delineating WHICH ONE, is pure crap and hasn’t kept up with the times. In fact, the moment researchers discovered this delineation was the moment that science on mating become an actual thing and we learned about dual mating strategies, chads vs providers etc. Anything before it is pure useless crap.

      If it is a set of qualities capable of inducing sexual arousal then I would certainly add being able to execute a suave move to the list even though optimizing it might have much lower ROI compared to the gym, dressing well, making money and getting in social circles

      YES, a behavior that demonstrate a certain ability CAN increase “attraction”. Do I have to say this for 78th time? I feel like you’re not even reading what I am saying.

      However, ONLY as part of a series of actions and OVER time. DO YOU GET THIS DISTINCTION?

      This is very clear in the science. We know for a fact that women have evolved to NOT change their attraction level on things that CAN be faked.

      ANYONE can pretend to be suave for 5 minutes, or get lucky for 5 minutes. This is why women have evolved to only respond to it after it’s “proven to not be fake, beyond all doubt”. This goes under “long-term attraction”.

      It can only influence her attraction if she sees that you’re suave consistently for weeks or months, in different contexts. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

      “But wait, I once did this suave move and saw an instant change in the girl, I didn’t have to wait for her to see me all suave in 10 different contexts first, it was instantenous!” You saw a change in interest, not attraction. Does that make sense?

    17. This is very clear in the science. We know for a fact that women have evolved to NOT change their attraction level on things that CAN be faked.

      Or could be fake.

      – This is why height, face (etc) can have an instant effect on attraction (short-term attraction).

      – But things like “being suave” can only have an impact on attraction if tested and proven over time (long-term attraction).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.