On Oxytocin & Stockholm Syndrome Of Context To What Is Problematic

oxy_stockholm

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Anti-science

women_scam

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here’s an idea: study before assuming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only stupid males are not mistrustful of females.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brain_sex

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s Just Call Them “Mtv.” Losers Instead Of Using The H. Word

transformer_and_chick

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

I was basically pressured into this stupid “Mtv.” thing, whatever you wish to call it, because I was subsidizing for less due to a desperate desire for social connections. I didn’t want to be a part of it. I like music, but I don’t believe in orienting a lifestyle around that sort of thing, & I  don’t believe in wasting money on alcohol, etc., just to lower my settings to speak to people of lesser intelligence. When I try to articulate this, it’s met with some sarcastic reply of “yea, cuz it’s like a gateway drug, right”. People value the stupidest things – an immature, toddler-like inability to put the “Beetle’s track” on pause. They’re much too addicted to lamer forms of entertainment, so they don’t even know how to experiment properly. This culture offers basically nothing healthy for intelligent males. I have my own standards & my own goals, but the culture prioritizes this other unproductive thing, which then causes the projection that I’m “suffering” from failing to be like them. The only thing I’m suffering from is that I have to sometimes deal with them & their influence & that I have wasted some time with it. So then they think it’s “shy”. No, it’s internalized conclusions. That’s how this stupid “Mtv.” culture is; they have delusions of being important & competent just because it’s comfortable to believe that by making their renditions of poses, & then when they’re given the reality, they deflect with “I feel sorry for you”. Regardless of whether you’re pro m.g.t.o.w., anti, neutral towards, or, like me, agree with some & don’t agree with some, the blogger Barbarossa stated it perfectly in his: ‘Survivalist Rhetoric: The Alpha Male Primitive.’ It’s such an important recording that I’m actually thinking about making a typed version of it, maybe.
I also value materialism. In my case: books are regarded as essential tools. They’re more important than utilities for a car. In fact, I’ve even economized my life to prioritize book obsession at the expense of a normal life. However, the semantics I refer to is a different problem.

Water & a female’s mind are similar – inconstant. Although females know what is right, they still have bad directions. Females’ nature is unsteady. Even if they see what they should be, they become what they shouldn’t be. Of many cases, to try to integrally capture the mind of a female, one has to adopt their impulse, & that is what has happened on the macro – adoption of feminine traits & inconsistency. Females lack integrity, largely contributing to the culture of facades. I’ve typed this before: what has resulted is a barely noticeable freak act of female emulation, so done by male performance to instinctively adapt to feminine herds, which causes its choice of amplifications, & we mistake it for an authentic masculinity.

So after I realized the “Mtv.” lifestyle for what it really is – nothing more than another rendition of “sports fans”, etc., making their feuds, propping their egos based on nothing important, & then also maintaining a limited understanding of reality based on casual observations, these losers thought that I “sold out”/quit their little groups due to an apparent – what they assumed – “inferiority complex” because that’s what happens if you’re a male not easily amused & persuaded & have the capability of being more discerning, an aspect of control, the real kind, not the fake kind that females have created of oblivious confidence.

These kids & young adults get distracted, cultivating an image from an average of ~5 weeks to ~5 months for a large portion of their lives, not even aware what’s really happening because those males have not yet learned how to weed on their own terms & hone in to get what they want from an average of ~5 minutes, ~5 hours, to ~5 days. We’ve been pretending for most of our lives. For most of us, it was a pretense we could not even recognize. We were told lies, & in turn, we perpetuated lies because those lies were what we knew.

Consider this scenario: A singer of a musical band may not be the organizer, or particularly intelligent, but, because he is the loudest & most shaky, this implies to the uncritical aesthetes that he is somehow a “leader” or the most “competent”. This is partly why I despise art & artists, even if that example might be isolated, not the technical artist who will contribute towards anatomy or engineering illustrations, but just the common artists. I’m using the word art broadly to define the various facades that females want & have set as the ultimate thing to strive for. Aesthetics leads to becoming alogical & amoral. I know males are generally much more visual creatures than females, so there’s nothing wrong with males claiming their own desires for objectification since masculine utilization helped organize civilization, but I’m referring to a problem of what is falsely called “emotional intelligence”/”social intelligence” – a burden to the advancement of real intelligence.

As Esthir Vilar said: “& so the world will go on, sinking deeper & deeper into this morass of kitsch, barbarism, & inanity called femininity.” – from ‘The Manipulated Man’, pg.: 155, [Pinter & Martin edt.] by Esthir Vilar. Great book, especially as applicable for the appropriate communication level. She had less concern with fanaticism of language – no technicalities, just quick, no vagueness, just straight truth.

The postmodern attitude is that “there is no truth, or that we can’t find it anyway.” It’s to not be concerned with facts, basically. If you want to argue that realism is “vague” – that it’s not worth it, too theoretical, & too challenging, then you undermine your argumentation because it stops you from verifying. You might as well not even argue. It’s “mysterious” because they just can’t understand it, & then they also think that one is just trying hard to seem mysterious.

When I first did a book review of the following a long time ago (completely different edited note than this one), the replies to it were how “painful”, etc., it read & sounded – completely missing the point. The reason that is is because most of what females say isn’t even real, so they think, with their mass supporters, that “truth = what sounds stylish”. It’s an inability to judge beyond tone & execution due to their means of immediate, casual, aesthetic observations – no abstractions. “Logic is delicate, sensitive, tender, sad, & maudlin”, etc.. No. it’s logical. It’s non-emotional & reduced of acting. A female pick up artist, like Kezia Noble, marketing it will tell you: “It’s not what you do or say, it’s how you say or do it,” so we have females as p(r)etty usurpers of masculinity because females have not learned to respect the totality of masculinity & masculine enterprises. When they’re not starting petty politics & drama, they’re being satiated by it in their literature & soap operas, & then go back to starting it because they haven’t received their proper order; “This guy did this weird thing with his facial expression for 3 seconds so I’m going to make a whole soap opera about it for the entire day because I need to fill that void for not having accomplished to the ratio of masculinity.” 3 seconds of “awkwardness” is inflated as 1 minute of it. They can’t be slightly bored or uncomfortable for barely 1 minute before moving to something else, & this is how females have been abusing rationalism & logic. If they start crying after you stopped the performance, don’t feel sorry. I know it’s tempting because males have that decency, but part of the reason we’ve gotten such problems is because females don’t have shame. By spending large sums of money for them, you’ve also established their control.

Here’s just an excerpt, which I have reduced to the only essentials because I’m trying to make this particular note as quickly to the point as it should be, of that one good point PAINFULLY delivered. It’s not supposed to be “stimulating”. It’s supposed to be informative, objective.:

Today postmodernism is all the rage. Around the 1960s, we entered an era characterized by a new style of life, art, & identity. While the modern world was shaped by the industrial revolution & productivity, the postmodern era is shaped by the information revolution – entertainment, the ethic of meaningless consumption, fast-changing styles, &, with that, a lack of commitment to any solid perspectives. “Postmodernism is completely indifferent to the questions of consistency & continuity. It splices genres, attitudes, styles. It relishes the blurring of juxtaposition of forms (fiction-non), stances (straight-ironic), moods (violent-comic), cultural levels (high-low) to no actual meaning. It neither embraces nor criticizes, but beholds the world blankly, with knowingness that dissolves & with a commitment to irony. It takes pleasure in the play of surfaces, & that is mostly what is known, & derides the search for depth as “sensitive”, or something stupid.
Postmodern man is no longer trying to discipline a willpower. He has discarded a quest for a single identity. His stance is ironic. How convenient. Postmodern man is the concupiscent consumer. Whole lives just formed by fashion. He changes shape at will. Lives revolving around taste, not right-or-wrong; aesthetic rather than moral. Kierkegaard called him Don Juan earlier – a fucking pointless “gypsy loser with a fucking banjo”. He avoids consistency by keeping himself satiated with a thousand facades. Don’t think “straights” are excempt. That’s just another version with only a difference of surface. Consumerism is a catharsis.
With the emergence of postmodern man, we have a point of reasoning being reduced. Taste replaces what should be done.

Don’t buy the book – really bad book. It’s a “castrated” attempt of trying to be a little bit insightful with only one good definition on postmodernity found within the entire book, literally only 1 page of quality. Just confirm the source by google search. Just search Sam Keen On Postmodern Man.

Sources: “Fire In The Belly’ by Sam Keen, pgs. 110 & 111.

Important Cognitive Axioms of Neuro-Science

phallocentrism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

Some Origins Of Sadomasochism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

more_you_know

I always try to re-word so that points are not forgotten. Key concept: Gynocentrism/”patriarchy”, etc., is just obscurintist & glamorized self abuse by masculinity because society drives itself to the feminine checking of the inaccuracies of weak-or-strong, too-nice-or-dominant, etc.. Women like being secretaries for bullies & other idiots. Consider the extreme invasion by the religion of Is***. Who called for that policy? It was a female politician. The other argument is: “Well, that’s because it was control by J***”. The point is though is that females are actually receptive to being controlled by such.

First, there needs to be a differentiation of contexts of emotional states: The feelings of masculinity that actually does matter that is useful for alarming – an aspect of logic, often signifies as something “wrong” to gynocentrism. The normative kind of emotional state to be automatic is the kind that is a detriment to masculinity. The latter type is what I mean when stating that emotions are bad, not the former.

WARNING: I do not wish to cause misery to other males – strictly educational. This is regarding a sensitive subject – the realities of male genital mutilation, generally hidden & continued to be accepted, even by vastly males as a means of obliterating the pain. That too is traditionalism. Subordination inhibits the need to know. It’s a subordination to traditional instincts. The reality of circumcision is so disagreeable that it is usually avoided consciously or subconsciously, & this answers why those who are not in denial are labeled as just anecdotes. Repression & denial is the means of what is happening. It is difficult to make empirical evidence of denial because it is evidence itself that is altered or denied.
I any case, anecdotes do sometimes matter because some can notice what others can’t.

This is not “disgruntled extremism”. In fact, it’s a calling for the apposite of it. This is going to confuse many, but if you actually read all of it &/or try to make an effort in understanding female mate bias of context to the prearranging harsh history – selecting for mostly action, not intellect, which its repository of instinct has actualized into the modern tributary of that female mate bias, it’ll be understood better. Females have much more sanctioning power than they realize, & it’s due to their primal “filtering.” It’s a custom that has morphed from the female extracting, stretching to the “patriarchal” modernity. That’s right, I blame female nature for such contingency.
All the past times of attempted civilized debates of feminism, male-&-female biology, gender, sex differences of cognition, etc., have been reduced by the apposition of the juvenile: “you’re-a-pussy”/”you-have-problems-with-not-being-able-to-increase-confidence”, etc., or even try to give me advice on how I can become “better” for their stupid registration – completely missing the points. You know why that is? It’s because all those reoccurring patterns are translations of their core nature of having the opportunity to exercise filtering.
It’s time for truly rational males to exercise filtering for our registration.

Disclaimer: I do not 100% endorse, completely, every single author & every single thing I derive from. My research is of an eclectic one. Being detached & objective means accumulating many facets, then connecting & finding missing links.

A study by a cognitive psychologist from the University of Southern California & co-author of a paper featuring some of it’s findings in the Oct. 6, 2010 issue of the Journal NeuroReport found that when men under stress saw angry faces, they seemed to not want to engage. There’s that masculine rational fear deemed by mass society as “bad” or some kind of “illness”. Contrastingly, as usual, females were more insistent. This neurological basis signalizes females’, of varying degrees, amorality/hybristophilia – the attraction to extrinsic commotion, villains & wrath – lazily described as “sympathy” by most.
Specializing in a given field reduces completion of other integration, hence why it’s called “sympathy”. Greater interest in synthetic formulas & components does not necessarily guarantee fuller exactitude.

~3,500 cuttings are performed every day [1997] in the U.S., one every twenty-five seconds.
33% of American pediatricians & obstetricians oppose, yet don’t necessarily disclose, it. Some nurses & doctors refuse to do it.
Financial incentive is one motivating factor as to why it is done.

Parents continue ignorance by confusing benign intentions with effects; believing that non-intended harm equals no harm to occur.

Pavlovian, along with most psychology, conditioned reflexes is a field that interests me. The following are some unpopular aspects of it.

Psychologists have known for a long time that trauma sets, often hidden from awareness, long term effects. You could be psychologically damaged & not even know it, or not know how it happened.
An infant’s eyes tightly close during circumcision.
Levels of cortisol – hormone release as response to stress – are high during circumcision.
Increase of excessive heart beats, even over baseline, per minute have been recorded. This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.
Infants tremble, cry vigorously, & in some cases become mildly cyanotic – lividness or blueness of skin caused by pressure of skin due to prolonged crying. It is an abnormal type of crying.

By the late 1800s & early 1900s, it was believed that a baby had similar level of consciousness to a vegetable. By the mid 1940s there were changing understandings of infants. Pediatrician Benjamin Spock (yes, real last name. You can check the sources on end.) reported in 1946 that infants are more cognizant.
Infants can generally distinguish between the vowels i & a on the next day following birth.
Infants require attendance to proper sensory responses. For one, infants’ deeper breathing in response to tactile sensation gives more oxygen to tissue. Stroking causes better alertness.
Infants do have their own set of well-developed thinking. It’s just of a different type.

From the Journal Of Sex Research, Davison & Money of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine reported that changes includes drastic diminished penile sensitivity. With relatively little effect of arousal, it can be described like callused fingers a guitar player receives.
I have even read from an independent research article a long time ago without a citation that the procedure actually takes away a chemical occurrence that would otherwise happen between a male & female to be much more committed to each other. It’s believable, & there’s tons of research one can do on it.

Extreme pain, bahavioural modifications, risk of complications, & loss of protective, sensitive tissue, resulting in diminished gratification – “But none of this could be true.” “We were too busy paying attention to that new style, or the comedy-skit, or score from the team of the west-coast, etc..” People have close to no idea of what’s really happening. Facts are naturally altered or withheld because of feelings. More damage is then done due to concealing rather than disclosing truth. The authentic & benign hyper-sexuality of masculinity has actually been regressed as those who were “sexually molested” or “free-loading” males when that sexuality would make the male-to-female interaction more of an actual friendship than sports & mostly business contracts. There’s been reports, which I have reduced for the sake of convenience, one can confirm from the cited source on the end of this article, that adult males could compare effects before the practice & after, & that after it was done, it was similar to being incapable of holding something normally with hand due to wearing a glove. I think this could possibly contribute to females’ mass perception of genuine intense attraction called “put-on-a-pedestal”. As an intact male, it’s been my experience that my more passionate & intensified sexual interest was interpreted by many females as an exaggerated, fake act by me, either that or that I had something “wrong” with me for having my passions more grand. This is a common reoccurrence: males honestly show how much they like a female, she then sees that as “too needy”, “weakness”, or something stupid. This is not an issue of semantics, so please save the retorts of: “females love attention”. Like vampires, they lead astray to traps & waste time, even including for “alphas”, because they lack persistence, & often just use that attention for entertainment with plausible deniability.
We live in a very juvenile world because females don’t respect male intellect, & then they opt for other males stuck on their level.
The police is one case of such males stuck on their level. I’m not a hippy, so I believe they’re a necessary force, but they have major problems with believing the fact that they often shouldn’t believe females. Not to brag, I don’t live an average life. I’ve had some critical periods. I’ve been incarcerated before shortly due to having aspects of my philosophy “cock-blocked”, if you’ll allow me to use that ridiculous analogy, by the chivalry of police officers when they allowed females to take advantage of freedom of speech & abuse it by lying after I’ve given “extremist” dialogue in public. All I did was harmless commentary. I then heard other inmates speak of getting arrested after restraining their female partners who had knives & other violence, etc.. Even some that called the police for their safety were blamed on the males by police & then arrested. I’d also advise to not even publicly debate with them. Present all content on the other formats. Even if you were to make a report to police that they did something to you, you’re more likely to get arrested because the police prioritize females’ claims.
What I type as results of gynocentrism were not originally intentionally planned. That is my point; gynocentrism causes & enhances accidents because of the fact that females are bad planners, & their nature also monopolizes social structures. It was a process of embracing stupid or mediocre men, replicating genes of stupid or mediocre men, & then following those stupid or mediocre men.
Most of actual importance was created by rationalizing males mostly undesirable to females – division by females of the meme replicators from the gene replicators, combining their characteristics with the latter.
Contrary to what the deconstructed author of the book believes, which I think is due to that he’s more of a specialist on medicine, this is not a result of suppressed feelings. Instead, this practice is feelings carried on a systematic level with utensils. It requires a longer, thoughtful process to devise other methods of treatment than relying on methods of foreordained instincts to nullify, especially when confronted with the annoying task of examining genitals maturely. Instinctual activity has often such a direction that it persuades one as an efficient means for the avoidance of more options requiring patience. Preference of quicker practicality & emotions is consistent with the general difficulty of being aware of & expressing intellect. Cultural, derived from historical instincts, over-reliance on emotions has caused inclination to adopt practicality as the great arbiter between fiction & fact so that quick feelings of convenience can be liked.
I do not call for hysterically, “reversed Feminism”, or for something fanatical, such as FGM – clitoridectomy or excision of its hood, apart of culture of the Persian Gulf, which overlaps with MGM, & neighboring regions. Those actions are just another subset of the preordained instincts. Instead, disallow the value of intuition over intellect that has promoted weeding of a rationalist renaissance – masculine monopoly. It is not the scientific-method. It is anti-intellectual intuition as a hasty vagary to get-it-over-with, & even monetary desires, infused by habitual drives, posing as the scientific-method.
Simplistic interpretations of the “patriarchy” lacks accuracy.
In this game of status-forging, healthy only limited to certain extant, with females watching & selecting & upgrading for other deals by ambiguous commitment, it’s going to be a “juggle” by masculinity with mistakes & even some spontaneous self-abuse. It’s the way it’s been by natural history & it’s the way it is recently. The varying displays of “machismo” are largely unnoticably controlled by femalehood’s inculcated intuition. Though males can seek such displays of status, it’s not enough. Females seek connections with others to gain & use status. Male, determined by gynocentrism, status-forging has a price; it is incompatible with understanding & creating a disciplined principles/true rationalism – “weakness” – by patience.
Females with apparent inflated egos are only threatening to males because these males subconsciously know it’s going to be extra competition to gain rank to her inflated self. Males have somewhat of a method to try to stay away from this; opting for females on mainly the level of a limiting physical attraction – good choice. Male fear of female sexuality can be if that female sexuality is pronounced, & if that is pronounced, female lack of integrity is also pronounced.
Concern with being a bland-minded acquirer of capital undermines concern for cultivating masculinity – better standards, promoting better self-esteem. The self esteem of males has already been ruined by circumcision.

There are several types of memory. Painful experiences in neonates can lead to psychological sequelae. Remembering, for instance, something you saw two hours ago requires a different type of memory than knowing how to tie a knot or recalling a place you’ve been associated with heightened sensation. Memory is not limited to only intellect, but body & emotion also. Long term memory has been demonstrated behaviorally in various mammals & other animals. Considering simpler animals have long term memory, it’s about 99.9% likely that infants have it also.
From neurological & developmental analysis, newborn infants can have trauma & retain memory of it. A sector of society has projected their inability to consciously remember that time on the infant. We store memories of that time, just generally don’t have access to them immediately. According to a psychological survey, the majority confirmed that forgetting was due to retrieving problems & not loss of info. from memory storage.
A mother explained that her child of 6 years old crawled through a tunnel & said to her: “This feels like when I was born”. Similarly, birth Primal can be studied by simulation. Psychiatrist Nandor Fodor was the first to propose accessing trauma memories by simulation.
Many types of psychopathology are connected to the birth experience – “vibrations” reverberating. Can you believe it?
The DSM IV classifies PTSD, & not limited to, as resulting from extreme traumatic stressor beyond routine life of a given average maturation. Responses include intense fear. Instances of which are torture, etc.. According to the DSM IV, PTSD includes symptoms of impulsive & self destructive behaviour, etc.. By definition, in conjunction to other facts cited, circumcision is traumatic. Like other traumas, it is repressed. Psychological problems increase as age of child decreases. Adult males with such experiences have adverse behaviour responses, mainly undetected by society. The revelation is that we have a society of unhealthy males, continuing instinctive self abuse. Just a personal anecdote: The level of “machoness” preordained by gynocentric instincts has alienated & maladjusted me, who never had this procedure done to me. What is considered normal is the society we have. It’s completely normal to have a bad society of varying degrees of exaggerated gallantry & just indifference/nihilism.
Symptoms of PTSD vary. The hidden – long term effects generally not of awareness but evident in behaviour – PTSD of circumcision has a contributing factor of violence as just one of those varients. Violence can also be exhibited in different ways, which may not even be capable of classification of crime statistics.
Subsequent distrust & aggression is connected. The systematic practice teaches to be angry or accept loss. Trust is a prerequisite for setting discipline of commitment. Disruption of development of better communication to females for future is impaired. It is very strange that the artificial mold of masculinity is what females admire mostly. Although these artificial moldings of masculinity are external forces reinforcing females’ malleability, the admiration by females reveals innateness of themselves. Gynocentrism is much older than such clinical practices. Originally, gynocentrism monopolized by females reinforced artificial displays of masculinity, &, coequally, artificial molds of masculinity reinforced further monopolization of gynocentrism by female-hood, &, as typed further, females also have a collectivist hive-mind by which they check of an anti-intellectual binary classification. If you know about such, etc., or type about such, very hypocrytical, you are an archetypal “creep” or “serial-killer” to them, even though those traits of harmless typing & thinking are the antithesis of the accidents of the intuition of gynocentric gathering.
To specify though, I’m not typing that intellectual males should present themselves as offers of “take me, please”, but, rather, especially to eliminate potential usurpation from supposed “intellectual” females – high rate of potential traps, always maintain a female on the incommensurable level for masculine self-preservation of rationalism.

Dissociation – erasing associated pain from traumatic experience, both physical & humiliation – results from trauma. Dissociation is a response of a psychological survival mechanism analogous to numbing a part of ones body to inhibit extreme pain. A boy actually makes himself believe it didn’t happen, thus actually altering himself. Based on clinical neurological research, traumatic & painful experience can actually cause long-term physiological changes in the neurochemical & central nervous system. Brain-imaging studies conducted on adults with histories of sexual abuse of childhood were reported to have reduced size of hippocampus, which is a zone of the brain associated with memory. Also, low scores of adults who had been abused were reported on another test of verbal short-term memory. Circumcision actually alters brain development. Presence of high level of the stress hormone cortisol, which is increased 3-4xs in the blood stream correlates with deep memory imprinting.

Connections to sadomasochistic behavior & child-hood injuries has been noted in psychology. Common elements of S-M behavior & circumcision include pain, struggling, bondage, & a loosely, originally unwanted, associated sexual context.
Not “minor anecdote” – trivialized report: One man reported to have S-M fantasies since he could remember. Further claiming it’s not normal to have S-M fantasies by age 4.
There are other factors to the phenomena & “normalcy” of severe S-M, since females also have an interest in it, but genital male mutilation is a major contributor. Some intact men also participate in it, although much less to the same seriousness of buying leather, & living-the-lifestyle, etc., but that’s just mostly from cultural introduction.
But what exactly caused such a barbaric practice to be normalized? One has to go back even further to the natural history by a context of evolutionary psychology.
When I type about this, I’m not referring to a generic slap on the buttocks, loud cursing, hair-pulling, etc. – fast & hard sex. I’m referring to an entire practice of b.d.s.m. – the type that females tend to be much more interested in, both as a sex act, as well as a simplistic rating instinct they treat males with.
B.D.S.M. has it’s origins in the practice of circumcision, but such practices itself were by-products of the origins in feminine weeding – “vibrational” gynocentrism monopolized by femalehood altering phenotype – mostly done by intuition – barely recognized. Anyone who has a serious understanding of evo.-psych. & Darwinian science knows that females are attracted to mostly authority. Do not confuse rationalism with authority. They’re 2 separate things, which only occasionally overlaps. The feminist & cultural idea that sex-is-about-power is also manifested from the b.d.s.m. mentality of female nature. Yes, I’m sure there’s some aspects about sex being linked to power, such as procreation to expand more legacy, etc., but it is not directly synonymous. Sex as power is a feminine projection because they aren’t necessarily interested in forming a friendship with benefits of sex, romance, or whatever you wish to call it. To be thorough, I’m not typing about it as a generic, or fast, etc., sex. I refer to b.d.s.m. as an entire mentality that females superficially employ, & not just in-the-bedroom – a feminine mentality, not just physically, much more intrinsic to them; “Humble, intelligent males are possibly useful, “creepy”, “pathetic”, & frustrating, which is funny because males of the apposite of humble & intelligent are by definition creepy. Females are attracted to or ordain to be instinctive males, hence why society is docile & even stupid. For the reactionary is the natural selection of females, & why we need to learn to control nature.
Culture is not a friend, & it perpetuates false selves.
Don’t believe it when females state they are “pan-sexual”. There is nothing “pan” about the various transliterated binaries of slave-or-master, bashful-or-not, instant-failure-or-instant-upgrade, “autistic”-or-fun. Different males think differently. If you are different from that binary, you are a “freak”. Their evaluation methods is just insufficient & outmoded. Most products of merit have been due to different, thinking-outside-the-box.

A study by researchers affiliated with University of Montreal presented 1,516 adults with a list of 55 different sexual fantasies ranging from sex with multiple people to sex with objects and animals, and more. The participants ranked the intensity of each fantasy and described their favorite ones in detail. Nearly 65 percent of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52 percent of women said bondage revs them up, 36 percent fancy spanking, and 28.9 fantasize about being forced to have sex. (For the record, a significant number of men were turned on by the same things — even though guys were more likely to fantasize about oral sex, group sex, & ejaculating on their partners.) What that reporting of the questionnaire directed to males omits is, firstly, significant number does not specify same or more frequency, &, secondly, there’s no specification as to whether some of the overlap of female sexuality is innate to masculinity when the questionnaire disregards the conditioning effects of circumcision, &, thirdly, there was no specification of the rating of intensity of overlapping sexuality. The study also stated that these females enjoy such sexuality, but don’t necessarily want it to come true. Translated from masks of femininity, meaning: they’re waiting for it.
(The source of that study was delivered to me by e-mail from a Cosmopolitan article. Exact date & page of it was not specified.)
the rape-fantasy is so popular with females because it takes away the burden of actually having integrity. Most of what females do is by intuition-by-nature. They have bad planning methods, poor communication predicated on the baby-communication level of body language/facial expressions/tone, etc., so they have no or little discipline & lack of commitment. The truth is is that female nature is actually “macho”. The intellect has an effect of cuckolding males by feminine rating. Narcissists are drawn to other narcissists – a fake or minor aspect of masculinity that females have ordained or selected from their “solipsistic” schema – & that’s the nature of gynocentric monopoly – feminine sexual selection.
The culture of b.d.s.m./ taming the dumb animal, which requires becoming the lower animal to “top” the dumb female animal, again, not just as a generic fast/hard sex, etc., but an entire practice, emphatically, actually has it’s roots in male genital mutilation/self abuse, which, by “coincidence”, for a lack of a better description, females have a kinship to. M.G.M. interferes with male sexuality & corroborates with female psychology innate to it’s selective bias hundreds to thousands of years ago – a non-consensual practice done by the system that females accidentally enhanced by instinct.

Rather than more cooperation by females, what results is more implicit demands by females because of the impulsiveness associated with it, & females also have dichotomous preferences of males for two different reasons – one for desire, the other for usury, which will be read in a separate article.
So females want monetary symbols to discern provision for birth. Ok males, be literal & just provide for that. You don’t have to show other symbols. Females are quite capable as well.

The so called “rape culture” that feminists complain about is a fantasy retained by a vast percentage of females, including feminists, but you can not explain all of what is typed to them, or even just the general public, because they have absolutely no, or poor, understanding of evolutionary psychology, conditioned reflexes, how statistics works, Charles Darwin, or just plain psychology. It is natural for narcissists to deject what they can’t understand. Because of the limited understanding, they try to contrive definitions to make easier cohesion out of something too hard for them, so then using the quickest assumptions or trivialities; “sad loser who can’t work on himself & change for a woman”, “disorganized text/lifestyle”, etc.. Feminism is just mostly highly inflated opinions, assumptions, & a very simplistic interpretation of history – all not scientific. History is not categorized in the pyramid of knowledge as an actual science. They will claim this a “veil of semantics” because they just can’t understand it, & they are more concerned with what provides for a basis of confidence. Females have a “rythmic”, if you will, registration, none of which is encased in this.

This is the most essential point of this article: Our fight-or-flight beginnings were of the-survival-of-the-fittest, so now in our modern civilized times, when those instincts are no longer mandatory, it is morphed derivatives of that. I will repeat: THIS WASN’T ORIGINALLY PLANNED, & THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT; GYNOCENTRISM & FEMALE’S MONOPOLIZATION OF IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS & INSTINCTS. It’s not their fault. Well, it is largely their fault, just not intentional. Tautologically: the environmental influences, particularly circumcision, alters masculinity, & the environmental influences were already caused by pre-selection by females. Halting the cycles of gynocentric intuition that reinforces feminine estimations requires different & newer strategies. Such strategies would be conceived by males not for associative female recognition, but by incitement of a modified, learned masculinity via leadership of dissuaded males with concentrated options.

It’s a very mind boggling issue, but this is how it manifested: Our beginning climates were situated for females to have a sexual preference for reactionary males, not intellectual. They claim it’s mostly for hygienic purposes, (more complicated than that) but had females selected for intellectual males originally, we would have devised other methods of hygiene. Females have a higher rate of urinary tract infection than males, not that I’m advocating contrasting treatment, yet no procedure for them. Now, because gynocentrism is still monopolized, the notion is varying degrees of humble & intellectual males being “creepy”, “pathetic”, frustrating, or possibly useful. It wasn’t planned by females; it was just simply a natural accidental result of the instincts they ordain.
So, yes, females are basically choosing toxic forms of masculinity by a cyclic process such as this: There is the implicit offerings. Some males are used for mainly resourceful reasons, some males are desired for their impulse. Since female consciousness is limited, they don’t know how to take other males, they can’t revolutionize opting. More traits of docile characteristics & reactionary are promoted. End result: Commonality of the population makes intellectual males a minority.
Inhibition of female monopolization of gynocentrism would alter production of toxic masculinity. That’s why this kind of info. needs to be applied as a protocol to masculinity for the rationalist proprietorship of policies of approach – minimized accidents, stupidity, mediocrity, & checked feminine appraising & feminine sexual selection.

Females chose what they could understand, or, rather, allowed them to not understand. Rationalism has not been respected by female nature. When has it been commonly the case of females respecting males for who they are? It’s always about giving to females.
Unlike the female m.r.a. – “bipolar” poseurs with a sloppy judge of character, which is why they can’t understand the denser processes of male-female interaction, & this is going to offend many, there is a class of barbaric, stupid, inauthentic males, but these males critiqued by the feminine are the result of their own will. Rationalism then gets blamed for the bad representation of masculinity. The female m.r.a.s. love to talk more about feminism than judge themselves. In the ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Let’s Destroy Him’ video. The commentator only critiqued how feminists call nice-guys “evil”, a.k.a., creepy, then only once admitted that “we think their pathetic”. That itself is just as bad as calling them evil. “Patriarchy” is not synonymous with rationalism. It’s synonymous with female nature. “Patriarchy” is a product of the semi-consciousness/impulse of femininity. The “patriarchy” enhanced by female fraternization indicates more about female nature than it does about male. Consider Isl**** culture where harsh treatment is done to females, as well as males. But this is a result of “karma”, not to use mystically; meaning: cause & effect; their mindless intuition selects, so mindlessness begets. In the hip-hop song: ‘My Neck, My Back’, Khia Shamone tells-it-like-it-is, rude & made easy: “The best comes from a thug…. You might have cheese (money), but fuck that nigga, get on yo knees….” That is a naked representation. You can learn a lot of underlying truths from endemic communities. Much of Isl**** culture is more agrarian, but with that, different translations. “Patriarchy” = obscurantist self abuse by males glamorized, & if you abuse yourself, you abuse surroundings.

Anecdote: Yes, I know it’s just an anecdote, but many males will identify with this: My father was a friendly, hard-working, successful male. He just wanted to humbly come home to eat hot-dogs & watch action movies ( &, interestingly, he’s also intact.). He had some pretty obvious high testosterone levels, & yet again, his wife eventually concluded him as a “wuss” because he never actually wanted to show any displays of defeating in petty argumentation.
Also, during my adolescence, because I never had this practice done to me, I reduced much of the ritualized associations so common with others’ sexuality influenced by the practice. Because of my personal reduction, other females didn’t like me as much.

What Mr. Goldman is missing is a more integral understanding of Darwinian science & female sexual selection, as typed in the first 2 introductory paragraphs.
As Buddhist purists know, although not explicitly because they do not welcome politics from intruders, of female nature – “the daughters of Mara” – is that they are of a demonic nature which leads to unconsciousness – cuckolding the intellect. This is not a theological analysis. This is one of patterns in many diverse, far-ranging fields. Paralleling the Darwinian science, Buddhist understanding is basically that female consciousness selects or ordains for sin-fullness of varying degrees. You might get from someone like the Dalai Lama that females are “good”, “wonderful,” etc., but it’s just a way to fend what they don’t want away. Females started the cycle. A Buddhist had predicted that allowing women in would cause his teachings to survive only half as long – 500 years instead of 1,000. Some such ancient declarations have been eliminated from texts. Your turn – Happy-hunting!

Obscuring info. also has some of its origins in gynocentrism, which can be analyzed in a bluntly-put sequential pattern; transcending gynocentric socialization by analysis; “extremism” is labeled by pleasure/females; frustration sometimes occurs to slandered analyzer; observation then is further slandered as “hysteria/”criminal”, etc.; “comedy”, etc., of male argumentation from pop. culture.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Bill Burr: You can’t criticize women because men are busy trying to have sex with them.
Female sexuality – political, dramatic, & crafty – is completely excusable, yet there’s frequently some beta males & females denigrating, compared to a ratio, the bodily/visuo male sexuality as “low”, “immature”, “trashy”, etc.. The reality is is that female sexuality is much more detrimental. Beta bureaucrats are willing to sometimes defend & apply legal measures with the feminine critiques of pornographers recording females dressed playfully with pigtails, vomiting on phalluses, or other images of slimy gapes, etc., & that we should be cautious of this sort of thing, yet why can’t we apply critiques on b.d.s.m. themes much more common & innate to female psychology? I’ve even criticized females in public of their varying versions of hybristophilia, & they look at me like I’m the wrong one. The former – an issue of choice of bodily juxtapositions & functions, while the latter – an issue of rationalizing & even the integrity of the future of the species.
There’s the other argument that beta males & the like will try to use to defend hybristophilia of female-hood; that it’s these females having a noble cause to try to change such bad men for the better, but why would you defend that when those females could apply that desire to build something beneficial with more rational males?
Associated physiological responses are evident. “Adrenaline shoots through me”, states one outcast, again, as typed firstly, masculine rational fear is interpreted as “bad”, a “sickness”, etc.. The general lack of curiosity as a defense mechanism about such a practice is strong. There is an aversion to learning potentially ego-threatening new info.. If you consider the defenses maintained by the vast popular to guard a lack of curiosity on just that single issue, consider other experiences males have, often blamed on those males, of being psychologically destroyed also declined. This is an anti-/a-objective culture where you’re here to be “macho”, entertaining, or automatic. “So, that’s just anecdotal when that one states adrenaline shoots through him”. Correction: To reiterate: there is a general lack of curiosity as defense mechanisms & mass cognitive dissonance as well as forgetting. Do people want to know about something as common as the interwork of slaughterhouses, just as an example, not a debate on veganism, & other things of that nature? Male disposability, not just in terms of divorce & male-female relational problems, is not a strong meme because, by even claiming that, males are already type-casted as non-entities.

Source: ‘Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma’ By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., pgs.: 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 31, 56, 75, 87, 89, 98. 117 & 118.
Not an excellent book, but has some good facts & is better than nothing on this highly riddled issue. Some truth & some fallacies. The author fails to make the connection that the practice is not a product of rationalism, but, in fact, it’s actually a product of instincts-by-nature. There’s also too much favoring of feminine emotions & claiming that masculinity is the main source of such reactions, but, in fact, it’s gynocentrism that leads to instincts/intuition.