Thrive

January: +920 pips 20W 1L +10.88% Everything called before I place the trade on my instagram story. No secret community, just a showcase of what I can do. #us30 #xauusd

HyperTicks LIVE with Tradethrive - Live Prop Firm Futures Trading x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Bith accounts copy traded after passing @BlueGuardiancom Almost time for payout #XAUUSD

@JamesWynnReal Shorts are done. I JUST BOUGHT 4 BTC. Aint much but its honest work

$BTC / MARKET MANIPULATORS

@cem_hasoglu ok I will start with 1M$/mo to skip the hard 50k/mo👍

$10k/mo is hard $25k/mo is easy $30k/mo is easy $50k/mo is hard $100k/mo is hard $500k/mo is insanely hard $1M/mo is easy $10M/mo is hard

@AtifHussainOG money is also lost in the exits, few understand this

The money is made in the exits, not the entries.

@OmarAgag6 I chose to place alerts on my trading view instead.

Wake up Stare at a chart Wait Wait Wait Take a trade This is the career you decided to pursue

@andrew_nfx @JamesWynnReal

The fastest way to blow your account? Over-leveraging Revenge trading Ignoring stop losses The fastest way to grow it? Do the opposite

@Capital_Hungry Hello I can't read I am a bot commenting on your post!

What's happening markets snapshot

@theRealKiyosaki Please explain how those assets can "3x" when you're measuring them in dollars that are supposedly crashing. Extra question: If silver is priced in dollars, and dollars are collapsing, how is it possible for silver to rise slower than the dollar is falling?

Do not say I didn’t warn anyone. As predicted in my book Rich Dad’s Prophecy (2013) the biggest crash in history is coming. I am afraid that crash time is now and through this summer. Unfortunately, millions, especially my generation of boomers will be wiped out when the stock and bond markets crash. The good news is millions who are proactive may become extremely rich… and as you know….I want you to be one of those who become very rich. Over this summer, as stock, bond, and real estate markets crash….billions will rush into gold, silver, and Bitcoin. The biggest bargain today is silver. In 2025 silver may 3X. The better news is silver is still 60% under all time highs…. still about $35….while gold and Bitcoin are at or near all time highs. Tomorrow I am going to my local gold and silver dealer and trading fake money for real silver….no ETFs….the biggest bargain today. Silver is priced around $35 an ounce which means almost everyone anywhere in the world….has a chance to grow richer…while millions grow poorer. What are you going to do tomorrow….grow richer or grow poorer? Please choose to get richer. Take care.

After a +49% uptrend, the mass is still heavily bullish on $BTC . The perfect exit liquidity is here for bi-directional investors. Many sell scalps opportunities will be there. One is right now. 107k very difficult to breach #BTC #DayTrading

@SJosephBurns Not many people are actually smart

What causes so many smart people to be such bad traders? 👇

@joelampton_ Most retarded thing i’ve heard all year

This is why Samuel Onuha got arrested. I'll break it down for you guys. Onuha isn't a drug dealer. He doesn't even enjoy cocaine that much. You see, men want to fuck. The extra stuff like going to the club, afterparties, buying cocaine - this is for the girls. Onuha was buying drugs to entertain hoes. The hoes insist for this all the time. Their dopamine receptors are destroyed. They cannot have fun watching a movie, or even getting drunk. They took drugs since their teenage years and cannot operate without it at 22-23. They start saying things like: "Noooo I don't wanna drink vodka...I'm bored let's order SOMETHING" "Wtf...there's nothing to sniff? I'm going to another party then..." "My friend said she's bored, we'll leave to another party in 10 minutes.." Onuha took the risk and had drugs at his parties because he wanted to fuck the baddest bitches and wanted to create the perfect circumstance for this to happen: Nice clubs, nice house for after party, drugs, best drinks, best views, best vibes, Dubai. Unfortunately, due to bad luck, police caught him. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

@Hunter_Maven First one makes you a billionaire in a few years

Would you rather have a 90% with rate 0.5r strategy Or A 30% win rate 2r

@Devon_Eriksen_ @Cobratate Aint reading allat

Okay, time to break this shit down again with some prehistorical context. Andrew Tate, in this video, gives us the what. Here's the why. Tradcons don't know what marriage is, or what it's for, because they think "traditional" means 100 years ago. The white, Christian, European model of marriage isn't traditional marriage at all. It's a redesign. A redefinition of marriage. It's Marriage 2.0. We'll see how in a minute. First we need to admit that marriage isn't instinctive. There are species that mate for life. Sandhill cranes and whatnot. Monogamy isn't a struggle for them. It's instinctive. They just do it. Humans do not instinctively mate for life. They just mate. The men mate when they can impress women, women mate when they are impressed by men, and the women of the hominid pack babysit each other's children. Fast forward to the beginning of the neolithic era. Now, all of a sudden, there's actually something to own. Fields. Cattle. Buildings. Wealth. And men owned the wealth, because they were the ones who did the stuff you need to do to get it. Why the men? Because men have to impress women to mate. All women have to do to mate is be impressed. But since property was how neolithic humans survived, and men had all the property, mating arrangements had to adapt, so that a mother could eat, and a son could be raised and inherit his father's cattle. If a man put a child in a woman, she was his wife. If he put a child in another woman, she was also his wife. If he put a child in a hundred women, he had a hundred wives. And those women and children could rely on his spear for defense, and his fields and cattle for support. That's marriage. If you want to understand this in context, look at the part of the bible that says a man who rapes a woman must marry her, and may not divorce her or set her aside. Sounds insane if you look at it through the lens of modern American romantic comedies and Disney movies. But ancient people didn't care about romance and mate choice. They were busy trying to survive and build civilization. So this was simple logic. It wasn't some sort of bizarre punishment for the woman. It was simple, practical life-support logic. You unwrapped it, you bought it, now pay for it. It was a matter of the rapist being held responsible. Sure, might not be her favorite choice for a husband, but ... so what? Pretty much nobody back then had the luxury of romantic notions. This is what marriage really is. You put a child in her, you're responsible for her and the child. So, if we look at this Andrew Tate video through the lens of what marriage really is, we see that he isn't a "deadbeat dad" or a "single father". He's a rich man with twenty wives. Under this model, he's living up to his responsibilities just fine. Fields and cattle for support, spear for defense. Those are the actual responsibilities of a husband. Not remembering anniversaries and birthdays. Not flowers. Not making her "feel special", whatever the hell that means. Certainly not changing fucking diapers. So what happened? Why was marriage redefined? And why did that redefinition work so well for the west? And why has it recently stopped working for the west? Because it has stopped working. Even to the point where baseline fertility is being destroyed, and men like Tate and Musk are retreating to Marriage 1.0, which most men don't have the money to do. Every historical change happens because of technological advancement. Humans don't get smarter with successive generations. They don't get wiser, and they don't get morally better. They just accumulate knowledge, and can do more stuff. Traditional marriage (polygyny) requires a high male mortality rate. Because X and Y sperm are produced in roughly equal numbers. This isn't an adaptation, it's just an outcome of the way sperm are produced. That means that if the most impressive men have lots of wives, and moderately impressive men have at least one, then it's mathematically inevitable that there are some men who can't have any. Under primitive conditions, a lot of these men die trying to become impressive. The ones who survive impregnate all the women, and the next generation is born to repeat the cycle. But what happens when successful civilizations push technology and wealth to the point where men's struggle to be impressive doesn't carry the risk of death? Well, with more surviving men, you can build faster, create some really cool shit, and upgrade your society. But you need to motivate those men. How are you gonna get them to work and build and fight if they aren't going to be rewarded with wives and a chance to build a legacy of their own? And if you don't motivate them to participate, you just let them rot, then you have a lot of angry young losers who can't get laid hanging around. And you are in danger. Why do you think Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism and jihad against the west, on the sly? Because they have to. If you have a surplus of angry young sexless losers, you better have someone to channel their resentment against, or they're going to channel it against you. So tell them the west is the author of their humiliations, and that they get seventy-two virgins if they die fighting. And they go off to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a bunch of better trained and better equipped white Iowa farm boys, and they get mowed down like winter wheat. Problem solved. Now your society is nice and stable for your old rich polygynous dudes. But a major reason that the west can kick ass and solve your surplus-male problem for you is that the west figured out how to make use of all their men. Without having to kill them. The west figured out a way to make less impressive men, average men, into valuable workers instead of mulch. How? They instituted sexual communism. They got rid of polygyny. Oh, there was always some wiggle room. There were still some losers who couldn't get laid, rich dudes had secret side chicks, that sort of thing. But forcing the polygyny dynamic into the closet kept it at a sustainable low level. And the system wasn't perfect. Hell, Europe had centuries of bloody religious warfare because some celibate Italian neurotic told King Henry VIII that he couldn't have more than one wife. This was straight-up retarded. The political stability of an entire nation, and the lives of many of its people, depended on Henry VIII having a son. And they literally refused to parallelize this vital process by having him bang more than one woman at once? Really? Point is, monogyny wasn't and isn't universally a good thing. But it does have advantages. It makes your whole male population productive. Men won't work, innovate, or take risks if they can't get laid by doing so. They'll get a part time job delivering pizza, then sit on the couch smoking weed and playing console games. Or become revolutionaries. But the big question is... how the fuck did the west get women to accept monogyny? That would be a strange question if you look at reality through the lens of rom-coms and Disney flicks. After all, isn't monogyny for the benefit of women? Doesn't it mean they don't have to share a husband? Well, no. Musk, and Tate, and thousands of other rich and powerful men throughout history, have given us countless examples of how this just isn't true. Women want an impressive husband. A winner. And if you are impressive enough, they are perfectly willing to share. And why shouldn't they be? Fields and cattle for support, spear for defense. Sharing that with your sister wives doesn't dilute it if there's enough to go around. The women of history were not universally and unilaterally oppressed. They simply wanted things that would be unrecognizable and incomprehensible to the modern liberal. So how did the west pull it off? How did the west get its women to accept mediocre husbands, for the benefit of men and civilization, over being part of a king's harem? They had to change how women saw the world. This isn't as hard as it sounds. Women's instincts may be just as set in stone and intractable as men's but one of women's most important instincts is the instinct to follow the herd. This means that they could be reprogrammed. And they were. How? I'll let Shakespeare explain. “Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee, And for thy maintenance; commits his body To painful labor, both by sea and land; To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, Whilst thou li’st warm at home, secure and safe; And craves no other tribute at thy hands But love, fair looks, and true obedience- Too little payment for so great a debt. Such duty as the subject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband; And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, And not obedient to his honest will, What is she but a foul contending rebel, And graceless traitor to her loving lord? I asham’d that women are so simple ‘To offer war where they should kneel for peace, Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway, When they are bound to serve, love, and obey.” This is it, right here. Male supremacy is the secret ingredient that made western monogynous civilization work. Women wish to bear the children of impressive men, men whom they look up to and admire. Not men they regard as equals. So, if you need average women to mate with average men, so that those average men will join your civilization and work, you must persuade the average woman that the average man is her superior. Doesn't matter if this is correct, or incorrect, or subjective, or undecidable. Don't bother arguing with me about it. I'll just laugh at you because you've missed the point. It doesn't matter if you can actually do anything your husband can do, backwards and in heels, or whether we just have a bunch of loud feminists convincing you that you can. What matters is that if you believe it, you will love your husband less. And that if everyone believes it, fertility rates will plummet. Like they are doing right now. That's it. That's the secret. The reality, if there even is one, doesn't matter. What matters is the perception. A gaggle of women are bearing Andrew Tate's children because they believe he is their superior. While feminists are refusing to breed because they condition themselves to see men as their equals, and often, really, their inferiors. It's not about women's rights. Women can have all the same rights as men do. Changes nothing. Elon Musk's wives are all wealthy. High status. They can do anything they want with their lives. They choose to bear Elon Musk's children, because he is not their equal. He is their superior. And that is what women like. And this is why there is no creature on earth more miserable than the white liberal feminist. Her ovaries demand a man she can look up to. Her social conditioning demands that she never submit to or even admire a man. And yet these are the women we have pedestalized as hyped-up girlbosses, based on no accomplishments in particular other than having the credentials we gave them, and occupying the positions we put them in. It's not working. The reason we have a fertility crisis in every modern industrialized society is that we couldn't resist the temptation to make women equal to men, so we could move them into the workforce for cheap labor. And when that happens, when they can secure an income and buy a home just like men can, whether it's because they actually have the chops to fill men's roles, or whether we merely gave them silly jobs for serious wages so they could play career... ... then they lose interest in breeding with the average man. So we have a choice before us. And I know what you're thinking. This is another breathless X post, where some pundit once tells us, oh, we have a choice between this thing I want you to do, and the end of white people, technology, and western civilization. Which is really not a choice at all. No, I mean we have a real choice. Two options. Benefits and drawbacks to both. Marriage 2.0: monogynous western civ marriage with sex roles and sexual communism. or Marriage 1.0: total sexual liberation for women, rich men with harems, surrounded by disgruntled broke guys who can't get laid. Marriage 1.0 allows women more sexual freedom, and the ability to have either a career, or Ghengis Khan's baby, whichever. But you have a lot of angry young dudes you can't recruit into the workforce, and your overall fertility rate will decline, because most men aren't rich enough to play this game, and won't be with women in the workforce competing with them and dropping the price of labor. Marriage 2.0 brings back the powerful engine that made western civilization dominant over the globe. But in order to get there, you have restore men's place of primacy in society, and this is a very tough pill for liberal idealists to swallow. Nature, however, doesn't really care. Women only want to mate with achievers. So, the more you try to tweak your society so that both sexes are equally accomplished, or at least appear equally accomplished, the less babies you get. And the more you get Marriage 1.0, as women gravitate towards sharing entrepreneurs and rock stars, because those are the only men they still admire. Women's expectations and mating habits are the primary force that shapes every human society. But what those expectations are is shaped by women's urge to follow the herd. So what they see on mass media matters. That's the choice and how you make it. Either you start shaming women out of the rat race by the same methods you shamed them into it, and you get whitebread cookie-cutter Marriage 2.0 back. Or you don't. You do nothing. And you get real traditional Marriage 1.0 back, old testament style except with the term "baby momma" substituted for "concubine", so it's less classy. With declining fertility rates for the majority of men who can't make it into the big pimpin' class. Throughout most of history in most of the world, this has been the norm. That's why only thirtysomething percent of men have descendants alive today, compared to eightysomething percent of women. Pick your poison.

@arielhelwani Big if true

"UFC didn't give me anyone. I told UFC I will fight anybody, even unranked opponents, but no, they didn't give me anyone. They wanted me to wait." Song Yadong on his involuntary one-year layoff from the UFC octagon.

@GeraltUy @arielhelwani Dana is a notorious liar

@arielhelwani Dana said they required to offer 3 fights a year. Who’s lying ?

@MomoForex Waiting for results to appear I know I get them and will continue getting them but the waiting part is annoying after all

💭 What’s the biggest psychological challenge you face in trading?

This it?

@Hunter_Maven 5 new prop challenges

5 New prop firm challenges Or 1 Funded?