I Was Interviewed by John Steele for His Channel

I was interviewed by John Steel for his channel.  No, that is not him in the picture with me; that is Mark “Barney” Greenway of Napalm Death.  If he happens to stumble upon this, he might not be too happy to be talking to such a staunch… well, whatever it is that I am.

Towards the end of the slideshow is me with former friend Nick, who, in spite his shaved head and Doc Martins, is no more of a “skinhead” than, I dunno, Trigglypuff?  That guy mooched off of me for years – whether it was for beers or rides to gigs – so I’m not exactly upset about not having him in my life.  Like your typical, easily triggered SJW, his reaction to my support for the Donald was similar to how a guy reacts when his girlfriend tells him she’s been knocked up.  Good riddance!

Anyway, this was a fun interview.  John Steele and I discuss a whole bunch of stuff; the effects of feminism on modern society, multiculturalism, my time hanging out at the RNC, meeting Milo, the brazen dishonesty of the mainstream media and of course what it means to be a Savage Hippie.

Please listen!

The Other Explanation For Hybristophilia/Stockholm Syndrome, etc.

mtv_loser

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

GG Allin was a punkrock artist (scam artist, whichever you prefer) who was huge in the underground scenes from ~80s-90s. His antics & his violence were consistently excused by the usual pre-dominantly female whores because, in their eyes, his violence, rather, the symbolic violence of the vanguard party, were a ‘righteous’ violence in that his exhibitionism had some kind of purpose, albeit shock.
I’ve typed before of this stupid hippy culture, which is basically adoption of feminine traits.

I think this interesting theme that “masculinists” are exploring in the female whore psychology tends to oversimplify that behind the violence that female whores are attracted to, even among the so called anti-establishment anarchic punk-rock whores, is the fact that it may just signal power and dominance, but even much more so than that, I believe it is a major craving for novelty. I believe that the protection-provision factor is really the “beta”, if you will, interpretation, but the “alpha”, interpretation is just resonating megalomania, which we know females are. A cultural anthropologist, which I’m not promoting because she’s not that revolutionary or anything, Hellen Fisher, (Must I really search for citation in my collection. You should put faith to rational types instead of celebrity losers.) also expert on dating, has stated, from the typical humoring/indifferent point, that dating is not about honesty & rationalizing. It’s about novelty, excitement, &, of course, disgustingly, danger which can boost dopamine levels in the brain. You can give plenty of citations, & the feminists & related will still try to deflect & humor. Males know how abstractions work though. Citations are important to make reports stronger, however, you don’t need that “crutch” to validate every single thing. You can derive more truths from a given presentation; if one thing means this, then that also means such-&-such – making the connections. It’s called thinking. I read it a long time ago from an on-line article on dating with the tag Hellen Fisher. This explains exactly what the modern man has been pressured into. The importance of more abstract, philosophical thinking, & I will claim I’m more of a philosopher than an actual scientist, & philosophy comes before the science – you can’t have science without it “sparking” the science, I knew already before ’50 Shades Of Greed’ was a vastly popular series that that was the way females are. It’s actually a very unrealistic fantasy of the female mind & even a projection of how they actually are. The majority of males aren’t purely like that – bipolar, cunning mind-set, & histrionic. It’s females who are “macho,” often hidden. It’s only until after that series became extremely popular that scientists decided to do more research on study groups, but, again, from the philosophical, with maybe some shoddy, Platonic additives, abstract reasoning – connecting the axioms, I already knew that.

What originally triggered my anxiety disorder from teen to early 20s; I was struggling with this vague idea, then thought: “No, that can’t be true.” Afterwards I just gained depression & coped with it wrongly – bad chemical prescriptions, which is too impractical to type the whole process, which only made my anxiety disorder worse. The observers have mistaken the effect for causality, but the causality was actually such realizations & how I could steer/alienate myself from all the bad influences.

You have to understand it by the context of what violence means of it’s totality. Words have multiple definitions. Of course, not all of them are like that, so it doesn’t concern them, but the point is is that MOST of them are of some percentage from subtle, moderate, to extreme. Search for documentaries of G.G. Allin. That guy got females instantly. & I know directly by learning-from-experience because I was raised in stupid “Mtv.” loser culture. Many females are drawn to the phenomena of Stockholm syndrome, etc., simply for the cocaine-high. In fact, many women actually leave productive, logical males because they DON’T cause commotion.

There’s a reason why intelligent males are cautious of you dumb animals, & it’s because you keep perpetuating various versions of this ’50 Shades of Greed’ garbage. But how could you understand that if you’re not actually siding with intelligent ones? Just because you’re with a female who gives the surface-level notion that she’s cooperative with a more functional male, that does not mean that she isn’t waiting for Mr.-ex-convict to replace you.

So when I had my anxiety disorder due to many complications all influenced by the gynocentrism, in my teen years, I tried getting rid of it by fronting a music project. It was purely for psychiatric reasons, & once I had fixed my problem, I was going to do more important plans. The problem was I was actually trying to fix the problem the wrong way because putting myself in the disgusting “hippy”, whatever you want to call it, culture, which comprises of ~75% of people from age ~12-~40 of different versions, including “rap-ghetto-thug”, only contaminates because females basically own that. They call it “confidence”, but it’s really just obliviousness. The complete way of fixing the problem would’ve been if I had this knowledge when I was ~8 years old, then I could’ve saved myself a lot of trouble & what traitors claim to be learning-by-experience, which is really just an excuse to be like a woman – a nihilist going-with-the-flow. When you really think about it, who’s really the first one to promote & introduce to you these dumb, unproductive ideas of “Want to smoke pot”, etc.? A lot of times, it’s females, & they’ll also ostracize you if you don’t. I’ll even type majority.

It’s a combination of both a symbol of protection & provision, but also a major fundamental point is novelty. Sometimes the novelty is the only reason.
These acts themselves trigger some sort of recognition of power, dominance, hierarchy, yes, the very elements that these scene queens claim to stand against.
Think about it this way, when I was young and got a peek into the idiocy GG was doing on stage, would that have an equal significance among the punk-rock girls if the same obscene antics were being carried on by a seemingly less intimidating person with less muscle mass and bone density, or no status, less “exotic”symbols? Would the “purposeful,” “righteous” violence of a socially inept, un-stylish, as well as crippled individual in the scene render the same kind of attention and significance? It wouldn’t. It’d be dismissed or hold much less significance compared to GG. And that’s the point. Behind the violence & acting, it’s the females’ biological attraction to megalomania, no matter the social and political dogma, mainstream or otherwise.

I have been saying that for many years, which was only received by those types of idiots I used to associate with: “I disagree because it makes me feel bad for you”, “I’m going to interject for attention because it’s a vanity contest,” “I think you’re using a lot of words because you’re jealous of my ego,” etc.. & the same typical bully interpretation of “That’s a nice little critique/get a life” because they’re so fucking naive & traitorous. Same as the suburban hip-hop loser; “This fool coughs like a little bitch.” It’s really just the fact that they want to be naive.One person has stated to me when I gave him this info.: “I really don’t understand how you and others can divorce your emotions from all these rather troubling revelations.” To which I responded: you know, what I do is I just work it out by getting a tan, etc., & like get drunk at bars to speak at a woman’s level. No, but, jokes aside, I’ve actually treated these troubling revelations by trying to use freedom of speech in public, which is a really bad idea. If no oblivious males come to her rescue, she usually transfers that schooling as “flirting”, or thinks you’re just trying to be funny. We have to make sure that “masculinists” schools mostly males because they are the oblivious tools which females use. Females need male obliviousness for power. You eventually overcome the depression. You just get desensitized to it.

I’ve actually even been treated as a “threat” before & made to look like a bad-guy because I WASN’T participating in the contest.

To give a little history on the whole punk-rock/”Mtv” loser/poser culture who basically missappropriate an identity mark that doesn’t belong to them – being the archetypal “loner nerds”, etc., who get harassed by “bros”. Most of then are actually those “frat/jocks” in just a different uniform. G.G. Allin wasn’t anarcho. If you follow through this silly history lesson, there’s a pattern. He was punk-rock-`n-roll & some hardcore. Anarcho is another sub-genre of pseudo intellectual bands that claim a lot of politics – the type that a lot of these females claim to “believe” in, then when given the choice, they suck the cocks of G.G. Allin types.
I have seen & experienced this pattern so many fucking times; females have been following this trendy phase of entertaining the archetypal different Ian-Curtis/Joy Division & Nick Blinco of Rudimentary Peni interest, but the truth is is that they’d take ‘The Meatmen’. In fact, when I used to be unfortunately involved, I had my own different approach, & all those “jock”/”frat” idiots exploiting the identity that isn’t for them retaliated against me. The problem was that when I was infected by all that “poison”, I couldn’t articulate it well enough because the truth was all suppressed, & we all know who’s responsible for that, & I just became a clown.

So there’s the quick-fix someone would try to sell you – “Just earn a good amount of money & she’ll follow your lead”. You do that & you’ll likely get stabbed-in-the-back. Even if there isn’t a ~65%-~75% chance, there’s still ~50%. & after learning female psyche. for what it is, why would you want to be a servant to that & promote that way? This disgusting story needs to be given, even if it is isolated: This guy saved all this energy, time, planning, & money for cross-state meeting. She then cheated on him because “he put her on a pedestal.” & this was also another one of these “Mtv.” retards. She claimed to be a “mystic”, or something stupid because she heard a couple of rap songs about the illuminati, the mafia, whatever, & had some green hair. You get the idea. He obviously showed that he was capable of devising organizational skills, & all that – ruined. It’s really because his obviousness made him appear “weak” to her. “Oh, but that can’t be true because the new Aphex Twin song that they’re playing on the hot-dog shop.” Last I checked, she was actually with a guy who did put-her-on-a-pedestal, but I know she’s waiting for Mr. ’50 Shades Of Greed’ to replace him. It’s just their fluctuating identities & the fact that most of what females say isn’t even anything real. This fucking dumb whore thought that she had some kind of authority just because she had some tattoos, smoked marijuana, & belonged to the pathetic, bored, “yuppie” losers in “weirdo” costumes.

One thing I’ve learned from studying linguistics is that there’s a lot of patterns & versions of the same things, & you have to realize that all these smug, lame people confined to a related lifestyle, activity, or something particular, they really don’t have the-big-picture, & they frequently ruin the actual big-picture.

This is the basic pattern of various ways of terms to the arguments: “You’re boring, you’re a pussy”. Logic & the morality derived from it is “extremism”. “That’s just generalizing.” People haven’t learned this branch of mathematics called generalizing because they’re too preoccuppied (bad spelling) with the stuff I’ve repeated. They continue cycles. The ever desperately running out of deflections: “You copied-&-pasted”/”It’s fake.” It’s “fake” to them because they don’t even really do this learning-by-experience that they claim to do. It’s actually deflection by distraction. “Hysterical” – deflection by shaming – if you’re a male, “it’s always your fault.” “You got to learn to train women”. If you don’t do that, you’ll be a “whimp.” If you do do that, you’ll be a bad-guy, & that’s how they call authority for defending, which only proves a various version of the hybristophilia. From the outside-looking-in of those oblivious males, they think they’re being “heroes” because they’ve all been chasing this “confidence” thing – obliviousness. They have no idea, or close to no idea, of what’s really happening. The police who defend them when a male uses gives them real logic & morality are the biggest naive, little-kids there are. Most of what they know is paper work, the n.b.a finals, & taxes, etc..

To paraphrase Warren Farell: Even among rebels, artists, & punks, it’s the “alpha” (as much as I hate that concept because, like the word “hipster”, it barely has cohesion.) who gain acceptance.

This is just the tip-of-the-ice-berg.

Science gave birth to civilization. Philosophy gave birth to science. Art gave birth to philosophy, at least sometimes. They’re still stuck on that primordial pre-birth, if you will. There’s so much science hasn’t even popularized yet.

Of course, female sexuality is anti-intellectual. She wants you to be that “police officer who alarms her on 3:00 p.m. & uses excessive force on her for resisting arrest.”

I wouldn’t even be surprised that if this were to become more obvious, the “Mtv.” idiots, as I like to call them, would switch to saying “naaw really.” because of the feeling that it’s a challenge to their vanity. It doesn’t even really matter what you’re saying because they’ll incline to not like you for saying pretty much anything because it takes the focus away from them.
It’s all just an issue of them being addicted to entertainment. They argue, but not because they care about what’s right or wrong. The real motive is that they don’t want the good time to be ruined. Last time I made enemies because of all this, they pretended that it was about philosophy, but it was really just motivated by a territorial attitude. You couldn’t even make points because it was a “dick measuring contest” of what you’ve done because they’re still stuck & “contaminated” by femininity.

“No, it’s all fake because porn is too entertaining for this to be true.” No, it’s the reverse; Disney-Land & Mario-carts is fake.

Some might give you some elaborate or sophisticated sounding philosophy, like Sartre, or something like that, or they might give you some political points, but what does that directly have to do with natural psychology, sexology, science, etc.? You wouldn’t even be able of uttering the word sexology without them thinking you just contrived it.

You know exactly what I mean, you people with a lack of integrity. You’re the first ones to claim what I do is a “veil of semantics”, yet I’ve just made all these metaphors simplified for your level.

“You just can’t get laid.” No, there’s serious problems that have to be fixed, so I’m not just going to forget by seeking pleasure.

True, scientists are not conducting elaborate studies on the macro so that it could be taught in elementary school – the period it should be taught, but there is accumulating anecdotes that it’s obvious now of many versions. They’re not willing to accept anecdotes though because being an obvious & rational male makes you look “weak.” “You’re supposed to be an actor & competitor in the sports-tournament.”

People are not going to take me seriously because “It’s my fault” that females have a good way of masking – “that’s generalizing” (what partly caused evolution was the capability of noticing patterns & making general rules) – that they want, which they often don’t even realize themselves, an ex-convict Mafia-member & making noble males servants to their ill-integrity, infantile ways, & bad logic, etc.. They might claim: “that’s just some of the bad women”, but the truth is, whatever they claim, if they’re given the offer, they’d take the “ex mafia member who’s willing to go back.”

What really worries me though is that if there was a mass schooling for females, would be if they just changed-shape because that wouldn’t be good enough; it wouldn’t historically record enough.

Search: What Fifty Shades of Grey Readers Have In Common – Stefan Molyneux

On Oxytocin & Stockholm Syndrome Of Context To What Is Problematic

oxy_stockholm

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Stockholm Syndrome is much more common with female nature. It’s basic. It’s elementary. Let us omit another typing of that. I also get sickening sensations in my chest occasionally when I think about sinister aspects of female psychology in conjunction to experiential learning do to some persona experiences which is much too impractical to type about, so I have to control it periodically. This is not what females & gynocentrists would call by deflection “emotional hysteria”, etc., to insinuate that I was too “incompetent” & that it was “my fault”. It’s actually physiological triggers – Conditioned Reflexes – Ivan Pavlov – standard psychology. There are misconceptions that I type from a complaining manner of how females desire success, (or displays of success) but that’s not actually what I do. In fact, without typing another whole long section of their hypergamy – greed & lack of integrity, that’s probably the only admirable trait about females, when it’s not a bad type of success, & their care for babies. The only occasional complaining in my philosophy & science is how females basically tainted me, such as giving me such conditioned reflexes, etc.. It’s become a very burdensome task for me to occupy, with only more ignominy from the gynocentric society & perpetual eluding, because females are mostly just observational, by females after they gave me these problems.
What is the purpose of typing the obvious of the following 2 paragraphs? It’s integral to the paragraphs afterwards. I repeat points because people tend to miss them.
Conventional scientists will politely call female psychology as “empathy”, but this is just amorality.
As a general rule, females are constantly waiting for the next better deal, as indicated in the literature pornography they masturbate to of ruthless psychopaths. They essentially weed, including when already involved with other males, to get to these positions inaccurately glamorized as an archetype of “elite” – “honorable”. It’s very unrealistic. Are they giving 6 children to “boring” accountants? Don’t believe in it when they state, it’s about opting for the best for the potential children. This is just an excuse for females to be greedy. It doesn’t even necessarily have to be a better deal. It could just be some aggressive idiot implying sex.

Females don’t know how to socialize because of the very fact that they confine their mercurial interpretations to degrees of what they classify & waver as simplistically alternating back-&-forth of positive-or-negative expressions (possibly occasional neutral). The idea that you can discern how worthy a male is by his apparent confidence is not definite. It’s a very ad hominem way of interpreting. It’s like how people make their professional life personal, & because of that interpretation, believe that a job title always defines who they are as a person. Females’ claim of worth of being “emotionally stronger” & sexually stronger, implicitly, makes a mental codification of falsities & ad hominems of other males. They really are just the sex, mostly.

Either subconsciously or not, this euphoric, confidence-producing cocktail of oxytocin that most of society drives itself to is also what causes much vindication of feminine n.l.p. level of expression & collectivism. Essentially, a culture of immature-kids greedy for gold but not knowing how to manage it. I have heard from social psychologists a long time ago describe this aspect of feminine collectivism as the “gold fish in the bowl” principle; meaning: the brightest gold fish in the bowl attains sex from another female fish, then other female fish automatically want to have sex with that goldfish because of the fact that those other female gold fish see that he has attained sex. It’s astounding how this zoological axiom can describe the juvenile feminine level of n.l.p.. It happens frequently; females observe the newly acquired confidence a male gains when sexually involved, then desire that male or impinge themselves – more drama. It’s also in reverse when one or a few female peers don’t like a potential male partner, all or most of them won’t like him then. Taste replaces what they should do. I’ve had some strategies ruined this way due to what was likely jealousy when I’ve approached females, maintaining my focus on one female with no regard to feelings of exclusion. I’ve been involved with females simply for connections & nothing else & it was already well established that the association was purely for connections, then when I had an extremely attractive companion, they all of a sudden got jealous that she was getting attention from me, even though these other females had no sexual interest with me, then resorted to a passive aggressive maneuver of trying to embarrass me in front of that companion because the female associates felt excluded. They easily feel excluded & have very little respect for others’ stations; “So this guy at work today rubbed his elbow on my shoulder for 1.5 sec., so I’m going to gossip about it for 3 hrs..” “That’s cuz you aint alpha, bro.” I guess I’m not alpha because I don’t deal with the tasks of un-productivity.

Those who do not have true standards for quality imply something to the affect of: “Well, why aren’t you doing it like everyone else/you need to get laid”, etc.. The gynocentric communities is basically that. Many of them internalize frustration, rather than accepting the root of their frustration – gynocentrism & female nature, they internalize this & instead attack other males as “fags”, “virgins”, etc., especially to other males who aren’t amused or impressed, or other males who, yes, have a passionate sexuality, but still favors higher pursuits firstly, such as science & philosophy. The latter is a completely alien concept to them because they’re still functioning on the “libido”.

I understand the biological probabilism, but both nature-&-nurture are a part of realism. We’ve been influenced & bombarded by the masses that we should necessarily seek these archetypal super-model types who are ego driven to make themselves believe the delusion that they are exceptional, yet they’re really not accomplishing anything. We’ve been raised to a large extant by the narcissistic culture, proclaiming that their way is the best & main way. After experimenting, I’ve concluded that the extra effeminate type is ideally much more controllable with myself. It’s a problem when the culture has “molested” us into thinking that what we don’t actually want is what we want – the “alpha-bitch”, for a lack of a better description, with tons of opinions & excessive acts. Hyper effeminate females can display these traits as well unfortunately because females are more prone to trends. Could it be that these more masculine “alpha-bitches” have, because they take more precedents of a larger portion of society, inculcated excessive notions – competing with her extra nonsense – of what it is to be an “alpha” male? I think most males, alpha or not, would much rather opt for a hyper effeminate female with “no personality”, for a lack of a better description.
I’m not trying to type to you that you should pursue serious relationships with females per se. Although I’d like it, with what is true about female nature & the way the system truly is, there’s just so many “land-mines”. I am not in agreement of what deflective people, especially females, would try to emphasize that it’s always “you’re fault/ “you deserve to be ruined if you’re worthless” as a tactic to oppress the science & philosophy. What I am typing is that you can apply knowledge to your control in the “chess-game” & minimize how you would normally have to alter yourself to the point of savage vernacularity or high-strung lunacy.
I will admit, as much as this reads as a dick-measuring-contest, no, I’m typing about science, & excluding for this particular article the neuroscientific axioms in regards to sex, I’m not a super, hyper masculine male in biological terms, such as very thick & boxy lower jaw, etc.. I’m pretty masculine, but not hyper-masculine. Therefore, with that realization in conjunction to knowledge, I know that, referential of hormones, I would not want a female who is more masculine or equal to what I am. I know that extra effeminate females – females that are ~4.8 ft., etc., tall, timid, & are mesmerized by males that give them attention – are a much better option. These types of females also tend to have tighter vaginas. This is a better strategy for hyper masculine males as well because such females are just easier to associate with. Why conquer a “giraffe” when you can get a “bunny”  that is less combative? This is not every female. It’s a specific type. However, since this fact of extra effeminate females is a generality, if you happen to encounter a masculine female who also has such personality traits, you could possibly use that to your control.

Much too proud females, for example, who would do something like mediocre blogging on the internet are the exact type to stay away from. They give males false hope with their agreement of some objectivism, mediocre literary usage, & mixed with latency & scatterings. You think that you would want one like that, but you really wouldn’t. These super-model types pathetically glorify themselves because they, essentially, have an aspect of themselves that is not whole of feminine. The super-model types are the ones who are much more prone to predominate over your life & even ruin it – predominating by over inflating talent/inflated acts for a lack of real importance. Any one & everyone has talent. What is the validity of this talent nearly everyone over-fetishizes?

This is not pick-up-artist, etc., persuasion. This is more associated with Mark Rudolf’s: ‘How to Handle Women’.
The fact of Stockholm Syndrome more common with females is disgusting, however, you can use this aspect of female nature. Employ scientific experimentation. It works. It’s not difficult, only tedious. The more to poll, the greater the probability. It’s just mostly basic hormonal science. It’s, simplistically, an immediate demonstrable rote of her tiny height, lessened gossipy influence, really high pitch of voice, some extra passive receptivity – extra amount of oestrogen making them cooperate much more, but you must be alert 100% of the time & prescribe her by a ration-approach type of routine in a setting with much to chose from – malls, etc., of making her prove herself to you if she’s ready to randomly receive you without delay, she has reduced competition & suggestions from others, she’s mesmerized by you just coming to her, she doesn’t have fustian opinions, she’s receptive to your anecdotes, & she has no desire for her friends to estimate you. Try it for yourself if you doubt me. You’ll be able to verify it. You have to be sexual on a central level though because they’re mindlessness needs direction & they long to just be desired, & once you’ve given them amazing sex or pleasure, it’s easier to control them. If she’s not willing to try you, you don’t want to experiment with her anyway. Recurrently, I will reiterate: If you don’t believe, you will have the proof for yourself after a practice of an average of, depending on other occupations, 3 – 4 days, then you’ll be able to confirm. It requires rife approaching though with the wary psychology that if she’s not willing to quickly give to you or is too rigid, that’s a swift indication that you need to weed her away anyway. Males have a tendency to have more commitment – integrity, which unfortunately ruins male planning because females don’t have the same decency, so males should employ a different process. It’s all a process of you weeding swiftly & collecting rather than trying for longer weeks(+), & with bad parties of other males contending for females & other female peers opining what she should do. The procedure is that the male cultivates constant alertness & genius mind. She humbly cultivates sex appeal. It reads as immature, but it’s just rational. The other unavailing ways would be of you equal to her, &, of course, the typical traps. be Inovative or repeat like the others & perish.
In the beginning period, ignore her futile narrative by methodically “agreeing” to get what you what you want, then after you’ve gotten what you find is efficient, & she starts to interject her dictates or pronounced opinions, that is an indication that you might want to switch to other plans. You don’t owe her a trial. You can simply state: “for the sake of business, I have to dis-band from you”, or something like that. It’s all about being as in control as possible without letting her emotions, & especially your own, persuade you.
Don’t ever, ever entertain them. Once you do that, you’ve lowered your defenses. You must weed away to those that will perform for you. I know it reads as mythical, but the latter does exist. It only requires time.
Yes, females have a tendency to “suck” males into bad influences, which is why males have to be stern always. Knowledge first, then living.

They owe to us because we are naturally better than them in essentially all ways. There is no equality. Once she “breaks”, malfunctions, & her wildness starts even more so, rid her & switch.

As an intelligent male, always be 100% alert with what you do.

& Get your fucking disgusting gynocentrism out of my society that I fucking created. ♂

Search for article: (Yes, the more petite ones tend to be more passive aggressive, but it’s really easy to manage) ‘Tallness In Women Correlates With Masculine Ambitions’ from futurepundit-dot-com.

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.”

PRIVILEGE ACCUMULATES FROM ASSOCIATIVE DISCIPLINE & ALSO HOW THE MAJORITY CONSENSUS RUIN DEFINITIONS

brain_sex

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

SERVICING THE WORLD BY ATTEMPTING TO BUILD & ORGANIZE SOCIETIES IS A SACRIFICE. DUE TO THE EXPERIMENTAL NATURE OF THE HISTORY OF “ORDER OUT OF CHAOS”, IF YOU WILL, THERE WILL INEVITIBALLY BE SOME ACCIDENTS & SOME SHODDY STRATEGIZING, WHICH WILL VARY IN DEGREE FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE THOSE LESS CAPABLE TO ALWAYS SIT BACK & YELL “OPPRESSION”

FEMALES & FEMINISTS TEND TO FIXATE ON THE SECONDARY SIDE PRODUCT HORRORS OF WHAT MALE LEADERSHIP BRINGS, WHILE COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE MUCH LARGER BENEFITS MALE SACRIFICE/SERVICE HAS BROUGHT.

THE NEARLY MYTHICAL, ANCIENT FEMALE FRONTED “AMAZONIAN” SOCIETY HAS BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY VIOLENT, & THIS IS PROBABLY WHY IT WAS RELEGATED TO ITS OBSCURITY – PROBABLE SELF DESTRUCTION.

DEFINITIONS BY THE POPULAR ARE NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM WHEN LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY FULL OF TOO MUCH UNDESERVED EGO, WHICH IS THEN ONLY REINFORCED BY ITS OWN ASSERTED SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT, WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE. LET ME HIGHLIGHT & REPEA AGAIN: THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF LIVING IN AN ICONOGRAPHIC SOCIETY WHO IS CONCERNED SO MUCH WITH WHAT SEEMS TO BE, RATHER THAN INVESTIGATING FOR THEMSELVES WHAT ACTUALITY IS, & WHO PLACE TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON APPEARANCE & WHAT FEELS TO BE ACCURATE.

WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY IS A BIT SHOCKING, & IT IS NOT JUST CLEVER WORD PLAY OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY, ETC. THERE ARE CITATIONS IN THIS. YOU CAN CONFIRM THIS FOR YOURSELF FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.

THIS IS NOT WHAT MANY WOULD CLAIM AS STEMMING FROM AN “INFERIORITY COMPLEX”. THIS IS SOMETHING CALLED SCIENCE.

THIS IS MAINLY MEANT TO, FIRSTLY, REFUTE A CLAIM HELD BY THE MASS CULTURE WHO TEND TO MISTAKE PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE FOR GENDER CHARACTERISTIC, & ,SECONDLY, REFUTE THE DEFINITION FROM HIJACKERS WHEN THEY LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT MINDLESS MACHISMO IS WHAT DEFINES MASCULINITY, WHEN, IN FACT, THAT DEFINITION HAS ONLY BEEN GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHER FEMALES. THEY ARE NOT BEING THEMSELVES. THEY ARE ACTING A CERTAIN WAY IN ORDER TO BE APPROVED BY FEMALES. KEEP IN MIND THAT FEMALES HAVE A NATURAL PROPENSITY TO COLLECTIVIZE.

THE LATTER IS DERIVED FROM PHENOTYPE, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY BIOLOGICAL.

NOW, BEAR IN MIND THAT WHEN SPEAKING OF A SUBJECT SUCH AS SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, OR ANY INTELLECTUAL SUBJECT FOR THAT MATTER, ON A MEDIUMS THAT IS FREQUENTED BY HORDES OF AVERAGE PEOPLE, IT IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO ELUCIDATE.

THE PHENOMENA OF MASCULINE FEMALES, WHICH IN SLANG TERMS IS CALLED “TOM BOYS” – FEMALES WHO CARRY MORE MASCULINE TRAITS LIKE BEING MORE LOGICAL, BLUNT, & HAVING MORE MALE FRIENDS WITHOUT SEXUAL TENSION BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPOSED TO MORE TESTOSTERONE VIA PRE-BIRTH, WHILE IN SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS CALLED SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, THIS PHENOMENA ALSO APPLIES TO MALES. UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN A WORLD THAT GLORIFIES TRUE SCIENCE, THE CONCEPT OF “TOM GIRLS” IS NOT WELL KNOWN, NOR IS IT ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE.

I READ THIS STUFF FROM SCIENCE, SO I KNOW TO BE SURE OF MYSELF. I DON’T JUST RECEIVE SOURCES FROM RANDOM PEOPLE AT BUS STOPS OR ONLY “VLOGGERS” ETC..

IN THE BOOK: ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ BY NEUROSCIENTIST SIMON BARON COHEN, WHICH IS WRITTEN FOR THE LAYMAN BECAUSE TECHNICAL SCIENTIFIC JARGON IS NOT SUITED FOR THE POPULACE, ALONG WITH THE PARALLELING: ‘BRAIN SEX’ BY GENETICIST ANNE MOIR, IT IS SANELY CONCLUDED THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF ULTIMATE MASCULINITY, WITHOUT THE “TOMGIRL” ASPECT, IS FOUND IN MUCH MORE CIRCUMSPECT, LOGICAL MALES WHO ARE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH OBJECTS, WHILE MALES WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH RELATING/SOCIALIZING, ESPECIALLY ON AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, WITH OTHERS ARE MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF “TOM GIRLS”. ‘BRAIN SEX’ IS EXCELLENT, HOWEVER, THESE DIPLOMATIC WORKS OF SCIENCE CONTAINS EXTRA COMMENTARY. I JUST TAKE THE ORGANIC SCIENCE.

THE IDEAL OF MASCULINITY IS CONFUSED IN SOCIETY BECAUSE THE NOTION OF THE ARCHETYPAL DARING, BARBARIC MAN HAS BEEN HABITUATED. THE LATTER NOTION IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED BECAUSE IT IS HABITUATED THAT JUST BECAUSE MANY FEMALES ARE RECEPTIVE TO SUCH MALES, THAN IT IS ASSUMED THAT IT IS THE TRUE REPRESENTATIVE. IT IS WRONG.

IT IS A PLAIN FACT THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BUILT & ORGANIZED ARE MALES, BUT THIS MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT RECOGNIZED BECAUSE, NOT ONLY IS THIS DETACHED MASCULINE CHARACTERISTIC FREE OF PRONOUNCED VANITY, BUT ALSO BECAUSE SOCIETY WOULD RATHER BE MUCH MORE CONCERNED WITH THE LATEST MOVIE THAN SHOW INTEREST IN WHO PUT THOSE ELECTRICAL CABLES AROUND.

SO, YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT THOSE “NERDY” MALES ARE “EFFEMINATE”, “FAGGY”, “WHIMPY” OR WHATEVER FROM THE INCULCATION OF THE POPULACE, BUT TRUTH REMAINS THAT ULTIMATE FORMS OF MASCULINITY IS GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH INTROVERSION & CLINICAL LOGIC OS SOME DEGREES.

NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED IN A WAY THAT GIVES THEM MORE & QUICKER ACCESS TO VERBAL COMMUNICATION, HOWEVER, THAT JUST MEANS THAT FEMALES ARE MORE TALKATIVE. IT DOESN’T ENTAIL THAT THEY ARE MORE LOGICAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

FEMINISTS LIKE TO USE THIS THIS LITTLE FACTOID TO TRY TO STATE THAT FEMALES ARE AS SMART OR SMARTER THAN MALES, WHICH, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, JUST PROVES THE ULTIMATE FINDING THAT THIS TALKATIVENESS IS OFTEN USED FOR MANIPULATION OR UNHARNESSED VERBOSITY, BUT THEY COMPLETELY DISREGARD THAT THIS FINDING MEANS NOTHING OF WHAT THEY ASSUME.

IN FACT, IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE’ SIMON BARON COHEN REVEALS THAT FEMALES’ BRAINS ARE WIRED TO BE SYMPATHETIC, AT LEAST VAINLY SYMPATHETIC ANYWAY, & THIS “SYMPATHY”, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, IN CONJUNCTION TO THEIR TALKATIVENESS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN CASES OF FEMALES PASSIVELY “AGREEING” BY DEFAULT WITH THE MALE APPROACH/COMMUNICATION.

SO MALES’ COMMUNICATION IS LESS FREQUENT BUT MORE MEANINGFUL & HONEST, WHICH IN ‘THE ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES’ EXPLAINS THAT MALE RATIONAL IS DUE TO THE MALE BRAIN’S INNATE MEANS OF SYSTEMATIZING, WHILE FEMALES’ IS MORE FREQUENT BUT LESS MEANINGFUL & UNGENUINE.

AS THE OLD SAYING GOES: FACT IS MUCH STRANGER THAN FICTION.

♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

IN CONJUNCTION TO THE FACT THAT FEMALES ARE GENERALLY COLLECTIVIST, THEIR OBVIOUS ANTI-SCIENCE MAKES THEM ANTI-MASCULINE

PHILOSOPHY GAVE BIRTH TO SCIENCE, SCIENCE GAVE BIRTH TO CIVILIZATION. SCIENCE WAS CREATED BY “BETA” MALES, IF WE WANT TO USE THOSE DEFINITIONS, WHICH I DON’T LIKE TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY CAST BY GYNOCENTRISM, OF “ALPHA” & “BETA”.

SOME LOVE TO INSINUATE THAT IT WAS OVER BOLDNESS THAT CREATED SOCIETY, BUT THIS WAS ONLY USED SECONDARILY FOR STRATEGIES OF WARFARE & RELATED, WHICH WAS OFTEN DONE TO MAINTAIN RANK TO IMPRESS DUE TO GREED. CONGRATULATIONS ON PROCLAIMING TO BE SO TOUGH, BUT WHO’S REALLY THE TOUGH ONE WHEN IT IS SURGEONS WHO HAVE TO REMAIN DETACHED WHEN OPERATING? DETACHMENT IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TOUGHNESS. OTHERS JUST INDULGE. THE MAIN THING THAT OTHERS  HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY IS GENE REPLICATION & SUPPORTING ECONOMICS.

MASCULINITY IS NOT ONLY JUST SIMPLIFIED TO HORMONAL FACTORS; THERE ARE NEUROLOGICAL FACTORS AS WELL. HYPER RATIONALISM = HYPER-MASCULINITY.

IT IS OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD THAT LOGICAL ONES ARE “SENSITIVE”, BUT, ACTUALLY, SUCH TYPES EXHIBIT EXTREME STRESS LEVELS THAT OTHERS CAN NOT PROCURE. THAT IS A MUCH BROADER MEANING OF “MALE DISPOSABILITY”; IT’S NOT JUST WHEN A WOMEN DESTROYS A MAN OR WASTES HIS TIME, IT’S THE FACT THAT WE AS A SOCIETY HAVE VERY LITTLE REGARD FOR THOSE WHO TRULY SUCCOR.  I BELIEVE FEMALES HAVE MUCH MORE OF SHALLOW EMOTIONS, WHICH RESULTS IN SPOILING THEM DUE TO MISLEAD CONCEPTS OF THEM BEING “MORE IN TUNED WITH NATURE” ETC., BUT MALES HAVE LESS FREQUENT YET MUCH DEEPER EMOTIONS. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE. WHEN MEN HAVE THEIR OCCASIONAL EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS OF CRYING OR WHATEVER, WE REGARD IT AS “PATHETIC” OR “EMBARRASSING”OR WHATEVER, BUT FEMALES’ MORE FREQUENT OUTBURSTS OVER TRIVIALITIES IS SEEN AS SOME SORT OF “FEMININE MYSTIQUE”.

WE NEED TO BE MORE ATTENTIVE TO MALE EXPERIENCE & THOUGHT PROCESSES RATHER THAN WASTING IT ON FEMALES.

Always look to science & true philosophy, especially to understand sex differences. What is generally required to understand the female mind is a masculine mind because the female mind is mostly shameless – generally not self aware. Females’ narcissism is often mistaken for being “more introspective”. Most that is true about females has been written by males. The mainstream culture’s falsehood is inculcated by females. Don’t look for deep truth there or any practical idiot telling you “what you need to do” to “understand” females.

What ultimately led man to achievement today was not being physically stronger or meaner than all other animals. It wasn’t the testosterone laced risk-taking behavior that cost many men their lives. It was intelligence. Physically, we are one of the weakest animals on this planet. But intelligence allowed us to side-step biology. We didn’t have to be the strongest animal, we just needed to know how to kill the strongest animal in the most proficient way from a safe distance. And it was not just risk taking that allowed us to advance as a species, it was calculated risk. Being intelligent enough to know when and when not to take on those often fatal liabilities.

The whole “Alpha male” facade is just a ploy to commercialize the desire other males have who want to be like them that has been molded by bad logic of females. Just as females have an inherent drive to see themselves as valuable and males as disposable in contrast, some males desire to see themselves as the one who is different – one of the few males who females actually value. It is as instinctive to men as gynocentrism is to both men and women together. This is where the brutal “alpha” aesthetic comes from that tries to compensate for their lesser intelligence & lesser achievement by pretending he is special with less merit & acting meaner to boast “worthy” of the prized vagina. Because a man dominating others historically attracted women, that is what appeals to these males, & many powerful males are going to capitalize on this desire men have to be the “Alpha”. The source of this “alpha” attitude to be mean, subtly or explicitly, comes from the females’ position to select the tools. One instance of a female being attracted to a perceived “intruder” will only cause these “alpha” primitives to react meanly or skeptically – the de-valueing of another innocent male for “getting out of line”, which females often do as well if such a male offends her. This is sometimes referred to as a “sigma” male – a male who appears “alpha” momentarily because his approach from the “zeta” position that does not fit pronounces his image. Intelligent males are realizing this stupidity & they don’t want play the “tool” game that is set by her judgement anymore. They don’t want to expend energy catering to the female while she passively places her demands.

Unraveling An Excusatory Locution

excusatory_locution

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

There is a common locution they like to use as an excuse to evade when they get bored or repulsed by a male. Perhaps you, as a male, are not that familiar with it because it is likely that it has been uttered in secret amongst their gossiping consensus before they’ve decided to end a relationship with you via telephone call or some other indirect means. That locution is “he put me on a pedestal”.

 Females have a completely different form of speech first of all; what they say is not necessarily in conformity to their nature. Females speak in suggestive speech. It’s not the same sort of terse honesty that males share.

In this society that does not allow real objective analysis of human nature, you will get uncertain analysis, but at least some, like myself, have the decency to try. This is just my theorizing, but it is valid:

The reason females use this distinctively female phrase, “he put me on a pedestal” (as if they could be content with a male that could be completely detached in how he treats her) to rid what is to them a pest is because, to females, the way a male implies that a female completes them & wishes to have fuller access to her affection & support is an implicit offer that cheapens a female’s sexuality.

This way of placing her as more of a peer is actually the opposite of “putting her on a pedestal”.

You have to remember that female “logic” is often backwards, &, because they have so much power in society, they often inculcate backward meaning.

 What that phrase reveals is how they treat others, in addition to the fact that females take romance for granted because females have the luxury of waiting for more offers to quickly monopolize. Their solipsistic vantage restricts them from understanding the energy used that appears to be weakness. Females thrive off of socializing by fake flattery. In fact, all that is required in many cases for a female to be “right”, in the case of a male shattering her thought process with brutal truth, is for her to go to her consensus for emotional support. It’s the quantity of how many compliments & opinions she will get from her group that will “prove the other person was wrong”. In a female’s mind a male “putting her on a pedestal” is interpreted as something potentially “ungenuine” because that is how females thrive in their friendships, so they are often perplexed by something they often can’t do – being honest, which leads to their presumption of a parasitic male.

Often disregarding what costs was required for that male to get power, females are basically obsessed with power, either in the case of utilizing it from a pragmatic beta male, or in the case of aligning herself with an alpha male, so when they dismiss a male for “putting her on a pedestal”, it’s because she takes it as weakness from him. This unfortunate trap that males experience is due to males being gullible to female illogical language. Our entire society revolves around this gullibility. It’s called gynocentrism.

Her source of her power comes from her sex. She can’t totally control her utility if that male cheapens her sexuality. Only a certain type of male is allowed to do that – a brute, but not a proper male.

In other words: If you get a brain tumor, she will cheat on you with a primitive with a 12 inch penis & then end it with you via skype. This statement is interchangeable because it is both metaphorical & often realistic.

They’re not teaching this in college sociology or psychology courses so it must be “wrong”. I’m using sarcasm.

Some like to claim “not all women are like that.” “I’m not like that.”. Well, this doesn’t concern you then, does it?

Scientific confirmations have concluded that females can be with males they are not drawn to. Generally, The “beta” male is used for her own promotion but that is not the one she respects nor is attracted to. The one she has respect & is attracted to is the one who can cause commotion.

Females are naturally collectivists, so they are obsessed with following & selling out for trends. If a male shows that he is a main figure of a trend, she will likely be drawn to him. However, In many other cases when a male cannot show himself to be a main figure of some sort of pathetic trend, she will then seek that attraction in him through his authority instead because his authority parallels how trends are authoritative in a culture.

Rationalism is not sexy. This is how it is deemed as “awkward” in parties: “Why isn’t that guy rolling in shit like pigs just like us?”, they might whisper amongst each other.

What these filthy animals fail to realize is that many males, particularly the more intelligent ones, after developing anxiety disorders by becoming depressed from excessive cortisol levels & having diminished oxytocin hormonal levels, actually lose the confidence that these females crave from males when such males receive inconsistencies & discover what females want. Then the cycle of mistaking effect for causation continues.

Females hate being in situations of minimal dynamics. Females often need to assess males so that it is easy for them to ordain such males. They hate logical males because these types are too complex for females to fit into their simplistic categories. & this is partly how they call logical males to be “too nice”. These males can not placate their pathetic inferiority complexes. Case: Walking into a clothing store, females will grope many items & just waste time because they constantly need entertainment, & that’ how their boredom places labels of “intensity”, with very little understanding of the actual politics, on any male who can replace their dominance on others . Males will just walk in, buy what they want, & then leave.

I’ve been in past relationships of females initially being attracted to me because I was firstly perceived to be “exotic”/”rebellious” or a “bad boy” – for the wrong reasons, but when they discovered that I was actually this “boring” guy with conservations & morals, they no longer wanted me. They project on to me by aesthetics what they sexually desire, then after discovering that I’m not what they desire, they get angry at me for it.

What’s sad is that males take it as advice to be what they want.

It would be a rare scenario where males say “My ex loved me, but she let me walk all over her so I had to move on to someone who put me in my place”. Most males don’t desire someone to police their behavior, nor create tests for that desire. Males have a better capability for self reflection that females lack. What females generally have is narcissism, which is often mistaken for “introspection”. It’s inconsiderate that they would desire for males to reinforce this policing with little regard for how tiresome it could be for the other.

Important Cognitive Axioms of Neuro-Science

phallocentrism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

As a sort of little corrective warning before some could become unthinkingly reactive, as often the case with my articles, I will place the gist of it firstly: Linguistics can overlap with logic, but the entirety of it is not completely. Mathematics is a form of logic. Emanating from such logic are branches that are related to it, which can be also in linguistic format & various symbols. Linguistics is not necessarily truthful. You can be an intellectual & use lots of words yet not be intelligent.
This is not proclaiming to be a technical article. It’s quite the opposite actually. The point is to use essential condensed generalities from a technical source – a means of bringing what is too hard in a transliterated way – to simplify for those not versed in sciences to reduce confusion, that is the common narrative of the popular. You can talk about what the trends & projections of what the common dictates all you want, but until you actually start to establish the organic cores, you won’t have a real understanding, & that’s why there’s so many confused memes being circulated – complicated, but not in a good way, & femininity has a tendency to present itself in this same way of making their complexities seem sophisticated. It’s not that kind of complexity. It’s the kind of a thousand yarns tied in knots in a vacuum cleaner’s dust bag. There’s a lot of politics & opinions, etc., that sounds & appears better, but it’s just poor.

One of the most important figures of neuroscience is V.S. Ramachandran. I will emphasize the importance of his science in conjunction to the war realists have with the opposition, like feminists, & even people proclaiming anti-feminism yet still ruining realism, with a great short quote of his:
“Denial is a very common phenomena in human nature. You know that half the human race is in denial about their stupidity?” – V.S. Ramachandran. Source: from a recorded lecture he gave entitled: ‘40/40 Vision Lecture: Neurology & The Passion For Art’. Just click forward to 1:18:40.
His editor-ship in chief of ‘The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain’ marks it as an essential tool for anyone seriously concerned with using the core of realism to fend deceptions & unreliable aspects. From page 301 of that encyclopedia, there is a section on sex differences in cognition, which concludes in a general duality, which is, emphatic, much needed to base the more abstract analysis, that males do better on tests of visuo-spatial skills & mathematical reasoning. Females generally score better on language tests. The opposition doesn’t even have the plain generalities, so it’s mostly incoherent due to nothing to use as a base from. This lack of rudimentary facts is a major problem when you consider that feminists & the like, being driven by this cunning tendency of articulation, will steer the narrative with a massive amount of lies, opinions, & just spanned narrative to degrade truth. I have even been shamed before from the opposition, I joke you not, that I resemble more of a “whimp” – that is a natural tactic of the feminine – because I’m, due to adopting methods to defeat the enemy by knowing my enemy, skilled in verbosity. Because females are more clever with language, with their fake intelligence, they miss the point of plainer language of males, sometimes even just purposely playing dumb, & try to alter the dialogue by fixating on detail of less importance, or by being relentless to a minor imprecision.
Now that the base is supportive, the following is the abstractions, or what they would call internalized misogyny – trying to make a vogue conclusion sound more sophisticated with “internalized” – in terse, blunt, masculine wording, rather than excessive, feminine poetry:
It’s intrinsic that males are visual creatures. Consider the pornography males indulge in: Videos & photographs, hence it being more fetishistic. Females place more emphasis on erotica in novels. There’s also a common misconception that a fetish & a fantasy are basically the same. They’re not. Fetishes, which are generally masculine, involve body parts, posing, & objects, while fantasies, generally feminine, involve more role-playing & extra drama. Don’t listen to what females will tell you about what male sexuality is because it will only be a subjective extrapolation. Males have a tendency to seek objects & treat them like a muse. When his female companion requests: “Honey, take me to the sale”. A similar scenario is: “But there’s a car modeling show on at 3:00 p.m..” Males are quite literally objectifying, & there’s nothing wrong with that, especially in comparison to females’ tendency to cause what is unnecessary. Simon Baron Cohen’s ‘The Essential Differences’ defines that a “more masculine brain”, or what is often influenced by feminine interpretations to be described as a “man-child’, means that you probably have a large collection of baseball cards.
Females are very crafty with language. Paul Julius Mobius – an 1800th century neurologist – already knew that females lie, take statements out of context, gossip, use ad hominems, manipulate, conspire, use plausible deniability, use decorative dialogue, use cognitive dissonance, opine, & have a lack of far-ranging, profound conclusions – just “cocaine” infused attention grabbing, at a time when those understandings were not influenced by the fact that females will write something for a t.v. show to insinuate a feminist agenda. They’ll write word-mazes, but they won’t produce dictionaries.
Unfortunately, with a lot of science, you get a lot of “synthetic” analysis, so, yes, it’s superior to much amateur info. or the info. given by the humanities & liberal arts, but science is a very rigorous thing. It’s a process. That’s the price you pay for absolute truth – a lengthening of time that requires much patients & diligence, which is what the feminine verbosity, which is a large sector that influences the humanities departments, tends to ruin. Males sacrifice & remain objective to make the world more functional, as stated in their inclination for mathematical type of reasoning, hence technology, etc.. Mathematics does not give entertainment. It’s boring. Linguistics does though, & females instinctively take advantage of these ideations. While the humble cognition of males lacks the same kind of “power” over others, females have just lounged & complained throughout history with their “better” mind control.
In summation: masculinity is defined by a characteristic of humble logic, from the most basic aspects of logic, all the way to the higher technicalities, generally, while femininity is generally defined by a characteristic of drama, & that drama influencing the humble logic of masculinity. Sure, females are often more “philosophical”, if you’ll allow me to degrade that word, but it doesn’t derive truth. It’s not insightful, logical, or coherent. It’s just “small” (too big) talk, kind of like in the way that some will hype themselves by being belligerent & fashion experts.
Males implemented language methodologically. Females warped it.
Thank you science via masculinity for fixing after the “storm” of femininity by setting the fundamentals for what is obvious & often on many peoples’ minds but do not say.
Do not mistake me for trying to persuade females to become more rational. That only has detrimental effects. What we should do is the apposite – keep them as simple & pleasant as pleasant as possible.
If you’re a male seriously pursuing something meaningful, of course, a great strategy is to economize how you pursue those tasks by having a companion do other things in alliance with you.