The sub sounds great. The only thing I am worried about is that it’s for both men and women.
So maybe, if we want to become the “ideal man”, we will have to run Khan or other masculine subs prior to EoG, to achieve the dominance, masculinity and power.
On the other hand, there must be some kind of personality scripting to make the mindset of a millionaire.
What do you guys think?
I of course don’t know how the scipts of the Ecstasy stages will look like, but I’m sure there will be personality scripting in it. To accumulate a lot of wealth there will be certain personality traits that you need. One of the first things that comes to my mind is being assertive and determined. Most of these traits are masculine, however that doesn’t mean women can’t have them aswell.
I don’t think the Ecstasy will be you best choice though if tou want to be the “ideal man”. Khan touch on a lot more masculine qualities that aren’t really desireable for women hence it’s not unsiex. So in you case you can better first run Khan or Emperor.
I don’t have any inside information so I’m mostly speculating. If I’m wrong I’m sure Fire or Saint will help you further.
I’m getting into trading in the stock market, were some highly profitable traders interviewed ? If so are the names going to be revealed ?
@pakr93 makes a good point. For a man, some paths to wealth come from being assertive and dominant, a leader of men. Goes all the way back to the past when men were the leaders and warriors. And for a man listening to this sub, that would be great.
But for women it would be different. Yes, we live in a world where women can do anything a man can, probably even better. But a lot of it still clashes with their feminine energy. Some women have very little of that. Easy to recognize, everybody feels intimidated by them and she has followers, not friends. But hey, they made it!
Most women don’t want that. I remember a woman I spoke to myself. She got the opportunity to become the head of the European branch of a major international telecommunications company. Her job was to find out what was leaching the money. Every day, from the moment she took up her post, she was the target of plotting and backstabbing. She could handle it just fine, but it hurt emotionally. As a woman, she was sensitive to it, women would much rather be liked, since feminine energy is nurturing. But she did what she had to do. She rapidly discovered that not only was there a massive excess of upper and middle management positions, but they spent most of their time trying to secure their own position by targeting each other. She ended up firing pretty much everybody in management and replacing a small part of them. The results were phenomenal and she was offered to become the right-hand man of the company’s president.
However, the experienced had drained her. It had been so averse to her identity that she just didn’t want to do it anymore. So she instead quit, took her money and went to live on the ranch she shared with her husband. She just couldn’t find a place with that negative energy. A man on the other hand might have been right in his element. Law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, the Great Game. Bring it on!
Of course, she was well off to begin with. She and her husband had both been enjoying 6-figure salaries, her daughter went to Eton College in England and that ranch was visible from outer space.
The point I’m trying to make is that while men are often dominant as is their nature, women tend to prefer different paths. They traditionally search for care-giving, teaching or creative fields, like to work part-time and prefer not to rise too high up the food chain. It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they just don’t want to, it doesn’t feel right, doesn’t make them happy.
Well, point made.
Imagine they interviewed J.K. Rowling. The woman who become a billionaire after she got an idea while ironing her children’s clothes. 
Napoleon Hill would be proud of such straightforward manipulation of reality. We’re here for the long haul so we mine as well go after what we want.
The script enhances and molds your natural personality in the way that will best manifest wealth in your life. It’s not “unisex” in the sense that it ignores societal differences between men and women — it simply adapts to who you are and what you need.
If you find that it’s lacking a masculine edge (you won’t, bc it’ll enhance your natural dominance), there’s tons of options to stack with it. Primal Seduction for raw sexuality, Daredevil for social sexuality, Khan for the brave and the bold 
That’s yet to be determined. I had this grand vision of everyone we interviewed contributing to a video course or “master class” that we could’ve included as a bonus, but guess what? The moment I started bringing that up, I got tons of messages about profit sharing, licensing of likeness, only being able to use their video for a certain amount of years before having to re-license, and my favorite — something called a “most favored nation” clause, where we’d have to pay that person the same amount as the highest paid contributor. It was hilarious. Some of the ways they were figuring out ways to maximize their profit was downright brilliant, and all I could say to myself was: “This is why you’re rich.”
There wasn’t even one that simply said you could offer it for free as long as you made no profit from it either? I imagine there have to be some out there that are passionate enough about helping people become successful.
Any idea when this will be available?
This is exactly what I have been waiting for, so when do you take my money?
No, and I don’t blame them. You don’t get rich by giving things away for free. When you create something valuable that you spend your time on (the most valuable, yet finite commodity you have), you charge for it.
I used to work with a man that told me: “I’ve got wealth. I won’t do anything crazy or over the top for you, but I’m willing to share what I know if you’re willing to learn.”
His path to wealth was recognizing the best qualities in others and bringing those qualities out, earning their loyalty while adding them to his professional network. Anything you needed done, he would know a guy that was the best at it. Just the fact that I was invited to be a part of that network made me realize I am seriously good at what I do and it has opened up all kinds of opportunities.
There are people that strive to make money for the sake of making money, even if they already have more money than they could ever hope to spend, but there are also people that combine making money with (for lack of a better term) good karma. They seek the freedom that financial independence brings, but their passion is not making money. To them, money is as it was always meant to be: a means of exchange, not an end goal. They stop working at it when they have a few million, but by then the ball is rolling and it grows all by itself.
Unfortunately, he died of cancer last year. I can tell you though, he was surrounded by more friends than most of us will have in their lifetime, plus people whose lives he enriched and people he worked with that considered him the best boss they’d ever worked with.
If you find yourself in a position to help bring out the potential in people with only a minor investment on your part, why not? I’d probably be living on the street right now if I didn’t get free help. And guess what?I went back willing and able to financially compensate everybody for their help, and all but a handful told me the fact that I took the time to look them up at all to thank them was enough.
Maybe I just learned the right attitude from the right people. Or maybe you haven’t interviewed a wide enough range of people…
I completely agree because one of the metaphysical laws is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so you may not be compensated directly from those you serve.
Thanks for proving my point. I’m sure those people ended up referring a lot of business to him. So, as I expected and said – there was an exchange in value here. Direct cash may not have traded hands, but knowledge and time definitely did, and those are the core currencies of your life. Nothing comes completely free without any cost. We can write a bunch of paragraphs pontificating on the alleged merits of completely free exchange, but it won’t change the fact that there are very few people, if any, that gives away valuable things without any kind of value exchange, just as you showed in your example above.
What you’re attempting to do here is make some kind of moralistic claim that the exchange of cash for value is somehow immoral and wrong, and that altruism and sacrifice makes you a “better” rich person. Here’s the problem with that argument:
If this individual never exchanged cash for his services, how exactly did he obtain wealth? His strategy was simple – invest in certain people with qualities that he knew he could leverage later. That is not altruism. It’s a good thing, but not altruism. That’s called calculated risk.
There’s no “right” or “wrong” way to acquire wealth, no “right” or “wrong” attitude. There ARE mindsets that are conducive to manifesting wealth, and mindsets that will repel wealth. However, you’re exhibiting gatekeeping behavior with that comment – that not giving away things for free (even though there’s still clearly an exchange of value) – means that that person is doing something “wrong” and isn’t as “good.”
If you wanna raise the ire of SaintSovereign very quickly, start gatekeeping. At SubClub, as long as you’re not using our products to bring harm to anyone, you’re welcome to acquire wealth in any way you choose. That’s what @Fire and I set out to create – YOU get to choose how you live your life. Rest assured that there are no “moral” judgments in EoG, and we aren’t going to force you to acquire wealth using the strategy in the example above because someone (or society) believes that’s the “right” way to do it. Or, if that’s what you want to do, do it.
@Fire is working non-stop on it as we speak. Just got a progress report – things are going nicely.
Just remember what the Joker said in The Dark Knight… “If you are good at something, never do it for free”.
I agree with all the wise people here. If someone is creating and providing value, they should get value in return for it.
That’s not only fair, that’s what keeps progress happening in the world.
Don Draper had some good lines about this as well.
@SaintSovereign : You still have said if Ecstasy of Gold would be good to stack with Emperor. I’m loving Emperor v.3 right now. Such a good fit for a married guy like me who is in solopreneur mode and couldn’t care less about seduction or getting laid. That’s actually the reason why I was reluctant to purchase Khan (even though it looks really impressive).
How do you anticipate Ecstasy of Gold to work with Emperor?
Maybe I was a bit judgmental. If so, I apologize. We all perceive the world through our life’s experiences and I’ve been part of the Zeitgeist movement for too long to remain completely unbiased. I am very much aware of how a monetary economy works and know how to operate in it. I’m certain there’s still room for improvement (I’m here to learn after all), but I know how it works and I’m okay with that. Nothing is truly free and somewhere somebody always loses. It’s not a zero-sum game.
Obviously my friend was quite well paid for his services, given the fact that he owned a house in at least three countries that I know of (the one in Scotland may actually have met the definition of a castle). If you’d asked him for two months work, he would have definitely charged you an arm and a leg.
But if you had asked him to take a day or even a few days to help produce a video to go with EoG, the only demand he would have made is that you made it freely available on the product page, knowing full well it would likely get you more purchases and him very little (your target demographic and his are quite different). His wallet would not have noticed, he might even have used the excuse to go shopping in wherever you live. He loved flying. Maybe that was the value he got out of it, an excuse to do what he loved: talking, flying and shopping.
Apparently not conveyed very well, my point was not that making money is morally wrong (I’m even a big supporter of teaching kids badly needed money-literacy at school), but that I would roll my eyes if I saw a millionaire argue with a street vendor to get his one dollar and 13 cents change back. Did you really ask them for weeks of their time, or did you just ask for a little bit more?
The fact that I felt a strong urge to rant if you will was a gut reaction to your report of how you got tons of messages when even just starting to bring it up. As if they wouldn’t even let you finish the question before talking profit. That just got to me. At least let you finish and then calmly negotiate possible terms. In hindsight I suppose that indeed came from my moral center, so once again I offer my apologies.
Side-note: Ever seen this wonderful Paris Hilton clip? Watch what she does with her one dollar and 13 cents.
Back to the topic at hand: are the multi-stage products just as stackable as the “standard” products? Seems to me the multi-stages work better by themselves. Or that some stages stack better compared to other stages.
Well, wealthy people focus on value, not cash. Cash is just one way to transfer value.
She is providing value. Her gesture is unusual, so it gets attention, it entertains people, and that is providing value. It was spoken about it on major news outlets that many people saving lives and doing more “grandiose” things would never be on.
So she took cash, she used it to provide entertainment, and the market voted that what she is doing is valuable. So she created more value out of one dollar and 13 cents than 99% of people could.