Understanding Female Psychology With The Deciphering Of Symbolism

male_female_brain

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

The point is to understand female psychology on the macro not to be negative, but to try to objectively treat it the same way a zoologist studies a lion with tranquilizers, etc..
Evaluating someone’s hatred & supposed level of  being “disgruntled” is usually a tactic to try to use an ad hominem against that person that hates – an attempt at trying to get the dissident to try to appear or say something that will be interpreted as alarming; “see, that person is not calm. That person is hysterical.” When actually it is the interpreter who is closer to being hysterical because that person could not receive the realist information with the same level of divorcement & willingness to probe the truth without twitching. Being concerned with someone’s hatred is influenced by the ignorant masses. Even if that hateful person is disgruntled, so what? Does a paper on reality lose credit because some coffee was spilled on it?” Are you bitter? “This is obviously intended to not gauge a person’s degree of enlightenment, but to try to instill that that person is in some way emotionally or mentally “sick.”

If I’m going to be literal, of course I hate them for their actions, which I have experienced. Leaving subjectivity aside, one can check the statistics & my experiences are universal, both for those who are in cognitive dissonance & those who have accepted. I would only fear admitting that I hate females if it would potentially jeopardize what I needed, such as a job interview, or some “honorable” position of having some trendy faggots accept me.A person at a higher plane of thought knows. As the saying goes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. If a trait is universal to females (& not to males to the same extent), then it would make sense to hate (or perhaps more accurately: vehemently despise) women for the actual fact of their being female, with all the skulduggery the feminine entails, without waiting around for proof of what is already self-evident and recorded by wise men from history. This is actually the more truthful and more righteous approach. It is in a woman’s nature to be despicable, thus she is to be disdained for her very existence.
Even amongst those supposedly not caring to be accepted by the trendy, the question of hate is used as a pretense of “trying to understand”. This instance is really just a sneaky, arbitrary test of “character”; “are you “civilized” enough to not be shamed?” Thus, that question is very literally a female borne social device to test how one is deemed as “proper”. It means basically nothing.

One thing I’ve noticed is that Female M.R.A.s &  often use the history & science (quite poor science actually compared to more  phallocentrists/androcentrists.) as a way to pardon the nature of females. What is funny is similar arguments could be used to help convicted felons of other crimes. Female M.R.A.s love to try to twist meaning by saying “hatred is obsession”; “you only think you hate women but you are actually so concerned with the problems due to loving them.” No, I really do hate females. F.M.R.A’s are nothing but whores who would usually not give their loyal husbands what they would a wandering Don-Juan loser who hypothetically happened to climb in through their window.

Females’ brains are different from the patrilineal. They lack capacity for abstract thought; they are unable to comprehend absolute justice, forbearance, morality, truth, logic, honor, etc., hence their better ability to intuit what is naturally their own trade when a male tries manipulative tactics on women & how they identify with Don-Juan types that use such tactics even more artfully. The theological stories of female sin causing female-hood enmass painful birth & degrading menstruation is an allegory, but, more bluntly, basically, most females are like males with damaged prefrontal lobes – mentally between being a pre-adolescent boy & a sociopath, or an alcoholic of many years.Theological parables of ‘The Bible’ are not to be taken literally. The ancient common folk had a much better understanding of human nature unequivocally, however, they only had the metaphors & tools that they had to work with. Eve “ate” of the “tree of knowledge,” retarding man from the higher realms connected to man’s higher anatomy. The “tree of knowledge” is man’s generative riches, which only his nervous system branches with such knowledge, not Eve’s. Eve ruined mans’ capability for higher knowledge, keeping him in simple sensory bondage, & activities extending to it, which otherwise would’ve caused man to use Eve much more functionally, because females are of Satan, or what Buddhist purists would call ‘the daughters of Mara’ – those who have the faces of Boddhisatvas but are demons who cut off the seeds to enlightenment, as the ancient purist Buddhists divulged. Because females have a fascination with evil, whether they’d admit it or not, The serpent tempted Eve to cause Adam to fall. What this garbled symbolism parallels is that Eve – female-hood – ordained Adam to her scattered rhythm, not the other way, which is the healthier way.

Women can beguile and subvert only the men who love them, never those who hate/know.

Hatred is a disposition of being conclusive, regardless of how that hatred is shown – with a calm temperament, with a clown suit, with anger, doesn’t really matter.

You would have to understand how phenotype & genotype works to have a better understanding of the following explanation of how female sexuality triggers the “patriarchy”.

Popular entertainment is not a 100% accurate depiction of reality. However, it can reveal values, or lack of, that a certain demographic may hold. Interestingly, the only form of popular entertainment that features “rapist or criminal equals hero” as a common trope is in romance novels written by & for, you guessed it, women.

’50 Shades of Grey’ just proves our unhealthy society, & especially female nature. It is a depiction of most females’ desires to passively extort from a dominance hierarchy. ¶ Even if they aren’t genuinely interested in this lunacy, it still proves that females are degenerate because their willingness to go-with-the-flow of whatever is trendy in a culture proves their amorality.

Akin to the argument that incorporating violence in sexuality would “alleviate” violence in society, many idiots will also claim that asserting brutish force on females keeps their unruly ways checked, but the truth is that this only fosters the cycle of what females trigger – barbarism.

It’s safe to say that nature through females is set to keep males emotionally constrained so as to ensure our return to a paradigm of them benefiting from us shutting off our rational mind to please them. One really has to dumb himself down, creating majority cultures for males who are not controlled by their instincts/libido to not have a social union due to not much common interest; parties are nothing more than just random noises accompanied by strangers so that they can have an excuse to mask their true identity, or lack there of, with alcohol &/or drugs & antics. Broadly, males evolved to learn that shutting their rational is a sure way to please females in order to get access to them. Broadly, If you remain rational, you’ll likely offend her in the courting process and lose opportunity. The negotiating is how the male is conditioned that being rational offends her and decreases chances with her. The result of the negotiation over time is the gradual cessation of rational thought that brings more chance with her. That is “emasculation”, so to speak – just utter mindless instinct..

There’s all these other pretexts in the book series ’50 Shades of Grey’, but really, let’s just realize that gynocentrism perpetuates degeneracy, & that the pretexts are really masks that females can have as excuses to indulge; supposedly, “She’s obliged to help this broken man alleviate his frustrations by allowing him to use her”. I have not read it yet, but have heard from other sources the story of that series. Female demographics identify with the main female character who leeches off of a male who has been conditioned to become highly barbarically competitive – double win. The truth is not solely found in the secret symbolism, but also in how the female demographic live through the main female character; in other words: she’s an “innocent” naive female who will get lucky with a rich male who has been taught – much like a vicious dog becomes so from abuse – to be ruthless, thus relieving any guilt of the main female character, & THAT is what sells to the female audience. This story is a symbol of ordination & control of men sold & packaged as control of women. If there’s any truth to the statement “women are emotionally stronger”, in addition to giving birth, this exemplifies it well in how females yield their ability to trick males into thinking they are “all-understanding” to really just use males – female psychology & sexuality camouflaged.

Actually, female psychology is really not that complex. So to rhetorically speak,The “mystery” is that there really is no mystery – a void. Female psychology is simple

Feminists like to complain about this movie & book series, but, especially since we know tha most of those same Feminists are secretly fond of it, let’s understand that it is a story written by Females for females.

Amoebas don’t blush. In other words: when people know they’re being experimented on, they often change their behaviour. “Only a 36% claimed to finish or like it”. Firstly, do we live in a society of people who actually tend to finish books? Females go on all kinds of impulsive spending sprees. Secondly, those who claimed to not like it, either were trying to maintain an image, or perhaps it just wasn’t sickening enough. Consider how many females read this but are just not speaking about it. Consider another percentage who aren’t participating in the survey but hold the same pro stance. Consider another percentage who have never heard of the book but is desiring it regardless. Consider another who has just not been introduced to it.

There is a high number of female commentators on this story who will proclaim that it “glorifies oppression towards women”, or something like that, but the truth is that it’s an attempt to steer the thoughts about female psychology towards the wrong direction.¶ I hate how the philosopher Stephen Molonoux tends to miss the point entirely in a few of his segments; “It glorifies violence against women”. The main problem we should focus on is how it glorifies female preference.

The writer received thousands of letters thanking her for allowing themselves to liberate their secret fantasies. It is such secrecy that has thrust many males into lassitude.

As reports of conduct during screening of the film gather, It gives an unearthing, at least only to the alert ones anyway, of female psychology.

Not always well known: Very similar to how predator-&-prey attitudes operate in prisons – that one must show he will not be taunted in order to earn respect, females are the most prominent holders of this attitude in less explicate levels.

Obviously, females are much more emotional. Their emotions come first & then they rationalize their emotions. Males do it the other way around. Females extrapolate their own personal experiences as a “higher” guide for most of reality. The highest of importance to females is how she feels – the selfish disregard – & trying to discover new things about why she feels those ways. With this selfish disregard, this is how they weed out logic in their lives, unless, of course, that logic is superficially practical. By millions of years of adaptation & then re-enforced social conditioning, they are hardwired to be primarily concerned with mostly themselves. That is how their addiction to novelty stems from & how they emphasize how things make them feel & how the society reflects upon that.

Anecdote: I remember during the period that I was slowly discovering the truth, there was a night when I had walked by a bar, for completely unrelated reasons, & heard the cyclic advice being shared outside: “You gotta be kind of a dick”, & then I cynically thought: they’re going through that reoccuring degradation. These guys could be doing something more productive.

Jim Goad, who was a part of marketing his “hipster”, contrarian style, stated that when he was released from jail he had more sexual conquests than in any other time because females were attracted to this latest legacy. Just search for a video clip: ‘Speaking in Tongues – Episode 9’ ( with Jim Goad for a more precise finding.) & skip to ~ 8:05.

I have gained from other females that some who have issues in life of knowing they cause havoc, or an irresistible desire to control everything, will seek an extreme opposing circumstnace (rape) as a sexual fantasy. Forced sex fantasies can be a way to release feelings they are unwilling to accept. Such feelings are being relieved by distraction when control by another is taken away. Sometimes it is the only way to derive sexual gratification for them. It relieves the secrets for females to have. It’s a way of “sweeping it under the rug.” They mix this form of “punishment” with intense adrenaline rushes & pleasure with negativity as a means of masking thoughts & realities that would normally cause dishonor.

The point of the following is not cheap entertainment, etc., but to make a distinction between general female sexuality – “political” – & general male sexuality – corporal. Sure, there’s some variation to the latter, but it is linked to bodily inclinations. It is its “primordial” state before the cycles of cultural conditioning & feminine behavioural influences.  You won’t get a realistic understanding because females are anti-science, & they have been monopolizing socializing for too long.
Mine is revolving of facial & oral sex, both giving & receiving. I like faces very much – a face fetish.
Males are fond of body parts & visual enhancement of such parts. The general male brain has been reported by science to be much more visually oriented with conjunction to systematizing. [Citation: ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, page 301.]

I have very high testosterone levels, so my sexuality is all-natural & kind of “excessive”, I also never had my four skin removed, which has interestingly caused osome others to think that I was “molested.” Fucking idiots. That assertion comes from the fact that we live in a society addicted to lamer forms of entertainment, so there’s a lack of knowing how to experiment well, & so masculinity is not allowed to flourish, not on masculine terms anyway – garbage & acting instead. I’ve been with females who had the nerve to imply or ask if I was molested when I introduced my sexuality to them, then they would indulge in their more extreme sexuality when the mood was different. If realism is understood, 75%(+) of American males have been molested because of genital mutilation. I have more proof regarding this in private. “But what does this have to do with female nature when it’s the patriarchy literally stripping away part of male essence?” Natural selection has instinctively been gynocentric of the past & recent, as females have been waiting for offers & checking what they do or don’t want. Remember: humble, rational males are “creepy”, “pathetic,” or useful. It wasn’t planned, & that’s my point – feminine instincts. Gynocentrism just continues instincts.

Just like how I explained in another article on social engineering how attempting to destroy the family unit only made female nature better known, you can sometimes learn from evil. It’s a form of scientific experimentation. Many males can attest to how doing certain things to females will bring out their latency. In this context, females are more likely to be receptive to the profaning & reactionary character of males who have been perverted by circumcision.

 Emphatic: female genital mutilation is a minority case, therefore, I do not write about it other than in stating: nobody should have their genitals mutilated, not even the idiots who implemented the practice.

An instant reply would be: This is the “patriarchy” doing this bad stuff. Well, that’s true, but the “patriarchy” was selected by a matriarchy because females prefer reactionary males over intellectual. In order for phenotype of the gene pool to be superior, females should be disenfranchised.

There’s an article on Shedding-Of-The-Ego-dot-com you can search that states that fibroblasts & the cosmetics industry is bizarrely connected to the profitable business of baby foreskins.It is of high demand for the cosmetic industry to produce creams that makes skin appear younger. The ingredient used is fibroblast cells. Fibroblasts makes skin regrow elasticity & have a rejuvinating appeal. The most potent source for such cells is baby foreskins. It has been reported that a singular baby foreskin contains fibroblasts that are worth thousands worth of dollars. Harvsting for gynocentrism, implemented by the reactionary “patriarchy,” a piece of a baby’s body part that can not grow back is sold to the highest bidder for profit.

If you think that’s mythical, consider how they process soaps from fats.

Oprah has even endorsed such a lotion.

Companies are making a market by using fibroblast injections that promote skin enhancing protien called collagen, which is scarce with the elderly. Companies wish to compete with the billion-dollar botox industry. With the botox industry using injections of toxin that makes users look constantly shocked & can cause life-threatening botulism, fibroblasts from foreskin cells is likely a good competitor. Very, very bizarre.

If you were to verbally analyze to most females that they should be disenfranchised & only allowed very basic rights, females would be infuriated, hysterical, laugh at you, or something like that. However, if you actually employed this by action, most females would be very happy. Encouraging females to be sexy – fit & supple – is extremely easy in comparison to what is done to males, & is actually a health benefit for females as well as relieving them of additional tasks from the tasks they already have of being concerned with their bodily functions & sensational states, while females encouraging males, not even honestly, which makes it even worse, to be restless & opposing is unhealthy.

I’ve even directly heard from females that the appeal is not just the power-display, but also the fact that such a male would disregard etiquette because he just couldn’t resist her.

We need to analyze female psychology for what it is, laugh at it, & stop promoting it because it’s ordaining absurdities in society.

Further: Without wasting too much time, If you can probe to the core of meaning by peeling away the aesthetics, you are highly intelligent, & also mentally immune to manipulation & the ruining effects of infatuation. There’s a difference of having one’s mind stuck on enjoying an aesthetic & actually being able to analyze it. Before you make the dismissal of “it’s just a movie,” I will school you: Yes, The series ’50 Shades Of Grey’ (More like ’50 Shades of Black-&-White, Crystal-Clear Truth’.) is a work of fiction, which is part of my main point. The actual title should’ve been: ’50 Shades Of Greed, Sexual Attraction To Violence, & An Illogical/unrealistic/Feminine Projection/Reversal Of Masculinity – Bipolar & Histrionic.’ You can not capture the mind of a female integrally. You have to drastically adopt their impulse to do so. As some tantric practitioners would say all for the traitorous claim of not having fear: you’re going into her domain of pure emotions. Meaning: you’ll be confronted with uneccassary aggression, etc.. Sure, although it’s not my personal preference, they probably have some good sex sometimes, but it’s not real submission by her. It’s fake. Not only does the theme written by a woman & supported by, statistically, females ruin what masculinity is, even the title ruins what obscurity is – feminine scattered cognition labeling itself as “grey” – obscurity, but it’s really just barbarism. Real obscurity – shades of grey – is male thought processes – the abstract. These greedy projections is a fucking “cartoon” which shows they’re real greed. This work of fiction is not a cerebration of accuracy, but it is an ideation that many females want, which can be analyzed quantitatively, just like a scientific survey, just a different model. It’s statistics.

What exactly is the rugged/Alex Grey archetype. A rugged man, without the sex appeal that females have glamorized, but actually objectively, is nothing more than an abused/struggling male.

If you want a demographic analysis, make a quantitative analysis of ’50 Shades Of Grey’. Pornography for females is not nearly as visually emphasized. A large part of female pornography is literature. Even an emphatic part of that story is that the main female character is blindfolded. Visual stimulation is more of a masculine emphasis, hence male fetishes of body parts & objects much more common. Simulations – actions, however, are much more apart of female sexuality.

Aside from the point that b.d.s.m. is just really bad, clumsy sex due to circumcision, which I have given citations to in another article, done by the “patriarchy,” which was set by female-hood because females have been weeding rationalism, there’s been reports even from the b.d.s.m. community that the series ’50 Shades of Grey’ actually depicts that lifestyle in a bad way, & the reason that is is because it’s a projection from the female author of what she thinks it should be.

He gives the main female character the meaningless garbage that she wants. A true male controlling would have his female companion, not one that’s easy to dictate because she’s mediocre or ugly, doing errands & supplying him with tools, like an apprentice – a true servant, not this fake kind. This fake “submission” is one that females use to rate a male’s performance to give her novelty. This wrong rendition is given to the culture by females’ prerogative, ratified by females’ in-group preference, immature sexuality, which is often the state of paraphilia – fantasies of randomly being blind-folded by gun-point, etc. – that is frequently natural to the general female that has inundated so much of the culture that males have been influenced by it (This has nothing to do with being “timid” or “puritanical.” It’s much more complicated.), amorality, & poor logic/aesthetics, which is continued because, due to the fact that many males do not want to have the stigma of not being able to be certified by femininity, especially because gynocentrism makes it “uncool” to be intelligent, there is a scarcity – fucking traitors – of males to reset order. Sure, the main male character of that series is authoritarian, but what does he do with his authority? He devotes all that effort & time to the devotion of her. The fundamental theme of that series is “more, more, more” for her – how much sensory experience can she extort from him.  Instinctual or otherwise, It is the natural trade of the female to instill misleading imagery; in this case a relationship that only on the observational level makes one believe that the female character is subservient because of the b.d.s.m. imagery, but she is far from a maid figure, partly because female-hood has twisted the “motherly” figure to have connotations of caring for a weakling, never a hard working male or a male with a separate life of his own. Females frequently twist meaning to suit their agenda, & because they have so much power in society, they alter organic truth. Unfortunately, how the stupid b.d.s.m. phenomena works is because it entraps (no pun intended). It works in the same way that one can not easily stay awake if one is entering a deep sleep.

I’d rather have real sex – sloppy, disgusting, slimy, sweaty, filthy, organic, instead of preparing all this equipment. She should be the one prepackaging,  not I. I’ve experimented with it before to discern what the hype was, & it really wasn’t that stimulating. Yeah, I have to admit, there were some moments of heitghened stimulation, but, mostly, it’s just disheveled, clumsy, & unskilled. I’ll use an analogy: When listening to a c.d., I don’t want the recording to skip. B.D.S.M. is just a digression that makes sex “skip”

The female rape fantasy/b.d.s.m. (Doesn’t even deserve to be typed in capitals.) /s.&m. paraphilia is not just an appeal of many females only because it is a symbol of cave-man, physical protection, power, & status – that’s only true to a smaller extent, but the fundamental reason is it’s a symbol of abstract protection from herself. A male who can indicate that he can provide her with the most extreme forms of novelty & performance is an indication to her that she can have distractions readily available to her to ward off shame & anxiety from herself. Most males can attest to the fact that females can’t handle being just slightly bored or a little uncomfortable for just barely 1 minute before moving on to something else. They try to weed out logic largely because they are insecure with themselves, & society largely revolves around comforting them by habituation.

In order to understand why females should be disenfranchised, I suggest that we should understand female sexuality as rooted in politics & drama, while female psychology being, which is linked to its sexuality, rooted in amorality & poor logic.

You, as a male, don’t have to conform to her fake submission. You don’t have to compete on her implied desires & hypergamy. You can do the weeding process. Does she conform to your ideals, or does she expect you to give her what she wants? You don’t have to pretend. You don’t have to degrade yourself by performing. You don’t have to gain validation from her. You don’t have to do her implicit demands. You don’t have to meet her at such-&-such. You can make her come to you. It’ all about you. If she’s not willing to conform to you, you wouldn’t want her anyway, & that is how the totally alert selective process works, instead of employing a facade, replacing your frustration on other males, & ruining your masculinity. Don’t comply to her plans, except for essentials, because they’re bad planners.

Males are more noble than bad, occasional mistakes, sometimes some defective ones. We’ve organized the world in our each own way. But now largely in western society we are seen as lower than a dog, largely due to projections of female nature.

The funny thing is is that the ‘Alex Grey’ archetype that females secretly fantasize about, which is not so secretive anymore, is most likely the type of male who would be in jail, which are usually chivalrous, or prison – the type of male that scientists – “beta” males – have discerned to score on the low scale of i.q. testing, while “beta” males to score on the higher rating, & females tend be just average, so this inaccurate idea proves the scattered, childish thought process of female nature. Most males who are that successful are so called “beta” males – doctors,etc., & the rampant divorce rate, or at least a grueling nagging relationship, started by females’ amoral plausible deniability is because such “beta” males can not give what females often secretly want. Unfortunately now though, not knowing how to truly fix things, a large percentage probably will, just like how some males entertain such a facade due to insecurity of how the female will consider his organic nature, & also parallel to male marketers who have taken advantage of this aspect of female psychology, try to become this retarded, cruel “ex-convict” who just somehow magically “reinvented the airplane & marketed it” – rather: a very stupid male who inherited another “beta” male’s money – a scattered feminine archetype as a “Billy Madison” with a good body & the emotional impulse of a woman, who is also her vicious, being inculcated from early age to “tough it out”, “man-up”, guard dog, & we can’t even accept that women are the cause of problems in relationships. It’s so obvious.

The archetypal “conservative”, not to use politically, male is usually just a subsidiary to her, which I will give more citations to when I have more time. They have a dichotomous preference; they might have use for the productive, logical males, but they’d give more to ex-convicts, etc..

Why make pop. culture references? If you are confused, you don’t understand my anti-aesthetics philosophy. It’s called being 100% alert & objective always, as well as integrative. It’s called knowing-your-enemy. Aesthetics is my enemy. It’s not an enjoying/allowing of aesthetics. It’s a deconstruction & negation of them. Don’t think that I only make such references. I also type about science & other studies. It is not for the sake of being witty & entertaining. It’s the opposite. These are psychological studies, & they can be found in places you don’t realize. The point is to discern propagated waves of demographic psychology, either mass facades, false beliefs, &/or some accurate reportage delivered in different symbols, as well as how demographics think, or, in these cases, don’t think. This is another archetype: In the film ‘Forest Gump’ the main character is taken advantage of numerously by a nihilistic female. First she leaves him to experiment with some “gypsy” losers, then comes back to him years later after gaining a.i.d.s., & also gives him her child with a.i.d.s.. Most people don’t analyze it because it’s entertaining/aesthetic.

Divorce is plenty rewarding, & not only do lawyers additionally compose the biggest licensed block in the majority of legislatures, many judges are also laywers. When David C. Morrow was writing an essay in 1983 about the phenomena frequently happening in the divorce industry, he wrote many state government representatives seeking statistics on their legislatures to be applied in the anti-lawyer newspaper entitled ‘The Truth.’  He learned that these sleazy licensed villains comprise a hefty amount who are also senators, barristers, professional legislators, & assembly bodies. Little has changed since that time.

 The issue of many laws is to incentivize females to divorce with guarantees of estate & material resolutions, mortal assistance, child custody, & inheritence profit while judges neglect their own orders in instances of females violating them, & reject to support the fathers’ rights. So, to increase the amount of money to their even then inflated profit, lawyers expropriate offspring of feasible security & bid copious females to take their youth through perennial procedures of continuous weddings & transient affairs, making the child injustice epidemic anti-masculinists beguile to lament.

The prestidigitation of anti-masculinists, which promotes the goals of the legal system, is to encourage that most females remain infantile with havoc & symbiotic on the welfare state while dupe to do the contrary. Because they can readily use from the next abundance, this Breeds the acclaimed “empowered” women that they don’t require male help & has given women more governmental free stuff & stolen men’s pensions. The matriarchy falsely fronted as the “patriarchy” permits women to live immature sexual lives, without consideration for the bad results for men, but also for condition of children. The causatum is to ramify men to be forsaken suitors, worthy only of service for the probable protracted ex-wife, & offspring misused & abortable. Then the father will be blamed for all the problems because he allowed himself to be interpreted as incompetent by traditional standards, especially with the factor of him being the natural protector of the offspring.

These paragraphs typifies how the effeminate/anti-science/anti-truth “patriarchy” is basically enacted by femalehood’s collectivism. You really have to question why it is that sociopaths breed, & why such meanings of sociopaths are basically non-existent & other meanings altered, when females are the ones choosing these enactments they apparently identify with their conceit so well. Their enactment of this is a model of the present cycle of false “patriarchy” contrived by matriarchy, which was earlier set in motion by females because they are the choosing repository from which their fastidiousness for their particular phenotype springs, which, in turn, is transmitted in the human breeding pool, repeating the cycle. Do I really have to repeat the ’50 Shades Of Greed’ that females subscribe to? It’s due to the intrinsically wild animal-like nature & hidden meanness of females to coerce/denounce, usually vicariously, what is too intricate for them as “bad”,  consequently huddling with males that can act like them &/or are stupid like them, which then occludes & misuses what isn’t like them, & then those who aren’t like them will often, often barely noticing of the series of actions that influenced it, become maladjusted.

A male-centric paradigm shift predicated on male logic would rid of much corruption in society & create a corrective congenital substratum. In other words: don’t give rights to females & make them slaves (possibly apprentices as the minority ones) to a science-absolutist-based/masculine society so as to guard that it does not become occluded. I vaticinate that most of them would rejoice in such chores anyway.

Phenotype incorporates biobehaviour in the similar way as how a bird building its nest is influenced by a combination of the mental & cultivated inheritance from successions’ interaction with it’s environment & other association.

Nomenclature of the level of civics limits understanding of technicalities of the processes in which organisms are integrated. Civics by non-realist standards is mostly just pseudo-intellectualism. Real intellectuals are not concerned with repressing their tone as “painful.”

Disenfranchising females would prepare them as better receptacles for better development.

 

Citation: ‘How Women Manipulate – Essays Toward Gynology’ by David C. Morrow, pg. 66

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