irrumator praetor
Lifting so I can crack nigger and jew skulls
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
- Posts
- 4,639
- Reputation
- 5,511
TLDR talking starts before you open your mouth by you either mogging someone or them mogging you (looks theory). That determines all conversations and interactions, and the info that is exchanged during conversation. Therefore, talking is just a shadow projection of looks theory ie. mogging. First comes the mog, then comes the talk. Walk the walk, mog the talk. The whole social structure, system or dynamic is purely based on mogging. Everything can be reduced to 3 statements: 1) I mog you 2) you mog me 3) we are a looks match. Thats it. All social signaling is mogging. Every single bit of info that comes out of your mouth is in the context if you mog the other person (or group) or not. Or, relative status determines your intentions with the other socially interacting party.
If you're socially interacting with someone, think about it. What is it based on? What are you even actually doing? It's based on the relative social (and economic) status of both of you in a certain environment. This is determined by STATUS SIGNALING, which is both passive and active (in conversation). So already it's based on income, looks, and estimated status. So when you get into a conversation, be it about anything, generally. You think you're exchanging information between each other. But actually it's EVEN MORE status signaling and mogging (just translated or adjusted to verbal form) based on what both of you are willing to reveal or exchange in terms of information. You're mogging each other DURING the conversation.
Therefore, every social interaction can be reduced down to status signaling and mogging. Every estimate of how a social interaction went is based on mogging. Therefore, if you mog someone, you always "win" the conversation, which is an exchange of information between 2 people in a system that have a certain level of status. This applies especially to a social interaction with higher stakes, where it's a standoff, either a confrontation or a first meet - an estimation (measuring or sizing up ie. first impressions). It's just more amplified from the regular conversations.
The act of "winning" is purely defined by signaling higher value most consistently all the time, and it being consistently compared and checked to see if this is true. You can't just mog someone; you need to consistently socially show that you mog them, like a confirmation signal. It's like this: you show up in environment. People present estimate your status/value. You can be socially tested by other people. You must reassure them, through conversation, that you mog them. Like confirming the mog, double tapping the mog. This applies both to casual and higher-stakes social exchange.
Examples:
System: capitalism, most common denominator: money
Male dominated competitive space, most common denominator: strength and violence
Social space, most common denominator: MOGGING (looks money status)
Academic competitive space, most common denominator: IQ
EVERY interaction in each space is going to be fundamentally based on the most common denominator
If you want to know how to win in each one, you'll have to base every interaction on the key MCD. If you look at every convo through mogging you will always win every interaction. If you view the military through strength and violence, faggots there will respect you. Most academics only value IQ, if they think they're smarter than you they won't even talk to you (waste of time, they don't benefit). Brutal. You're not even a player in the capitalist game unless you got serious money. All of this is water
don't dare jfl react faggots !
furthermore:
every system exists to produce something (profit). For every system there are required resources to produce that profit. Those resources will be the most common denominator I mentioned. In every system, there are factors/members/elements that have a certain dynamic (laws of interaction within the system) and status (their role in the system). The system, in order to optimize for its utmost efficiency, rewards every member by how much useful they are to the capital production of said system. Therefore, in a social setting, this is the MOG and LMS. In capitalism, it's MONEY. so and so...
If you're socially interacting with someone, think about it. What is it based on? What are you even actually doing? It's based on the relative social (and economic) status of both of you in a certain environment. This is determined by STATUS SIGNALING, which is both passive and active (in conversation). So already it's based on income, looks, and estimated status. So when you get into a conversation, be it about anything, generally. You think you're exchanging information between each other. But actually it's EVEN MORE status signaling and mogging (just translated or adjusted to verbal form) based on what both of you are willing to reveal or exchange in terms of information. You're mogging each other DURING the conversation.
Therefore, every social interaction can be reduced down to status signaling and mogging. Every estimate of how a social interaction went is based on mogging. Therefore, if you mog someone, you always "win" the conversation, which is an exchange of information between 2 people in a system that have a certain level of status. This applies especially to a social interaction with higher stakes, where it's a standoff, either a confrontation or a first meet - an estimation (measuring or sizing up ie. first impressions). It's just more amplified from the regular conversations.
The act of "winning" is purely defined by signaling higher value most consistently all the time, and it being consistently compared and checked to see if this is true. You can't just mog someone; you need to consistently socially show that you mog them, like a confirmation signal. It's like this: you show up in environment. People present estimate your status/value. You can be socially tested by other people. You must reassure them, through conversation, that you mog them. Like confirming the mog, double tapping the mog. This applies both to casual and higher-stakes social exchange.
Examples:
System: capitalism, most common denominator: money
Male dominated competitive space, most common denominator: strength and violence
Social space, most common denominator: MOGGING (looks money status)
Academic competitive space, most common denominator: IQ
EVERY interaction in each space is going to be fundamentally based on the most common denominator
If you want to know how to win in each one, you'll have to base every interaction on the key MCD. If you look at every convo through mogging you will always win every interaction. If you view the military through strength and violence, faggots there will respect you. Most academics only value IQ, if they think they're smarter than you they won't even talk to you (waste of time, they don't benefit). Brutal. You're not even a player in the capitalist game unless you got serious money. All of this is water
don't dare jfl react faggots !
furthermore:
every system exists to produce something (profit). For every system there are required resources to produce that profit. Those resources will be the most common denominator I mentioned. In every system, there are factors/members/elements that have a certain dynamic (laws of interaction within the system) and status (their role in the system). The system, in order to optimize for its utmost efficiency, rewards every member by how much useful they are to the capital production of said system. Therefore, in a social setting, this is the MOG and LMS. In capitalism, it's MONEY. so and so...
Last edited:
