How Science & Philosophy Became “Passive Aggressive” & “Pathetic”


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

The minimal excerpts used in this are from a source that was written in an appeasing , complimenting manner. ‘Brain Sex’ is a book regarding neuro-science & biology in general to establish basics of harder science. What is gathered in summation is that cognition of males as concentration, while females’ diffusive. If you state to the affect of the latter to females, they would generally react with diffusion, only proving the establishment further. I have referenced this source a few times not because it’s the greatest in the field, but because this book is just a good source as an introduction to those stuck on lower levels of social studies, as it tries to diplomatically bring the basics of complexities against the pressure of the influence of such diffusion.

Don’t try to defeat Feminism by addressing on its level. Defeat Feminism by overwhelming it with the technical. When a feminist or related tries to interject, just simply belittle with to the affect: “I don’t deal with that cultural type of stuff, I’m more concerned with science”, & remain as strict as possible with this non-argumentative argument. When the second retort comes back, use to the affect of: “Again, with all due respect, the way the debate is set would just limit the field I’m involved with/ the explanations would take too long & it can’t be explained in just one debate, it takes a process of many days, actually” – using the strategy of implying that they don’t provide well.

Both interpretations – complaining by feminists & the like or by sexual appeal – of the primal masculinity from the female are not progressive. I’m willing to accept a simplistic reduction for a preparation that, yes, historically males have been more aggressive & violent. We had to be because we were wired that way from attempting to provide for & organize societies that had it’s beginnings in chaos. This basic fact is what a vast amount of the even anti-feminists who are still sociologically & politically limited would call “anti-male”, but it’s really just a stern fact. In fact, it’s actually pro-male because it’s giving the blunt truth. Considering that I’m willing to accept this simplistic reduction because you need those basics to expand intricacies, in contrast, are females even willing to try to understand? Of course not. For one case, the ‘Blank Slate’ premise is highly influenced by feminine callousness.

This is an excerpt from that source (not the pictured one): “The brain biases persist & strengthen as children grow up, “seeing” life through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, & more natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance, shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special sort of sight test. They looked through a contraption raher like a pair of binocular, which showed the left & right eye two different images at the same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had been shown exactly the same images. Boys saw more things, Girls saw more people……………….This male advantage in seeing patterns & abstract relationships – what could be called general strategic rather than detailed tactical thinking – perhaps explains the male dominance of chess, even in a country like the U.S.S.R., where the game is a national sport played by both sexes. An alternative explanation, more acceptable to those who would deny the biological basis of sex differences, is that “women have become so conditioned to the fact of male chess playing superiority that they subconsciously assign themselves lower expectations”; but this is a rather willful rejection of scientific evidence for the sake of maintaining a prejudice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Men sometimes become exasperated at a women’s reaction to what they say. They do not realize that women are probably “hearing” much more than what the man himself thinks he is “saying”. Older females have a better memory for names & faces, & a greater sensitivity to other people’s preferences.” Even this preparation of basic confirmations presented with ease & in a lessened way was received with scorn (Just some proof of one of these instances: Search for a recorded debate (more like deflecting by mob-rule than debate): ‘Sex In The Brain: Do Men And Women Think Differently’), therefore, proving that the attempt of civility of science, what females sometimes refer to in fem-speak/barbarism as “being too nice”, will be burdened by female-hood. Females are a burden to the advancement of scientific & philosophical progress, & feminism is just one of those influences of gynocentrism. When this book was initially published – a tool to help females, it was controversial because of the very facts itself that the book communicates that females are “emotionally intelligent” have the “social intuition”, but, really, it’s just that females are petty. Sarcasm: Yeah, females really know how to socialize, as if that’s even a hard skill to learn. They’ll insinuate males so thoughtful in abstractions don’t know how to socialize – “lost”, but what’s actually happening is that those males are already gathering abstract patterns that they already made the estimations & analyzed the results – sometimes wrongfully called “defense mechanisms”, which makes the others wrongfully believe that they are qualified to make a judgement just by that mistaken observation as reliable. Females know how to socialize on the childish level because they are like children themselves.
This tendency that females have to judge tone, body language, expression, etc., makes them better candidates for communicating with, for example, infants, sure, but this is double-sided because it also makes them prone to misinterpretations & making false predictions on the more abstract levels, such as often wrongly thinking that an introduction means there’s nothing more mysterious. I will not type with lessened ease & become victims as those poor scientists who constructed that book did, so I will just bluntly state: womens’ retarded n.l.p. manner of “thinking” combined with their collectivism makes them gullible enough to comprise the majority of voters, then voting for candidates on the basis of stamina, tone, body language, rhetoric, etc.. You can’t discern a leader’s level of testosterone for a nostalgic fetish by a casual observation, but that’s essentially the symbol of what female voters vote on the basis of. That would actually require the accuracy of science instead, science chosen to be explored by males who still have those high amounts of testosterone but would rather chose to be intellectual than actors, but, of course, such males are “sad “beta” males with low t..”

The notion that science, logic, philosophy, detachment, etc., (even as I reuse “etc.” – considered redundant) being “passive aggressive” or “pathetic” is a feminine borne one. A robot can give plain, realistic analysis & the person receiving can react emotionally due to not deriving certain preferences, then becoming angry at the robot. It’s the same thing of females deflecting their inadequacies on masculinity.
Because of female’s burdensome n.l.p. manner of thinking, there are whole industries dedicated to wasteful gynocentric activity, akin to lifestyles of becoming intoxicated with alcohol to speak at a woman’s level. Generations of males so ordained by femininity they’ve become like females, & using deflections towards males who aren’t amused by the theatre & female’s immature sexuality; “ You don’t have enough experience with women.” That’s not even earning lessons, that’s entertainment. Those males who have lots of conquests will conclude similar things about female nature, but from a defensive stance, that the analyzer has in retaliation because they know it to be true.
Feminine borne projections, ranging from “gay”, “can’t get laid”, etc., often not even limited to execution by females, are caused by the fact that females bribe their sexuality to males who are ready to become actors like females, through implicit shaming & other means, which guards the fact that females cause major problems in society, fostering anti-meritocratic feelings by placing higher value on femininity with the expense of implying that science & the like is “beta”, or some un-methodical assumption.

Science Of Sex Differences


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Duplicating points is an important strategy because in the “sea of noise” things are read in segments.

You don’t need to make hour long recordings to analyze this fake thing called feminism per se. That’s only important to an extent. It’s often better to just leave it at the fact that it is just some fake thing. What’s much more important is discovering female nature, as well as male nature.
I take notes on this harder science becuase I’m also in the processing of refining my skill in that field, which is why I have been using a rote method of noting. The psychology & the philosophy is a bit different.

Biology/nature precedes culture. Any cultural shifting of that nature is dependent of that nature.
There is no rat culture, & that’s why it is valid to employ scientific research based on zoology without the distractions of the cultural acts.
This type of science is much too important to review innaccurately because there is an even larger amount of cultural info. inconsistent & lazy to realism, partly because it’s much faster & easier to make interpretations based on short-sight then it is to actually prepare all of the requirements of science. For instance: I’ve even recieved from the new-age community of the concept of the “right brain being feminine” & “left brain being masculine”. Some such people of the latter simplification have even held lectures. You can’t simplify something like neuroscience just like that. You don’t do cultural interpretations first & then try to apply it to science. You have to do it the other way around; you seek science first, then derive other analysis from that science. That’s why a precise reporting is needed.
There are sub-categories of sex differences factoring of hormonal levels, which is translated to gender, i.e., a male can still be highly effeminate – homosexual, bisexual, or still a heterosexual with very low testosterone. However, even though testosterone is a major factor of “masculinizing” the brain, to what degree it affects gender is still not completely certain. Gender can also be more of a feeling. The concept of gender, however, is not applied in the same way that biological scientists would by people with anti-realist agendas. Gender is strategically misappropriated, with no understanding of biological probabilism, by feminists & the like to try to evade the entire reality of sex differences as a means of steering the narrative away from critiques of female nature – you-can’t-criticize-a-woman. They don’t even care for the science of gender itself, but is merely used as a spanning tactic to pause appositional debating. There are sometimes some males who can still be biologically highly masculine & still act feminine – showmanship/”cartoon-characters”/metrosexuals, etc., these are usally just some trendy phases, which is often what feminists & the like use because they’re still stuck on the level of mainstream iconography. You can not attribute psychological condition for gender, but that is essentially the cultural – non-scientific – interpretations; a male who has had some horrible experience; seeing horrors in a war, then becoming depressed, then the culture making lose associations – “effeminate” due to passive depression. It doesn’t work like that. There is seriously stuff regarding sex differences, & it’s other derivative – gender – on that level of interpretation.
Sexual distinctions of the male & female brain is caused by activity of sex hormones in early postnatal & fetal life, although current evidence of genes on either the X or Y chromosome suggests probable contribution to it. Scientists have found statistically and biologically significant differences between the brains of men and women that are similar to sex differences found in experimental animals. These include differences in the size and shape of brain structures in the hypothalamus and the arrangement of neurons in the cortex and hippocampus. Sex differences go well beyond sexual behavior and reproduction and affect many brain regions and functions, ranging from mechanisms for perceiving pain and dealing with stress to strategies for solving cognitive problems.
During development, many biological events eventualizes that distinctly modifys females & males. Particularly, sex definitive genes that are caused by the sex-chromosome complex installs augmentation that formalizes a morphon’s sex, adding to conduction of the dissimilitude of phsyiology in sex-categorical forms. Such processes serves to numerous particular sex distinctions, among even susceptibility to some diseases. Albeit it prevailed that sex hormones exclusievly demarcated the body & brain, there’s more fact-finding transpiring that genes are also a direct factor. Upon further reading, there is a review with also a report on the use of a unique mouse model that divides the results of gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes. Excogitation of mental & physical health can be applied to advancement when understanding of male & female, & how the roles that hormones and genes play in sex differences, evolve with genetic technology.
The information of sexes is a quarrelsome one. Ignoring them can cause taxing discordance. Pointedly, there’s various organic shifts which specifically modifys the sexes, exempli gratia, the lack or occupancy of the Y-chromosome & the staging of gonadal hormones, even prior to birth into culture. During life, continual situations will eventualize which are seperate to each sex. Ergo, health related issues are segmented by female & male distinctive experiences.
Of selective concern for this review are sex distinctions of the brain credited to genetics. Even though in the past greater neurochemical & neuranatomical contrast were imputed to gonadal hormones, that is, estrogens & androgens, emerging data refers categorical genetic consequences on sex distinctions of the brain even earlier to the extention of gonadal hormones.
In most species, distinguishable differences of the sexes are readily discernable due to ammased physical formation & the characteristically gaudy, such as vivid feathers, etc.. Also, distinctions of size of brain features & waist-to-hip comparisons. There’s much more than just observable anatomy, such as cognition & sexuality.
From general physiological details, typical characteristics are developed: The sexes considerably differ on their consolidating of carnality, males being significantly more interested in organic, vital, & plasmic sex, as well as visual stimuli – graphic erotica, film, physical models, etc. – & variations of females, although females do indulge in their own version of pornography, more often literature, & there’s also been a study stating that Asiatic females tend to view male/visual based erotica more so than any other type of female. Female sexuality is a bit different than male sexuality; as males emphasize more visual enhancement & body parts, females are interested in more politicized sex, hence why it is more commonly found in the dramatic art of writing. According to the reports, females place more importance on foreplay & are more interested after sex. Makes sense with females stating “I’m dumping him becuase he doesn’t know what to do”. Females’ conceptional volition is very limited to materialism & sex & things directly related to it. This source excluded other factors, such as male psychological factors – rational fear/cause-&-effect thinking of future terms in conjunction to female nature, etc., & the other societal factor of the practice of male genital mutilation takeing away stronger passion. Females’ sexual desires & interests often shifts in accordance to their menstrual cycle.
Some argue differences are due to environmental factors versus innate. To smaller degrees, that’s true, but the external units are only versions of the innate. Therefore, females & males being receptive to “carving” means innate predispositions. Cross-cultural & multinational studies have found significant distinctions in sexual attitudes & behaviours. Sex differences were found regarding sociosexuality bounding 53 nations. Several twin studies have also found differences of sexuality are more influenced by biology rather than environment, & some genetic studies proposed candidate genes for sexual behaviour. The biology is the predominating factor, then the cultural aspects does some of its part. Most of all, genetic & cross national analysis of sex differences of context to sociosexuality concludes biological basis, as well as cognitive abilities & more.
Controlling nature & strategising with more options is an aspect of male cognition which drastically differentiates our biology from the female. We can either chose to strive to the latter in utilizing our different set of cognition, or we can conform ourselves to the traditional selection set from females’ primal cognition & biology which was more appropriately suited for hundreds to thousands of years ago. It’s not “emasculation”, etc., to be analytical & form new strategies by that. I’m not defending from insecurity. It’s an issue of realizing that that shaming language is a feminine-bourn trend which quite litterally has it’s roots in barbaric times that allowed females to take advantage to their usuary of masculinity. Scientists are willing to state, with their elaborate conductions, that male & female biological psychology is different, but their not willing to tell you that male cognition is excelling because those scientists are still persuaded & domesticated by feelings, particularly gynocentric, on some level, & that is a detached, scientific fact.
Even more controversial than sex differences of context to sociosexuality are sex differences in cognitivition & mental processes. A variety of distinctions on each sexes’ ability on how they perform on cognitive abilities have been proven. Two reoccurring reports of sex differences are in mental rotation task – involving spatial & mathematical processing – generally masculine – & verbal fluency – generally feminine. Tone, pronounciation is a major concern for females. It accounts for their tendency of causing reversals with their syndrome of illogical assesment of plain approaches as “creepy”, bad, poor, etc., while unnoticing of bad traits of others if they have authority presented stylishly. It’s their tendency to notice topical things which actually makes them neglectful of noticing the expansive, largely also due to the fact that females are wired for communion of baby-reading. Silent “awkwardness” is inflated because of the fact that females just don’t know how to turn it off. I believe it was Einstein who once stated: If you can’t simplify it in a formula, then you probably don’t understand it well enough. (Which is how I’ve condensed the science given from an entire book into a summary.) It’s theoretically possible that females’ tendency for disorganized, rumor level communication is due to the fact that, by history, males were vulnerable to making quick decisions – lazy & incompleletely reported as: “males as the bane of wars”, etc., doing the actual hard work, females cultivated commentary & manipulation, then narratives of females having more “emotional intelligence”, etc., manifested. J.K. Rowling, your stories are amusing, but you didn’t ultimately create that. Males created the factories & also the distribution methods, you just decorated. (Which, as a side note, the latter type of inflated female are much more masculine women. )
It’s well-known that of the rudimentary model of primates, who, due to less complex systems, don’t have “rigid gender roles,” choice for toys and activities parallel studies of human children – male monkeys chosing toy trucks. On humans, researchers found that sex distinctions of visuo-spatial faculties were natural even when those nations were more liberal of gender roles. Magnetic resonance imaging research have confirmed sex differences of cerebral blood flow patterns with cognitive tasks – results similar to studies on monkeys.
Research continues on the biological realities of cogntition & behaviour of sex differences. Factors are affected by interaction of culture & biological factors – both nature & nurture, however, biology is & was rudimentary, therefore, science is the standard to answer to how behaviour manifests in a given culture. How organisms recieves or accustoms itself to situations confirms propensity. With the aid of science & logic, we can answer how it is that females are more prone to tending, influencing, & manipulation – a large influence of the sektor of the “nurturing” cultural aspect, who tries to impinge, like children, on realism with a-logical inducement of entertainment, inflated opinions, into bureaucratic services, & give appeasement & distractions, therefore, a natural process. They want to impinge slogans of raise-your-daughter-to-be-a-warrior, etc., becuase that bombardment of communal expansiveness is itself a natural occurrance. By science, we can also confirm the various representations of male organization & assertiveness, not just crude charicatures, etc., of the cultural interpretations.
The general public believes that sex is purely based on external genitalia. There’s actually seven biological parameters that defines sex:
1. Sex chromosomes – involved in concluding the sex of an organism. Of humans, consisting of the Y- & X-chromosome.
2. Sex-determining genes- involved in development of female-typical & male-typical phenotypes – Wnt-4, Sox9, & Sry.
3. Gonads: – Organs producing gametes – overies & testes.
4. Gonadal hormones – Produced by ovaries & testes, sex steroids, estrogen & androgen, involved in first & secondary sex characteristics
5. Internal reprodcutive structures – system of connected organs involved in reproduction, such as, Mullerian ducts & wilffian ducts.
6. External reproductive structures – genitals.
7. Brain sex – The presence of sex-specific neuroanatomical parameters that are often the result of circulating gonadal hormones. Brain Sex can also define a masculine or effeminate mind, e.g., a woman can sometimes have a more masculine mind than a male.
Two significant occurences of embryogenesis advances the creation of sex-specific phenotypes. The first one is sex certainty as the undetermined gonads become either ovaries or testes. Human gonad maturing happens ~eight weeks post concieving, even though the certainty of how the gonads will mature happens during conception, that is, whether the zygote paternally recieved an x or y-chromosome. Secondly, it is sex differentiation & it is of the process of internal & external procreative networks. If an embryo creates testes, then it will start to create 3 significant biomolecules: insulin-like peptide 3, anti-mullerian hormone, & testosterone. Testosterone will cause the process of of male-typical internal reproductive tract, such as, seminal vesicles, epididymis, & vas deferens, & external reproductive matter – genitals. Mullerian-inhibiting substance, a.k.a.: Anti-Mullerian Hormone, will deconstruct what would have created the internal reproductive tract for a female. Previously termed relaxin-like factor, Insulin-like 3 causes the lowering of the testes from abdomen to scrotum. Contrastingly, if an embryo creates ovaries, it will negate those 3 biomolecules. Absence of testosterone makes decomposition of the male-specific internal reproductive tract & the external reproductive matter will manifest the labia & clitoris. Lack of Anti-Mullerian hormone causes female-typical interior procreative tract to operate, such as, upper portion of vagina & fallopian tubes. Lack of insulin peptice 3 will keep developing ovaries within abdoman.
 Radical interuptions to the process of sex determination will cause novel variations.
The classical understanding of sex distinctions, via from decades of research demonstrating the effects of gonadal hormones of vertabrates, is, historically, thought that gonads – namely testes – were the total factors of creating whole somatic sexual dimorphisms of mammals. Gonadal hormones have 2 main effects: Regulatory effects, which are irreversible & permanent during development that structures into female-typical or male-typical arrangements. The other is: activational effects. They are short term changes happening as particular hormones are present in body & frequently reliant on prior structural effects. Other than the pre-typed alterations to the reproductive structure, it was beleived that testosterone was the sole “masculinizer” of the fetus’s brain. When embryogenesis occurs, testosterone produced by the testes goes to brain during important phases of the earliest of ontogenesis where it is transfmormed to estradiol by the enzyme aromatase. The estradiol then operates on the estrogen receptor, which masculinizes particular brain zones, exempli gratia, the hypothalamus. Adding, estradiol strongly boosts the elaboration of male-typical neurocircuitry & restrains elaboration of female-typical neurocircuitry. Even though ovaries make estrogens midst female elaboration, estradiol in female fetuses is restricted from accessing the brain by a compound termed alpha-fetoprotein. Still, research on the aromatization factor of testosterone in masculinizing the brain have only been [reported: 2010] done on zoological models. Thus, it’s less assured what if any role estradiol does in making the huma brain masculine.
Comprehensively, the classical understanding on gonadal hormones translates numerous of the sex distinctions in the elaboration of the reproductive tract and the brain. However, proceeding studies has discovered that sex differences are not limited to gonadal hormones.
Proceeding research of the later half of the 20th century challeneged the once dominating classical understanding on sex differences. One case: some studies were that male rat embryos were heavier tha female ones before sex definition. Others discovered scrotal convexity of the tammar wallaby prior to sex definition.
 By 1991, it was reported that sex distinctions of the brain could be discerned before the process of sex differentiation. From mesencephalic & diencephalic cell cultures of rat embryos two weeks after conception – before surge of gonadal hormones. In these in vitro cultures, sectional distinctions were studied of the definition of tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive cells where females had more neurons than males, inferring that the distinction of dopaminergic neurons was independent of the ecistence of gonadal hormones. Studies on zebra finches furthered ideas of factors other than gonadal hormones as factors that could be in conjunction to development of sex distinctions. Female zebra finches do not sing a unique courtship song that males do, which is due to brain regions significantly larger of male ones. Although it was reckoned that such distinctions were present because of gonadal hormones, neither by trial.
Although it was believed that such differences existed because of gonadal hormones, neither experimentally managing hormones, such as, conducting female zebra finches with estradiol to bring “masculinization” of brain, nor making productions of cross-sex gonads, such as bringing production of ovaries in a male, chiefly modified song actions…. Further, the dissection of a gynadromorphic zebra finch – phenotypically & genotypically female on one side of body, & phenotypically & genotypically male on other side of body – indicated that only one brain hemisphere was masculinized even though both hemispheres would’ve been involved with same flowing gonadal hormones. A similar study was reported in three lateral gynandromorph chickens.
As many derived to believe that the sex-chromosome counterpart with the cell was involved in a role in sex differences, the task then became studying causative involvement. The specific challenge was separating the consequences by the sex-chromosome complement from those by gonadal sex.
A modern 2 x 2 mouse model termed: four-core genotypes mouse model, has been invented to sort the consequences of the sex chromosomes from the consequences of gonadal hormones. To use this model, scientists wield the absence or presence of the Sry gene in XY & XX mice. Sry is occupied on the Y-chromosome, & it helps testes elaborating. The mouse will cultivate testes , if Sry is infused into an XX mouse’s genome (symbolized XXSry), however, XXSry mouse are unfertile for there are particular genes on the Y-chromosome required for sperm creation. If Sry is deleted from an XY mouse (symbolized as XY-), then it won’t develop testes, instead processing as a fertile female. If Sry is eliminated from the Y-chromosome of an XY mouse & then reinserted into one of its autosomes (symbolized XY – Sry), due to presence of the Y-chromosome, the mouse will still develop as a completely fertile male.
Some investigations have employed the FCG model to analyze the direct result of gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes on sex distinctions. For whatever trait, if mice with Sry considerably diverge from mice without it, the difference can be traced to gonadal hormones. However, if mice including a Y-chromosome differ from mice without it, the dissimilarity can be connected to the counterpat of sex chromosomes. The FCG illustration can further ascertain whatever interaction that might result among gonadal hormones & sex chromosomes.
The FCG representation can be utilised to exclude the factor of gonadal hormones in sex distinctions; women & men differ of the intensity & severity to which each sense particular pain-related disorders – Raynaud’s disease, Carpal Tunnel Syndrom, & migraine headaches. They discovered that XX mice were quicker to respond to pain than to the contrasting mice when using the FCG regardless of their gonadal sex, indicating that genes on the sex chromosomes had an explicit consequence on sex distinctions in intense nociception that wasn’t mediated by gonadal hormones. FCG also shows direct effect of varying behavior of chromosomal sex of environmental reward or stimulus. Case, males are more pronet to trial & abuse of substances un-permitted by authority. Females though indicate to be more controlled by effects of such substances. By the FCG model, scientists discovered that XX & XXSry mice more rapidly gained unhealthy consumption customs for sucrose set to XY- & XYSry mice. One discovered the addiction formation in the obverse: XY- & XY-Sry mice more rapdily gained compulsive thirst addiction compared to XX & XXSry mice when substance consumed was alchohol. Therefore, although the FCG model can indicate direct effect of chromosomal sex on sexually distinctive behaviors, it can also indicate that the direct effect of sex-chromosome set is reliant on the exhibition or type of reinforcer – alcohol vs. sucrose – that organisms meet.
The FCG standard can be employed to discover any transfer effects the joined effect of doubled sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones. Males have aggression & commit violent crimes reportedly by larger frequency than females. However, there’s a seperate article that female aggression is much different than male & less reported. Psychologist: Seth Meyers, Psy. D stated his regualar trainings cites by experts that the number of female psychopaths is actually higher than documented. Relational aggression is more of a female type – damaging someone’s social status, using proxy violence, & ruining others’ relationships. The way the judicial system is operated is to prioritize femalehood, so less documented female criminals, as well as obliging to false allegations by females. With temperament by female psycopaths being a distinctly different type of comfort, arrogance, & non-domineering, it is not an “aggression” society can recognize easily, or even cares to acknowledge.[Source: Seth Meyers Psy. D., Aug. 10 , 2015. Your Field Guide To The Female Psychopath (& why we rarely see her coming.)] Not everything is documented. With the FCG standard, it was researched that there was a reciprocal effect between chromosomal sex & gonadal sex on aggression: with 3 other types of FCG mice, XX mice with ovaries had least amount of aggression. Parenting behavior was also different that showed an interaction effect. Of most species, females oblige more parenting than males. “Pup retrieval” is one instance; actively retrieving offspring removed or fallen from nest. XX mice with ovaries were more prone to persistent response to retrieving pups compared to the other three types of FCG mice. unique discoveries as these suggests how absence or presence of the Y-chromosome or gonadal secretions could influence sex specific traits.
The FCG mouse model is very good to understand the factor of sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones. Still, if an explicit corrollary of sex chromosomes is discovered, it the unique aspect of the sex specific sex chromosome summarized: Is the recognized absolute consequence due absence or presence of the y-chromosome? Or is it due to the reality of two x-chromosomes rather than one x-chromosomes? To confirm this problem, scientists can better the model to investigate the core effect of the Y- & X-chromosome. As with the original FCG model, the role of the existence of the Y-chromosome by camparing columns of the 2×2 model can be solved. Reversed, there can be a detection of the direct effect of having two X-chromosomes by comparing rows of this reduced representative. The consequences of this standard can answer the scientist as to which sex chromosome to analyze. BY comparing XO females to XX females, it’s conceivable to ascertain an effect of the number of X chromosomes. One more model that can be used if it’s definitive that the X-chromosome is the cause of the effect. Of the subsequent reformation, the source of causation for the x-chromosome is contemplated. Pointedly, is it significant if the X-chromosome is paternally transmitted – Xp0 symbolized – or maternally imparted – Xm0 symbolized? comparable tests have been done, though they didn’t proceed via the FCG mouse model. It was discovered that XmO women displayed more communal ruination – lacking awareness of own behaviour with others, onconsolable when uncomfortable, & lacking empathy – compared to Xp0. Next, a new maternally signified candidate gene – Xlr3b – affecting cognition was discovered in XmO mice. Comprehensively, the three patterns of the FCG model can help scientists investigate specific genetic systems affecting behavioral features.
Apart from the FCG mouse model, scientists can try to discover particular genes that differentiates sexes directly via the brain. Anatomizing brains of mouse embryos 10.5 days post conception-prior to the flow of gonadal hormones with association with sex terminus. 50 genes were labeled that were differently embodied between female & male, furthering the idea that genes likely have a direct effect on specific brain parts, which induces sex distinctions. Infra, it was disclosed that the Sry gene directly affected the biochemical properties in the substantia nigra causing a decrease in tyrosine hydroxylase expression-an enzyme that is a factor in the biosynthesis of dopamin. Apperantly, certain sex-specific assets of the dopaminergic neurons are controlled by genes listless of gonadal hormones.
Conclusively, many sex differences – both psychological & biological – exist with female & male. Gonadal hormones is one major facor of such differences. Accumulating research though states that not all differences are reliant on amount & presence of estrogns & androgens; sex chromosomes & genes are also a factor. What has been reviewed:The model of sex determination & differentiation is mainly directed by lack or presence of testes. The 2×2 four-core genotype mouse model is increasingly applied to disclose the role of sex chromosomes & gonadal hormones of sex differences. There was also a proposal of some refinements for scientists to use if they determine that sex chromosomes activate a more important effect than gonadal hormones. Lastly, the only known neuromolecular report on the direct effect of a specific gene involved in sex determination was presented. As sex differences being a role of welfare & health becomes critical, theres several science questions; how might inherited epigenetic mechanisms, such as histone modifications & DNA methylation, influence sex differences of the brain? Which workingscontrol sex biased gene definition of women & men, & how do they give to sex-specific diseases, like Alzeimer’s disease & Huntington’s disease? Can info. of molecular pathways be applied to tailor patiens? What degree do epigentic modification maintain & establish sex differences?

Many will resist science on sex differences, but, considering it is madentory for physiologists in application to medicine, it’s obviously an important science.

Citations: Sex Differences In The Human Brain, Their Underpinnings & Implications by Ivanka Savic. PAGES: 65 – 73.

Male + Math = This Report


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

“That’s just generalizing” – said the general female. Females generally don’t know how to generalize because of the fact that they generally lack higher mathematical skill. Generalizing is a version of mathematics.
Data has disclosed large sex differences of mathematical reasoning ability to occur before age 13 of males excelling.
It’s easy to apply an agenda that states environmental & social factors exclusively, or mostly, explains the data, however, there’s a better answer. The scientific method negates the most classically ideal & politically expedient conclusions, & that is why it is the least popular.
Females have been reported to do well in what is referred to as computational mathematics, males score significantly higher on more abstract mathematics.
In the U.S. differences have been discovered after puberty when the curriculum becomes more abstract.
There’s been another sociological hypothesis to try to discount the science, as usual, that males were just simply better because they had more opportunity to enroll in harder math courses, especially higher level courses, than females, but actually, males are more prone to risk taking & to not be hindered by “math anxiety”.
Data collected over 8 years by the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, disclosed that sex differences of mathematical reasoning ability of pre-adolescents – before age 13 & before harder courses – with essentially same formal education.
There was much convoluted analysis, but, ultimately, by calling-a-spade-a-spade, males scored higher on mathematical reasoning ability. Sometimes I really do favor some Platonic philosophy that gives the blunt truth instead of the wild-goose-chase of spanning time & expanding formulas to state the obvious that males are more logical. This testing called SMPY at Johns Hopkins University was of a sub-set of already mathematically gifted males & females, but with testing of other f.-m. testing of poor or mediocre mathematical aptitude, there are same patterns. There’s a graph which I can’t reproduce in pictoral format, so physical copies should be gathered to confirm.
Their development during the latter investigation of their testing was discovered to have had mathematical & science reasoning to be persistently different with the sexes. Both math & verbal reasoning abilities of males advanced to better levels than females. It’s well known now that females are more prone to verbosity, however, males can refine verbosity even better, it’s just that males have more of a tendency to incline to “synthetic”, for a lack of a better word, knowledge. There’s the argument: “you would derive better ethics from more in depth, “feminine”/”new agey” lectures.” I highly doubt ancient mysticism that was used as symbols to work with what was available to them at that development to try to make sense of reality was created by women anyway. No, you derive better ethics & more cohesion from “mechanical” logic.
In a related science study to the aforementioned math testing, Benbow & Stanley confirmed that personality traits associated with scientists is, usually, much more frequent by males.
There are environmental & social arguments as hypothesis, but they are just that. What is presented by distractions is that females do more poorly because of being taught less, but actually males are just more prone to enroll themselves in harder math, etc.. It was also reported that males improved on verbal ability, in spite of the fact that females are more prone to enroll in more verbal courses. Environmental & social factors only contribute to sex differences of smaller degrees.
It has been suggested that spatial ability is related to mathematical skill. Spatial ability was discovered to be related to better performance on SAT-M as a whole. The girls likely solved some problems with verbal strategy. Alternatively, mathematically gifted females would require more spacial ability practice than mathematically gifted boys to to do as well on SAT-M.
Spacial ability has concluded a developmental trend – influence by sex hormones, & is perhaps an autosomal gene with reduced penetrance of females.
Another suggestion for the sex differences of spacial ability is that males & females have left & right hemispheres of brains differently lateralized. Experimental & clinical data gives that the left hemisphere is specialized for language processing & the right for spacial processing. It is indicated that males have greater right hemisphere specialization than females. Researchers have investigated the possibility that males are more lateralized than females, might be why there’s sex differences of spacial ability.
Conclusively, there’s specific physiological correlates of extremely high mathematical & verbal reasoning skills.
Precocious boys have been reported to have puberty induced significantly later than precocious females. Genius boys are potentials not necessarily readily apparent. Sex differences of cognition are indicated due to increased levels of testosterone. Consequences of fetal exposure to increase of testosterone have been in fact discovered for precocious youth. You read correctly; testosterone would make one more logical.
Environmental & societal simplifications does not entirely explain the data. It’s a combination of both nature & nurture, with the, repeatedly, nature preceding culture.
Citations: Sex Differences In The Brain (Progress In Brain Research Volume 61) Edited by G.J. De Vries, J.P.C. De Bruin, H.B.M. Uylings & M.A. Corner, pg.: 469, 470, 472, 473, 474, 476, 478, 479,

Understanding Female Psychology With The Deciphering Of Symbolism


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

The Other Explanation For Hybristophilia/Stockholm Syndrome, etc.


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


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


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.



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.


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.”