On Anti-science

women_scam

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

As always, the motto of my philosophy: It’s not supposed to be “interesting,” “stylish”, etc.. That’s not how it works.  It’s supposed to be informative.

I REALIZE THAT HIS MATERIAL IS VERY OLD, & SOME WILL SAY “OH, THAT’S JUST OUTDATED NONSENSE”, HOWEVER, WE ARE LIVING NOW IN TIMES WHERE THERE IS AN INFORMATION WAR HAPPENING. ANYONE WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE THIS IS EITHER NOT VERY INTELLIGENT OR IS TOO BUISY TO BE AWARE. WE HAVE NOW AN EXCESS OF POPULAR ENTERTAINMENT & OTHER FORMS OF DISTRACTION TO OBFUSCATE TRUTH. IN TIMES OF MOBIUS – BEFORE THERE WAS MUCH OF THIS BOMBARDMENT – PEOPLE COULD BE PERCEPTIVE TO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS REALITIES OF PEOPLE & SEXES. IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN POLITE TO SPEAK OF IT IN SOCIAL CIRCLES, BUT PEOPLE AT LEAST UNDERSTOOD THESE RUDIMENTARY ASPECTS TO BE A REALITY.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS DIFFICULT TO TRACK DOWN SOME OF THIS SCIENTIST’S MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY IN ENGLISH. I ATTEMPTED TO TRANSLATE WORD-FOR-WORD VIA AN ONLINE TRANSLATOR HIS BOOK: ‘UBER DEN PHYSIOLOGISCHEN SCWACHSINN DES WEIBES’, WHICH ROUGHLY TRANSLATES TO: ON THE PHYSIOLOGICAL IMBECILITY OF THE WOMAN, BUT WHEN I DID THIS, BECAUSE ONLINE TRANSLATERS AREN’T VERY RELIABLE, WHAT RESULTED WAS AN INCOHERENT MESS OF SORT OF BACKWARDS & REVERSED SYNTAX, & SOME OF THE GERMAN WORDS COULDN’T EVEN BE TRANSLATED AT ALL. SO, I WILL HAVE TO LEARN GERMAN COMPLETELY FLUENTLY TO READ THIS BOOK. BUT, THERE WAS ONE EXERPT FROM THIS BOOK THAT I COULD DECIPHER JUST TO A VERY GENERAL LEVEL THAT IS RENDERED TO A PARAPHRASE OF:

The female weapon is usually resorted to the sheep level of the tongue & crying;

Cheap Insults, slander , anonymous Letters. The tongue is the sword of woman over,

Because their body weakness prevents them from physically striking. their weaknesses leaves women with the reality of turning the sport of civilized argumentation to a paradise of childish amusement for the woman.

It can be thought to the chase of animals. The cat chases mice down & exhausts himself of energy.

The woman has a calculating way with verbally selecting speech, & lieing is the naturally suited weapon of women.

What comes to mind upon reading the above transcription is the commonality of females attempting to detract one’s argument by harbingering unrelated or only slightly related concepts into the debate, or often resorting to striking in that of which is the most vulnerable when she feels insulted – rather than corroberating with rationality, attacking emotions instead. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it, “THE FEMALE HAS NO SENSE OF JUSTICE”. When a male feels insulted, he at least has the decency of perhaps, at worst, physically beat you, which then you can recover from within 2 weeks to 2 months. Females, on the other hand, will find vulnerable insecurities to strike, which can taint one for many years.

‘SLUTWALK’ IS ONE OF THESE OCCURENCES OF FEMINISTS’ INJECTION OF DISTRACTION. IT’S NOT ONLY A SUBCONSCIOUS GROUP EXPRESSION OF STATING WHO HAS THE POWER, IT’S ALSO A WAY FOR FEMINISTS TO CREATE MORE DISTRACTIONS BY HARBINGERING UNRELATED & NON IMPORTANT CONCEPTS, & IT’S ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO INDUCE EMOTIONALISM INTO REAL ARGUMENTS BY THE APPOSITION, IN ADDITION TO RUINING TAFFIC OUT OF MEGALOMANIA.

In other news: Recent information I have stumbled upon from an audio interview stated that psychopathy could actually be the next stage in “evolution” due to feminine selection; because females often select for arrogant males that tend to act on impulse, which is akin to traits of psychopathy.

So here’s an idea: study before assuming.

I usually don’t wish to pay credence to the mainstream media, but a particular story has raised my brow.

The mainstream “information” sources are spouted from people with no integrity who have the nerve to call themselves “journalists”. speak to you as you would a baby. They are pawns.The mainstream media is nothing but advertisement, pacification, & agitprop from puerility.

As cliche as it it is pronounced, blind collectivism is often a sickness & a form of dullness. Many initial maneuvers towards evolution have been brought by innovative & avant-garde thinking, either by wolves in sheep’s clothing or done by completely peculiar people

Simply put: How can you actually take the mainstream media seriously? Anyone who takes “information” from the mainstream media – the mechanism in which truth is often obfuscated & then further obfuscated by the perennial sloganeering minions because in such a case it is quantity of consensus that is important rather than the minutest of details – without questioning the tangibleness of it or considering the motives behind such dissemination is quite stupid.

As much as it frustrates me that M.R.A.s waste their time out of naively thinking they can have “productive” debates with manipulative feminists & related, still, I sympathize with them in their efforts to represent themselves as reasonable.

An M.R.A. named Paul Elam attempted just this recently when he was “interviewed” by a mainstream series called ’20/20′. The actual interview itself never aired because Paul Elam did, in fact, represent himself as logical & civilized. It was reported after wards that the producers, rather than airing the episode, probably due to deciding not to by proxy sponsor to the masses such ideals, wrote articles instead by taking Paul Elam’s words out of context & conflated the story. No surprise at all.

Funny how people can hijack things they’re not involved in & claim to “know” things.

Part of this mainstream bombardment into matters it does not belong are these disgusting groups of “women against feminism”. If you are perplexed, I will reassure you that these imposters are just “anti-feminism” because they don’t like other females being loud examples that exposes the secrets of female psychology to oblivious males. These “w.a.f.” cunts are just trying to preserve their secrets in order to maintain total mind control of males. They have no genuine concern for masculine perspectives.

I will abide by my stance that those who have a license to mercenaries are protected by no stigma; it is often the case (The proof of this statement is in the fact that many who would stumble on this statement would have their thinking process stall when trying to recognize such people with that kind of power.) that those who have power, politicians for example, can get away with many crimes or ill behaviour, while those who retain no power symbols could never get away with the same behaviour, or can even be looked upon as defective or criminal just for even uttering words. (I know this from my own experience.) Most people are generally like this: they overlook crimes, abuse, or bad characteristics of those who have power & they allow themselves to be moulded by whatever group happens to be in a position of authority to dictate imaginary laws, & females especially do this, so I do not fall for the illusion when “intellectual” poseurs, such as feminists, or their stupid suave counterparts, make their little critiques consisting of 10 sentences with added decorations, or smirk alongside a little shoddy reference point they can parrot, or whatever, that is mostly or all opinions & feelings, & then , of course, attend to things that are so far removed from anything cerebral in the aftermath. Going-with-the-flow is what feminists/females are good at, not intellectual discipline.

With the shootings done by Eliot Roger, Feminists, along with many poseurs & average idiots with an opinion who think they’re smart just because they have internet access, which is a good example of how in some instances the internet can actually make people dumber, have taken advantage of this incident, like the cheap liars that they are, & are trying to use this isolated, minority case as an example to try to conflate that all people involved in the “masculinist”, or whatever you want to call it, movement are representative of this sort of thing.

The mainstream is really good at reducing reports to the most simplistic level for an anti-intellectual mass.

The M.R.A. & related issues are actually a lot more complex than just “jealous/bitter guys who can’t get laid”.

I can not recall her name, but the feminist who represented ‘s.c.u.m.’ manifesto & attempted to shoot a prominent male in society was largely overlooked, along with most radical feminists who emphasize genocide of males.

It’s typical feminine callousness once again to make assumptions & accusations based on guilt by association & then to also try to manipulate information.

He had nearly nothing to do with M.R.A.s. I know this because I frequent M.R.A. spaces myself & there is a wealth of this confirmation within such spaces. Funny how people can just hijack things there not involved in & claim to “know” things. A minority case like Eliot Roger gets amplified by these fucking pedestrian morons who have the nerve to try to insinuate to “be suspicious of those nerdy guys” while simultaneously hijacking a nerdy platform themselves, while women cutting mens’ penises off is laughed at by mainstream culture & gets largely unnoticed. (Perplexed? Hence my point.)

Part of what being scientific is: the ability to discern reality for what it is without allowing feelings to influence that discernment. Some of the most basic truisms that don’t require technical analysis isn’t even readily apparent by mass culture. It’s scary that these unacknowledged plain truths are overpowered by the predominating instinctive culture that will inevitably weed out the real truth.

Science can be dis-balanced when it excessively dissects analyses only to create more gloss. This is the importance of being able to discern what is obvious & why I am emphasizing it in this. No gloss or care for tone found here. Just elementary, blunt truth.

Weeding of truth is by a desire to maintain what is emotionally gratifying for their ego preservations.

It’s safe to say that females take part in this ego preservation the most. Females love to maintain false images. That’s anti-science. Case: In terms of asking what they want, amongst many confused replies with rare honest answers, you’d get inconsonant answers ranging from statements to the affect of, & this is just cursory examples out of many: “men are too sexual, too nice, too domineering, too much like little boys, too busy”.Apparently they can’t be conclusive; if you’re overtly sexual, “you must’ve been molested”, or something. If you’re not readily sexual, “you must be sexually insecure”. This is the inconsistency & anti-science of females.One of my favorite ones is how they call certain guys “creepy” because of a diffident or even modest approach, yet don’t consider belligerent & impulsive approaches to be.They often insinuate males who “put them on a pedestal” to be “mentally ill”. You would think that females who are purported to be endowed with being more in tuned with “emotional intelligence” would understand that such males are in love & that is part of the natural process. Of course, it’s definitely healthy for males to be assertive with tough love when it’s needed, but someday, especially shown in the divorce rates almost always initiated by females, they won’t like the tough love anymore. What then? “Oops, I changed my mind”.

Females pull males in with false images, exploit them, & then discard them just like a black hole. Sure, the judicial systems are ran by males, but when the divorce industry abuses males all this does is test female character & reveals it. No one enforces these women with a gun to their heads. It happens often from womans’ boredom. Men could save themselves an average of 20 years of wasted time if they remain scientific firstly – a masculine trait, rather than complying with women’s absurd certification of “masculinity” as a combination of stupid & dangerous. Women will insinuate “you’re incompetent” if you don’t take risks/handle their idiocy. Women place demands on their terms first, which situates disorders in society.

My mother hates my father for concluding him as a “wuss”. She married him due to practical instincts, then takes out her frustration, because she hates being reminded of how often she makes errors, out on him even though it was her fault for marrying a docile man, who is, interestingly enough, like that because he was conditioned to always be passive because he was raised by a feel-good single mother. You understand my point now of how females perpetuate cycles of anti-science. This one he was married to would always play disgusting mantras of ‘The Beetles’ of “let’s all be happy & not think about things”. It’s the occurence of hating the argument because it’s anti-feel-good & then afterwards hating the non-debater because it’s “wimpy”. It doesn’t make any fucking sense, & the problem is monumental when the anti-science of females is in conjunction to the anti science of society.

Even the more logical females who will confine relational matters to practicality to only opt for the most successful, although their definitions of “successful” are often quite disgusting, of males for the greater love of their progeny than their husbands will try to emphasize that they should be treated like princesses with more consideration than prostitutes, but if we examine conventional female nature in general & the definition of a prostitute without any of the cultural emotional baggage to taint our rational, they are a type of prostitute.

We have to evade ideas of how females should be catered to. Think of how much of these problems would be controlled if we regarded them as what they are – objects for procreation/subsistence. Broadly, how to define masculinity is logic, & how to define femininity is subsistence. When either sex departs from these definitions, there is a dis-balance.

It’s addiction to the farce of feelings as good friends that leads astray.

Onto another important matter. I don’t like to gossip about other people because I’d rather talk about science & philosophy, but there is a point to this. You are possibly aware of the famous f.m.r.a. blogger Karen Straughen, a.k.a. Girlwriteswhat. I sent her my ‘Introducing Phallocentrism’ as to why phallocentrism is a much better impetus than either gynocentrism or traditionalism. Because she took offense that I heavily criticize female sexuality as artistically receptive, rather than rational, in it, she put a taint on my content in her “vlog” entitled ‘Feminist Shaming Tactics’ by insinuating that I was some sort of covert Feminist by stating that Feminists like to call art “faggy”. Nothing could be further from the truth considering how feminists love postmodern idiots. It just proves the whole point of this note entirely & shows that she can’t be trusted & that female nature is female nature.

What will bring scientific – masculine – impetus is for such mentalities to snap from complacency by, paradoxically, utilizing passion & hatred in a methodologically controlled manner. Hatred can be a healthy emotion if used properly. The scientific temperament is so detached that it puts them in a state of not caring about being exploited, which is poor logic.

One day you will be fatigued. When this happens, they will likely leave you. From an average of 4 – 40 years, females basically passively “nod” then flee due to something to the affect of boredom, leaving you stupefied & even more fatigued, or, in the average case: apathetic.

The term is hypergamy. It originates from India’s assigned marital system based on caste, but can be applied to a broader context. Meaning: she will always be ready surrender you for the next deal she intuits to be better. To paraphrase Carol Rhodes, author of ‘Friend of The Court Enemy of The Family’: we have to accept the cold fact that women start most divorces. Straight from the fucking “horse’s mouth” since she’s a women & works in the legal profession. Go buy the book & see for yourself. It’s an extremely easy read. ¶

Don’t get angry at females’ misbehaviour, & you will be interpreted as “pathetic”. Do get angry at females’ misbehaviour, & you’ll be perceived as a “bad guy”.

Only stupid males are not mistrustful of females.

Females will usually try to say that they like these males they can call “intense” because such males “show that they can stand up for themselves”, & they might even believe that due to delusion, but the real reason is because females can derive entertainment/histrionics from such types because females are so pathetically bored due to poor imagination. There’s no reason a male should show that he “can stand up for himself” in our more civilized society. He can simply walk away.

They are also anti-science & philosophy because females are naturally collectivists, which is then further habituated through generation when the trophy of courting is sought after in multitudes.

It must be understood hat what is alarming about the human female is that it is not what is observable that matters as much; it’s what is latent that actually matters the most. If every single male was a millionaire, you’d see more males being exploited mercilessly & drained of all resources with females making extra effort to get much more. It’s the latency that needs to be scrutinized. Gynocentrism’s latency does not create an exactness of what the core of female psyche would absolutely create; there’s the better half called men. Regardless, there are corollaries. If females could opt for more evil males, they would, but, because males are generally better than females, moralistically, intellectually, & otherwise, what remains is mostly respectable males being exploited.

Just like how they rearrange decorations, females have a tendency to rearrange things around in order to make themselves more comfortable. Real definitions get rearranged, such as: logic is “gay”, or something stupid like that.

There are 2 types of people, at least that I’ve noticed. The type that regards pleasure to be of ultimate value, who can be prone to conflict with others when their pleasure is threatened, & the type that regards truth to be of higher value, who could also be prone to conflict, although generally done in a much more civilized manner, with others if their truth is threatened. When the former is confronted with the latter type, since pleasure is of most concern, the latter is then described as one who is “too passive to get one’s pleasure”, then comes the iconographic assumptions that one is sentimental. No, it’s logical.

Most would state that I’m just “sensitive” & that’s why I “can’t get laid”. No, most people are sensitive because they need those distractions to keep them away from the thoughts that would ruin the warm little feeling.

In other news: I have gained some psychology info. – neuro linguistic programming – that stated that one of the most “important” strategies for success for the male in terms of approaching is something that was termed as “preselection”, meaning: the male had to show high value by emphasizing that other females regarded him as a commodity fetish. This makes perfect sense because of my own anecdote to share; when I was younger & still caught in the illusion & still meddled with these stupid animals, I remember my extremely attractive companion made other females, some random females, & some females I had known but just regarded me as some lone loser before, stare at me, approach me, & show respect for me, even doing favors for me without my request. Very little logic with them, mostly instincts.
This is linked to how females feel insulted when males find something for themselves to be preoccupied with that doesn’t include them, females’ ochlocracy, superficial symbolism, & inclination to seek validation from other females: “I’m going to start this project, what do you think about that guys?”; “You go girl.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s