Natural Freedom

Testing without the underscore _ in title...

https://x.com/ItIsHoeMath/status/1915498865253568935

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

Interesting

well watchable channel

_________________
In building a statue, a sculptor doesn't keep adding clay to his subject.He keeps chiseling away at the inessentials until the truth of its creation is revealed without obstructions. Perfection is not when there is no more to add,but no more to take away.

I'll tell you what Goldenboy. I never liked that guy, because although his 'math' is good and he mostly makes salient points, it's quite clear that there are a lot of things he doesn't really get. I'd categorise him as one of those 'new' type 'experts'.

This quote though, proves the thing that I always thought about him and I had always looked for something like this to pin him as a bit of a clown and here it is nicely presented.

Unfortunately, this will be the future of how men understand things now. This maths bullshit. It's not entirely wrong. That's actually the problem. It's mostly correct. Mostly.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

Interesting pov Scarf.

I do agree with you on the general idea of it (Hoe Math has big blindspots).

Please expand on the specifics now that this quote "is nicely presented".

Is it about him integrating politics and societal examples into everything?
Or really on the mathematical formulas of exchange of value?

I'd love to hear you more just to make sure I don't misunderstand you.

Edit "That's actually the problem. It's mostly correct" -> Please correct it or point to some threads here like Kidd / Grinus's on value if pertinent.

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

Before I say anything, it is worth saying that in recent times, I have become reluctant to give away all the stuff I had to work so hard for to attain. Can't say for sure why this is, but there is no doubt that this is partly because there are men who have started podcasts regarding women, have made millions and have approximately 20% of the minimum required knowledge. I find this to be scandalous as a lot of problems, I believe, are caused by men giving other men poor advice.

We are now living in an age where information has been lifted off the internet so that men are even further disadvantaged and there are new men posing as experts who are hosting podcasts every week spreading rubbish information. They are not corrected by the women in attendance. Women are NOT in the business of giving away information about themselves regarding their romantic motivations. They will happily take the blatant ridicule or engage in some other way instead of giving away the game.

As you can probably tell, it annoys me to educate these millionaire podcasters for free.

There is also another problem; I have seen men be given the answers about women and these men have no idea what is even being said, indicating that one way or the other, you have to work for the answers you want to know.

That said, lets get in to it shall we?

Quite a lot of the stuff just in the quote itself defies logic. All you need to do is square the circle.

Firstly, take his name; 'H**_Math'. Surely, referring to women in this way will completely blind you to anything you want to find out. Just being disrespectful like this colours in an already taken position. If you were to give yourself a name, would you start with the word h**? So, already, I can tell the guy is a bit of a fa****t. I just need the evidence to prove it. It'll come. It always comes.

Next. It is universally agreed, even by the internet menanists, that women are born with or have inherent value. People don't even want to agree to this, but they do so anyway, because they know it. They've seen it their whole lives. Fudgeface Mathematics over here seems to want to argue this point. I gave him ample opportunity to say something else but he is desperate to argue, seemingly, that value is always earned.
My favourite series of quotes belong to this stuff about shooting a burglar.
Now, I'm not saying people shouldn't shoot people. But there is a problem here in his own logic isn't there? Can you guess what it is? I'll give you a minute....OK. Ready? Did it ever occur to him that some people value NOT killing other people? It's one thing to have a death penalty. It's one thing to shoot to injure. He could have got away with it if it was just that, but he is clearly referring to taking a life. So by his own logic, he hasn't really considered the value exchange here. Also, aren't the people he is talking about the type of people who would logically avoid such a choice, such as Christians or Conservatives? Some might shoot, yes. But not all would be willing.

I'll probably come back to the woman value thing later.

Anyway, after going on for a while, he then suddenly says
What is he even talking about here? He starts off by saying if someone absorbs value and produces no value, then the human is not valuable. Based on everything he has said so far and based on everything he goes on to say, he seems to be implying that this production cannot be inherent. It must be created externally in some way.

Anyway, he says
then says
What?

After about nine sentenced paragraphs of going on about how value is created and about how it is not a magic present brought by Santa and how people trade stuff for what they need and about how liberals can't shoot burglars, followed by an opening sentence telling us about how a human that produces no value is not valuable, Pythagoras Casanova says what? Do you reckon he elaborates on why he suddenly has a change in perspective, given his tirade about value?
That's it? That's his entire reasoning? After nine paragraphs, that's his entire reasoning for such a giant contradiction in his philosophy and huge deficit in his mathematics? After nine paragraphs consisting of an entire post about how people are producing value and need to produce value and are no good if they don't produce value and after everything is maths, maths, maths, maths, maths and how women are h**s h**s h***s, what is Archimedes saying?

That he valued helping them. Did he seriously consider why he valued saving them? Doesn't look like it to me. Instead he says - and this really was the next sentence -
Where did this come from all of a sudden? Now he is like a parent? A kindly father? A Santa maybe? What a good man he must be! He's a like a parent who does things for his children.


Remind me again, who were these people he was helping? His children? Maybe someone else's children? Maybe cats? Little babies from the middle east? Who were these people?
So women basically? It just so happens that the people he "VALUED" helping were all women. What a gigantic coincidence that is. Even though they did not
and
or

suddenly the rules change when it's damsel time.

I'll tell you exactly what happened here. Fake Expert F***face was in the middle of a tirade that he either fancied himself giving, or is paid to give or just suddenly got a a rush of blood to give and on his road of red rage suddenly realised that
then, in order to resolve this conundrum in his own head, he came to the conclusion that
and then, realising he needed to sell the sentence to an audience, bizarrely stated that
to morally justify his own contradiction.

Nobody sees this stuff, because men on the internet are so desperate for an explanation and so starved of anybody being on their side for anything, that when an absolute fraud (man or woman) comes down from the heavens to support them, they have to champion the position because it must be right, because they are on their side. There is no critical thinking involved and certainly no practical experience of understanding women. In fact, their own personal experience is the last thing they actually share. Even when they do share it, they don't know what they are talking about because they are not analysing the interaction, just listing what their experience was or who it was or something else that is not useful. The only thing they really talk about is theory. Maths theory, religious theory, philosophical theory, moralistic theory, societal theory. Anything but the actual mental process about how decisions are being made. Women will always be the deciders and rather than at least try to work with them, they want to reconstruct social order.

I'm not saying they are wrong. But the road is a dead end isn't it? Women don't like them now. If we go back to the 1950s, women still won't like them. What happens then?

They aren't doing this because they care about social order or politics. Their guy is in charge. He is in charge right now. As it happens, he is no different to the Democrats. If they cared, they would have noticed by now. But they don't. They want to talk about liberals, as if they are in charge or something. Republicans have the house, senate and the presidency, but he wants to scream about liberals. It's more politics that they know not or care not for. It's likely padding. Padding for their corner of the digital coin.

It's also worth nothing that somehow, these people are allowed to exist. Others... not so much.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

Wow. Thanks so much for this deep analysis.
It went way over my head, all of what you mention for him.
I just pick what I like about what's written. You incise every damn phrase. Mighty impressive.
Well. I am writing it truthfully. Maybe that's a hint of also either doing podcasts or writing A / THE book with the correct information.
This may be what's missing.

“The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.”
“The only way to counter misinformation is to make sure quality information is available and accessible.”
That seems very true. Hence why it's so filled with misinformation, as very few go through the deep work.

Man, you really made me curious about my own blindspots and lack of knowledge.
Would you say this forum is well enough for the "minimum required knowledge", or have you found some more things never mentioned here? I'd love to hear more on your 'best' resources, if you don't want to indulge yourself in creating it...
Either cases, I go back to "work for the answers" as in if it's already there, it's only a matter of finding it, reading it and accepting the whole perspective shift it provides in removing the cognitive biases and blindspots. And if it's not already there, experience and time will do.

Thanks again for the time you took to enlighten my questions. Well appreciated.

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

This is a very nice post Goldenboy.

I'll come back to it.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

I have a response for you, Goldenboy. It's already written.

I just need to be sure I want to post it.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

Nice tease.
I'll wait as long as need be. Very eager to read it, and wishing you'll want to post it soon enough too.

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

In the name of 'late is the hour', here is your response.

To answer the question, we need to reverse the quotes.

Firstly,
Entirely true.

Except when it comes to this topic.

Take women as the best and, possibly, only example. They are extremely intelligent, very sensible and very logical. Except when it comes to romance. When it comes to romance, all logic and sensibility goes straight out of the window. Any basic information you may think you know about women or the woman in question, is totally useless. You will not see her behave in the way that you have observed through your business or educational matters. In fact, that information that you know would likely be detrimental.

Unbeknownst to you, information that you would perhaps consider useless at this time would more likely be useful.

Now
It had not occurred to me, until you mentioned it, that point with regard to basic information. I had always thought that this forum was for advanced users - not for beginners. On that basis, yes. There is plenty not mentioned I feel. The problem is not that we have missing information. We do. But the problem is much, much, much bigger than that: It is information this forum cannot endorse.

Just like how women behave two different ways, the information behaves the same two ways.

At the basic stage, the basic information is very useful, but likely completely useless when coming to the advanced stages. In fact, the advanced information at this stage is likely detrimental.

At the advanced stage, the advanced information is very useful, but likely completely useless when at the basic stage. In fact, the basic information at this stage is likely detrimental.



For that reason,
this would be difficult to put together and may not meet anybody's needs. Some are not even meant to go on to the advanced stages. You've heard the term 'dancing monkey' - it usually follows the words 'I'm not a'. But what if you are? What if being a dancing monkey is actually your character? Do you need to advance then? More importantly, how would someone know that they are not a dancing monkey until they've tried being one? How would they really know otherwise? You also can't just read it. You have to live it. As far as I can tell, the lived experience cannot be put in writing. It can be enhanced through writing, but not lived.

An additional issue here is that they steal (then, sell) everything. You can tell by the use of language. They took 'red pill'. No. It's not from The Matrix like they claim. Many of them haven't even seen The Matrix. They, for sure, took it from The Game and The Kidd. Yes, our Kidd. They also took 'snowflake' and a whole bunch of other terms I won't list and, in many cases, edited them and brought these terms up for air . Why did they do this? Could it be that the answer lies in another question? Why did they not accredit the people and communities that came up with these terms? Why are the pioneers and the original research done in the area simply not up for discussion?

The whole point of the underground community was that it stayed underground. Anybody that discovered it never said a word. It was an international cross cultural understanding. You were either fine or were looking for help. The consumers were not trying to make money off of it. I've said this many times; it took me three days of actively looking for something to even find out that there was a community. It was that well hidden. Here is a small example:

Remember this?
I bet you do. Everybody does. People still talk about it now.



But I bet you don't remember this:




Do you think he is alone? The consumers are not the people you think they are. At best, they are touted as being average guys. This is far from the truth.

Do you think the above quote could pass muster for publication today?

I'd say that the set up, as it was, was working fine. Basic information was available for those who sought it. Advanced information was available elsewhere from those who would then seek that. Some people tried to skip the that first stage. Now there is no choice. Just the advanced information is available now. Only understood by a small percentage of people. Some of that percentage are dead.

I'm happy to answer a PM for specific basic articles, but notably, the unspoken items are likely banned, removed or deleted. The recommended reading list is still intact though. For example, King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Robert Moore, The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins or Virus of the Mind by Richard Brodie.

You know, average guy reading.

King, Warrior, Magician, Lover came back after the community pointed it out and skyrocketed sales. It's the work of those that did the pointing whose work disappeared. Even The Game now has limited release even though it's a best seller. I have found that the digital copy is only available in French. Some of the recommended reading is listed there too.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

Wooow.

That's a fascinating reply.
Very thought provoking.

100% got me on the Russell on Morning Joe, def remember that lol. And of course was unaware of Neil Strauss's impact on him.
They did a funny interview almost a decade ago together lol.

Was not aware at all the early days of PUA influenced such "successful" people directly.

I think I understand where you're coming from (and your convo with Grinus on the Arts comfort me in that).
The times have changed with technology.
In the early days of internet / forums, you needed to really look for it, for good content. And the creators wanted to offer value.
Now, two or three decades later, as Grinus says, it's monetization / reaction over quality.

Thus, you now have copies of copies of copies of misinterpreted and not lived knowledge.
Stealing for fame and profit.
Similar to Grinus's Fox Terrier thread https://naturalfreedom.info/viewtopic.p ... 003#p49003

And another issue being, even the ones like Hoe Math, which (imo) truthfully want to offer quality content, don't go really deep (well, he talked about AQAL and Ken Wilber, don't recall him talking about initiations, archetypes and the psychology / ethology underneath apart from "evolutionary stuff" - which is ironically what you call "average guy reading" - on top of the decades of PUA / early stuff) as they'd fear being banned / ostrasized.

Will read Robert Moore, thanks for rec, somehow it passed by my radar.

-
And the bit about underground, made me think of Fravia+ lore.
Those who seek it find it, those who spend time to enjoy it make it thrive, the others just pass by it. Now, with the algorithms, it's all in your face at all times. No looking for it needed. No push, no desperation, no wanting to change and better oneself needed.

-

I feel a bit different though on the "basic articles, but notably, the unspoken items are likely banned, removed or deleted", except if you mean even on this forum with the deleted posts from early admins and other people?
If I recall correctly, I learned almost everything from basics to advanced from here, and the book recommendations like Vilar, those you mention; and lived enough to go back to more reading and deeper understanding, ... hence my question if you felt there was something missing on here overall.

I do have a big folder with many PDF and books from the early days that were shared by Dali and that I harvested too over the years.

-
Thanks again for the reply.

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

Thanks for this response. It underwent several re-writes and I was a bit apprehensive writing it. By far the most difficult post to write just for personal reasons. It could still go another re-write. I did feel better about it a few hours after posting, so it went in the right direction in the end.
This is a very good comment. Looking for it meant that it mattered to you. I have just discovered that it wasn't three days; it was three months of searching. In this age, you get a lot of contributors who are not interested in any part of the discussion. Actually, you have people who don't even understand what they are hearing. They have no idea what is being said in front of them. This is made all the worse by the fact that they are looking for any part of the sentence to antagonise rather than understand. I don't find the lack of depth to be an intentional act. They genuinely are this stupid. I've seen too much evidence for this to be anything otherwise.


Looks like my re-write worked a bit too well. DId I say articles? I should have said artefacts. Of those I didn't list - and I'm not sure again if I would now - I have found one dodgy copy. The one which I consider, let's say, the highest, is nowhere to be seen. It's like no one even heard of it.

I see that you like books, so here's another one; The Mating Mind, by Prof Geoffrey Miller.

_________________
Sparkling All Over

Not sure I understand why it's such a personally difficult post / topic (apart from well-intention-ed gatekeeping), but really appreciate it.
This is 100% for sure.
Just on this forum, we saw that the ones that were not really interested (who were many) didn't stay long (or didn't even register / post), and most probably completely forgot about it now.

IQ dropped over the decades, life hardship went up, so is political polarity and societal division, ... LGBTQIA2SWTF+ and feminism went overboard. Social media then IA completely messed up attention pan and "values", ...
Doesn't make for deep lurkers / searchers.

Damn you got me so intrigued.
Afaik, the only unavailable book, the one I never could find, was "The Black Prince -- by Anonymous Zebra/Scropio".
Now for artefacts, I could very well try to search for them if you wish, pm me... (pretty plz lol)

--
The Mating Mind ongoing.

Robert Moore's KWML was a great read / listen.
Will read the individual ones later on.

--
PS: Interesting that the only mention of Mating mind was from you in an answer: https://naturalfreedom.info/viewtopic.php?p=7067#p7067. Passed over a lot of radars surely. :p

_________________
People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people

Authority, when first detecting chaos at its heels,will entertain the vilest schemes to save its orderly facade.

What they hate in you, is missing in them.

You wrote it yourself.
It's not the only quote.

And it's not the only thing I have to deal with when writing out posts.

But I do appreciate the response. It was worth writing it.

_________________
Sparkling All Over