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


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

Science Of Sex Differences


Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

SavageHippie Episode 17 A – October Surprise! You Got Punked!


I was too lazy to write a caption for this week’s artwork, but I think it speaks for itself.  Not only is David surrounded by lovely ladies, one of whom is Ann, who decided to pose in a bikini because she understands that women get more attention when they’re wearing less, but my severed head is on a plate.  Of course, I still technically win this round since I had Clayton V put David’s likeness onto a Troma poster, bahahahahaha!!!

Anyway, if you thought this podcast  couldn’t get any more annoying, you’re dead wrong, bucko!  Well no, actually, we talk about how Julian Assange punked the Alt-Right, Trump supporters and shitlords of all type by claiming he had a “surprise” that would immediately end Clinton’s chances of becoming President.  What was the surprise?  A two hour long infomercial.  I was fortunate enough to complete miss said announcement, and even if I hadn’t, I’d have been a little suspicious of it being TWO FUCKING HOURS long.  I mean, if Assange had dirt on Clinton, I would assume he would have said, “and now for footage of Clinton plotting the Benghazi attack!”  I guess the trolls got trolled.

Then, after about 27 minutes of what could actually be called political discussion, in which we compare the Slavic immigration from a hundred years ago to the Latino one of today, we let the alcohol get the best of us, and the show devolves into the usual nonsense.  We discuss our sexual fetish for Guys and Dolls; I attempt to defend Penny Marshal, who I actually did find quite cute in her younger years; we make a bunch of tasteless Holocaust jokes;  we talk about how the liver is the strongest part of the body and could pretty much be used as a substitute for any organ; David goes on a rant about his poor book sales; I discuss the bands Warhorse and Captain Beyond in Rain Man-like detail as if anyone actualy gives a shit; and we introduce a NEW SEGMENT!!! It’s so exciting it warrants its own paragraph.

That’s right; the Savage Hippie Podcast has a new segment called “The Sounds of Marshabaloosh.”  What the fuck is Marshabaloosh?  It’s the evil deity that we made up a few podcasts ago that most certainly reminds you that your life and the universe has a guiding force… and it’s REALLY mean spirited and responsible for all of the pain in the world.  It’s also the name of our new musical promotion segment, where we play a song by a band to promote them.  This week’s song is “Know It All” by Chicago based punk-lite band, the Safes.

If you have a band you want to showcase, send us an MP3, and chances are we’ll play it, because we’re not very picky, and we have no taste.

As usual, the closing song is “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles, and the artwork was done by master Photoshop auteur Clayton V.

How to Fix Democracy

20160930_122802Right after the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, we all sat down on our blogs, podcasts,youtube channels and social media, and began analyzing the results.  Who was the real winner?  Who made the better points?  Who looked like the bigger asshole?  The general consensus among 99% of the mainstream media is that Clinton won hands down because… well, because… SHE’S CLINTON AND NOT TRUMP, YOU RACIST/SEXIST!!!  She talked a lot about some nebulous concept of “income inequality”, made up the cute term “Trumped up trickle down”, smiled condescendingly and, from some sources, even signaled a few times to the moderator in order to get him to help her gang up on Trump.  Trump, on the other hand, laid out a few solid jabs in the form of attacking her and her husband’s support for NAFTA and pulled no punches when saying that inner city ghettos are shitholes.

Unfortunately he was also a bit defensive when questioned about allegedly supporting the Iraq war (which he never did) and was forced to defend himself against allegations of not paying an architect for designing one of his hotels or something.  So, in that respect, he didn’t exactly look good.  To the people who ACTUALLY analyzed the debate, the result was somewhat of an in-between loss and win, with Clinton being spoon fed soft ball questions – nothing about emails or Benghazi, of course – while Trump was forced to defend his not releasing his taxes, accusing Obama of not being born on American soil and other tabloid nonsense that most Americans don’t care about.

But, at the end of the day, it didn’t matter, because the majority of American citizens aren’t analytical or deep.  So, what we – and by “we”, I mean Trump-supporters from all sides of the right-o-sphere (hey, I still LIKE mainstream conservatism, I just think it needs a good kick in the ass) were concerned with was not so much if Trump “officially” won or lost the debate, but rather how it would effect the psyches of the majority of people.  My belief is that, if any man is even thinking of voting for Clinton, it MUST be because his wife is denying him sex.  Otherwise, if you’re a man, and you saw the way in which Clinton condescendingly smiled and the phony performance she put on, and you still didn’t get mad, then you’ve never worked for a company with a human resources department.

In other words, most people are not voting analytically; they are voting from the gut.  And people who are allegedly smart engage in this all the time.  If you’ve been paying attention at all to the world around you, you would be absolutely fearful of the kind of world that Hillary Clinton will foist upon the American people by letting in something like 100,000 Syrian “refugees” into the United States.  The number one issue behind this election is immigration, with law and order in the inner cities and renegotiating job killing trade agreements in a second place tie.

The argument against Trump from liberals is simply that he’s a big, racist, meany-head, who wants to deny amnesty to those poor “refugees” and close the border to Mexico because he hates Mexicans.  Oh, and that he hates women and calls them fat.  THAT’S IT!!! They have no other argument against him.  The argument against Clinton is that, with a population of a third of a billion people, she wants to let in MORE people, and have those people be from a part of the world with a culture that is FAR different from ours; and, as witnessed in places like Sweden and France, just doesn’t mix well; I mean, unless by mixing well, you mean white women having mixed race children after being raped by a Muslim from Somalia.  While that is technically a “mix”, it is not a good mix by most people’s standards.

Clinton will continue policies that were started by the Bush administration, the very administration these same Clinton supporters attacked in 2003 for going into Iraq and turning it upside down, effectively leading to the birth of ISIS.  I guess, in their minds, if a woman does it, it’s all good, right?  Now, in a normal person’s mind, keeping a group of people, whose values aren’t your values, out of your country, while NOT blowing them to bits is FAR more humane than bombing their country back to the stone age and THEN letting their refuse into OUR country.  Of course, when I told a liberal feminist chick that, “Clinton wants to bomb the Allah Akbars, and that isn’t humane”, her response was, “uh, Allah Akbar is a saying, not the name of their people.”  Apparently mine and Trump’s words are more hurtful than burning napalm.

But we’re not dealing with normal people; we’re dealing with people who don’t vote based on policies and logic, but people who vote with their feels.

When I was younger I had less respect for people who didn’t do their “civic duty” by not voting.  “It’s part of being in a democracy, man!”  A more naive version of me had equated “voting” with knowing what the fuck you’re actually voting for.  Nowadays, I have FAR more respect for people who say, “I can’t stand either of those assholes, and I’m not voting” or “meh, don’t care about politics”, then the people who go around encouraging people to sign up and vote.

In fact, as many on the Alt-Right and contrarian right would agree that they would SEVERELY limit who is allowed to vote.  When I posted something along those lines on Facebook, my former “friend”, Tom E (not going to say his last name because if this gets back to him, he might have a hissy fit and threaten to sue my ass) told me I was advocating Herrenvolk democracy.  But that’s bullshit.  I DO feel there ARE certain groups of people who, by any logical and moral standard, have NO right to vote.

For instance, welfare recipients have no right to vote.  Why does someone who sucks at the government teet and gives nothing back have equal say on how to spend the money I earned?  That one should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.  Furthermore – and this may seem harsh, but – people on disability  should’t have the right to vote.  Even if someone legitimately needs to be on disability, that person is still taking government money, and there are far too many people, like my former friend, gay fag “skinhead” Nick, who could work, but chooses not to so he can spend government checks on booze and drugs.  Either they have to make requirements stricter, or we have to employ harsher rules.

But, let’s get down to the real nitty gritty.  Welfare is still a choice, and disability is something you get on later in life when you discover you can’t or decide that you don’t want to work.  Let’s talk about the horrible, awful, discriminatory concept of… GENETICS!!! Who REALLY shouldn’t have the right to vote?  To be honest, as far as race goes, I don’t fuckin’ know.  We’ve seen numerous demographic voting shifts with virtually all ethnic and racial groups.

DON’T YELL AT ME!!! I know blacks have trended Democrat since the 60s, but I honestly feel that’s cultural, rather than genetic.  The real controversy appears to be with letting women have the vote in 1920.  As Ann Coulter once correctly stated, “if women couldn’t vote, we’d never have another Democrat in office ever again.”  Of course women and liberals in general got mad, but it’s essentially true.

Women don’t vote based on logic, numbers or on what policies work for everybody, but on what the government can dole out to them; women are wired to like security, and the government has become the new sugar daddy.  They’ll try (and fail) to rationalize why giving them free everything is a net good for everyone – and, if you’re a good looking guy in your 20s, who just wants to fuck loose hoes, I suppose it is.  The very second that women got the right to vote, they voted in overwhelming numbers for prohibition.  Since the 1920s, with the woman’s vote, the government has increased in size.  With the government providing the sustenance, women can finally be “free” to slut around on the its dole and not need a men to provide for them.  The government provides money to women for every child they have, and, when they decide they don’t really want to have a child, the government provides the abortions as well.  Now feminists want the government to give them free birth control, as if paying $40 a month is SUCH a huge expense, and non-feminist women will go along with it EVERY SINGLE TIME because it’s another level of security.

So, the question someone might ask me in is, “are you saying your solution is to take the vote away from women?”  NOPE!  Somewhere in my libertarian lizard brain, I STILL feel that the law should treat everyone equally, while not insuring equal outcomes even if my empirical brain also realizes that there ARE differences in races and sexes – especially the latter – that guide people to make the choices they do.  So, what’s the bottom line?

Administer a voting test!  That’s it!  Every year, if you want to vote, you have to take a test and PROVE that you’ve got the goods to vote.  If you don’t know what you’re voting for, or if you’re just voting on your feels, then you shouldn’t have the right to vote.  But, if you can prove that you know what you’re talking about, then by all means.  The test would be administered every single year before every election your local governance might have.  Okay, in towns with like 2,000 people, where they vote the same way for trash commissioner, I suppose you wouldn’t need this test.  But, in densely populated areas where you vote for your congressman or the President, you simply have to take this test, and, if you score roughly 85-90%, you can vote!

That way you show your opinion means something.  The very first question would ask how much the national debt is.  If you can’t write in the approximation of the national debt – no, you don’t need the EXACT number – then you fail.  If you get it right, you move on.  There would be questions on which demographics commit the most amount of crime, which groups of people contributed to what policies and their net effects and questions in general pertaining to historical events and their impact.

For example, a question might be, “which group of people were slaves at some point in their history?”  If I need to tell you that the correct answer would be “all of the above”, then you shouldn’t vote.

And, If you pass the test, you’ve proven that have the mental wherewithal to debate politics and policy, to determine which programs and laws to keep and discard and to decide where other people’s money should be allocated; that way you’re not just voting because the politician you hate called someone fat.  With this test, nobody could complain they’re being discriminated against, and that way, the tiny percentage of women who enjoy reading about history, politics and statistics of group demographics, and deal with the facts in a dispassionate nature, will get to vote, while the rest can go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or Cheating on Your Boyfriend of Five Years.

Oh, one last thing: if you have a name like Deandre Jones or Dung Pham, you would be represented by a number, rather than your name, so you could never complain about being discriminated against for your race or ethnicity.  Cool? Cool!


SavageHippie Podcast Episode 15 B – Mr. Death Meets Quincy


Some people have asked if we hold anything sacred.  The answer is: of course!  Do you think that we don’t consider the greatest atrocity of the twentieth/twenty-first century sacred?!  I mean, don’t YOU think it’s a crime that Skinheads: The Second Coming of Hate hasn’t been issued on DVD?!  Actually my friend Gabe Heis, who is a SHARP or Trad Skinheads thinks it’s a crime that every copy hasn’t been burned yet.  Hey Gabe, Ann is a punk chick into Crypt Records recording artists, the Devil Dogs!

Anyway, I just want to make it perfectly clear; the Holocaust totally blows.  But, for some reason David Cole, Ann Sterzinger and I can’t stop talking about it!  For the first twenty minutes of this podcast, we talk about about Fred Leuchter – is it pronounced Fred Loykter or Fred Leutcher? – the man who Errol Morris portrayed as Mr. Death in his documentary film.

Then we talk about square jawed action heroes like Chuck Connors and Jack Palance, Tony Danza and his hate for annoying fans, hillbilly Jews who sound like cute white trash with big tits and daisy dukes, but end up looking like Barbara Streisand and answer another one of Courtney Devlin’s questions, because she’s so cute, that to not answer her questions would be the equivalent of the Holocaust.

The song at the end is “The Diet Has Failed” by the Yesticles.


SavageHippie Podcast Episode 15 A – Lena Dunham, Proud Boys and Gay Nazis


Well, the election is less than two months away; David Cole isn’t so confident that Trump is going to win, and his being a citizen of California, his vote REALLY won’t count.  Since I’m in the Midwest, my vote will, and if you think it’s going to anyone but Donald Trump, you’re on crack senior!  I mean, I’m the “Punks for Trump” guy, after all.  Ann Sterzinger, as far as I can tell, would rather have Trump than Clinton, but is too principled to vote for either, which is strange since women typically don’t have principles.

Before you go crying “sexist asshole!”, we actually have a whole discussion about this in the podcast, about how men ultimately have more intellectually stimulating conversations than women, and how the smart women, that is the women that don’t like other women, would rather hang out with the men.  Indeed, I mention how I joined Gavin McInnes’ Proudboys club, a men’s only, pro-West club for people who are Western Chauvinists, but not necessarily White Nationalists – I do have black friends and am :::ding ding ding::: not racist after all.  I also have to give up jerking off for a month, which is tough.  I can exercise, give up certain types of food and drinks, but when I see a 5’3″ Korean babe with wide hips and a big ass, well… I should be trying to have sex with this girl, rather than thinking about her while trying to fill my hand–

Anyway, enough about me and my jerking habits.  We discuss a WHOLE lot of stuff; the concerts Ann and I went to this weekend, the purpose of makeup, how much Ann hates Lena Dunham, our views about libertarians, some of my nauseating and tasteless humor and then the last part is just the most amazing story from David’s revisionist past, in which he went with Ernst Zundel to a supposed Nazi bunker only to discover… I’M NOT TELLING!!!

This is part A.  Part B has more of the same, but the really crazy thing about this episode is neither Ann nor David are DRUNK!!! Coupla tea-totaling pussies is what they are!  Oh sure Ann and David have alcohol related health problems and I should be discouraging them from drinking, but killing your liver and brain cells is FUN!!!

The closing track is “The Diet Has Failed” by Yesticles once again from Jay Best.  And, once again, thanks to Clayton V for his wonderful artwork… just kidding that picture is really us at our first meetup.

Book Review: NVSQVAM (nowhere)


IronCrossIronCrossIronCrosshalf_ironcrossvery good!

Author: Ann Sterzinger

Publisher: Nine-Banded Books

It took me forever to finish NVSQVAM (nowhere) by Ann Sterzinger.  One of the reasons is because, though she had initially sent me a PDF copy that I was supposed to review on this here blog like three months ago, I don’t own a kindle and, for the life of me, I can’t read books off of a computer screen or printed computer paper.  The second reason is because I was mostly reading it at work since, when I’m at home, I’m typically doing other stuff like drinking, watching movies or going to gigs.

It should also be noted that, while initially I was just going to read the PDF file off printed paper, because Ann had become one of the two co-hosts on the Savage Hippie podcast – the other being David Cole – and, I suppose, my friend, I wanted to do that whole “supportin’ mah friends’ art” thang, and plunked down the cash for her book, which, by the way, has a neat illustration from Billy Spicer on its cover and a fun to touch glossy cover stock.

So, because Ann is no longer just some weird female author who wears a Dr. Who t-shirt and writes a hilarious blog, in which she wrote my favorite article ever, “Islam Isn’t a Race, It’s a Mental Disorder”, but is actually someone I talk to on a regular basis, her book now seems like an extension of her real life personality.  In fact she literally recites whole passages out of it in casual conversation.

But don’t think that, just because she’s a woman and she’s my friend, that I’m going to grade on a curve or sumthin’.  Nope.  In fact I’m going to pick up apart, scrutinize and try to find fault with her book every step of the way just to be a dii.. just to prove that I’m an unbiased reviewer, who judges the art, rather than the artist.

The first thing someone might notice upon cracking open NVSQVAM is that there are a bunch of annoying footnotes on nearly every page.  Personally I prefer endnotes so they don’t slow up the flow of my reading, and typically I trust that the person who wrote the book gives enough context clues on the references, where I wouldn’t even need to read the footnotes or endnotes in the first place.  As it turns out, you’re supposed to read the footnotes, in which Ann takes potshots at such edgy targets as Walmart and the Bush administration.  But, what’s really frustrating about the footnotes is that, in some cases, she bothers to explains references to punk bands like X-Ray Spex and the Rezillos and voluptuous comic woman artist Chris Cooper, while in other cases, she brings up Nitzer Ebb, the industrial group, with no footnote at all, as if it’s common knowledge to the average reader; “she had a Nitzer Ebb sticker.”

The other thing people will notice is that, in spite Ann’s being a woman, the protagonist is a man named Lester.  And it makes me wonder: with a name like that, why not go all the way and call him Chester?

Basically the narrative of NVSQVAM puts the reader in the middle of Lester’s apparently miserable life, which I guess takes place in a hillbilly, bible belt town in Southern Illinois, but, as far as I’m concerned, could just as easily take place in Allendale, MI, where I preceded to drink and fuck away six years of my life at Grand Valley State University.

As for the story, after being booted from a mediocre punk band called the Incognito Mosquitoes, who then changed their name to the even stupider Pigpocket, Lester was forced to marry his girlfriend Evelyn, who conveniently “forgot” to take her birth control pill and delivered their son, Martin, who, for some reason, has an IQ of 160, and, as one might expect, Lester absolutely despises.  I’m not sure why she made him THAT smart.  When I was a little kid, I was pretty perceptive, and probably would have been graded with a higher than average IQ if I had been tested, but I didn’t necessarily need to read at a level MUCH higher than the grade level I was in.  I understand that Lester is supposed to hate his son, but there are a myriad of other reasons to do this other than his ostensibly being smarter than his dad.

I DO however like how Lester talks to his son.  I distinctly remember older people talking to me in a similar fashion.  But, then again, my folks are from Russia, so I learned at an early age that adults aren’t nice, and the world isn’t pretty.

But anyway, Lester decided to go back to school for classics, translating works in Latin, and has to deliver a dissertation on the topic.  Needless to say, by this point in his life, he’s lost all the passion (if he had any) for his chosen field of study and now treads water in a life of mediocrity.

Now, let me be honest here.  While I think the book is hilarious in parts and thoroughly entertaining, especially with Lester’s misanthropic inner dialogue, if I were to really analyze the scenarios presented – meeting Lester’s football obsessed father, meeting Evelyn’s faux snob parents, copious amounts of boozed out nuttiness and some fun, but improbable twists – I REALLY don’t see them as being all that indicative of a life in suburban hell.  Then, once again, my parents ARE Russian, so couching mean-spirited attitudes in the form of “tough love” is something I just take for granted.

I’m also not a Generation X’er who apparently felt like he had to compromise his ideals to live a Middle Class life.  In fact, I don’t even HAVE any ideals!  I just want to drink, watch horror movies, read comic books, go to shows, collect records and have a cute girlfriend/wife/XX person to do it with.  So, to ME, getting wasted all the time and having someone there by your side really isn’t something I consider to be too big of a problem.

HOWEVER, Evelyn committed the grand daddy cardinal sin of dating; she got herself pregnant behind Lester’s back, or so it’s implied.  So, no matter how many times Evelyn might evoke the romance from the old days by doing something cute, at the end of the day, she is still a manipulative cunt.  And whether it’s fair or not that Lester hates the spawn of their loins is completely irrelevant; at the end of the day Evelyn cajoled a man into a life he didn’t necessarily want to be part of, and it can never be rectified…

Or can it?  A person with a traditional sense of Christian or I guess mainstream morality, would most likely see the climax as unfathomably tragic or – spoiler alert – a parent’s worst nightmare.  But, one who believes in good old fashioned revenge, might in fact feel the conclusion to be quite satisfying.  Let’s put it this way; in spite making you think you hate Lester for all of his self-pity during most of the book AND even tricking you into being slightly empathetic to Evelyn, Ann reveal’s that she is on Lester’s side the entire time, giving him the strength to say, “fuck you” at the end.

It’s tough to say if I think she’s really taking on the voice and persona of a man or just telling a really good story from the third person, and I have to question why she presents the “plebes” in the southern Illinois town with such disdain, when she herself allegedly really likes the “stupit” folk who make America’s gears turn, but the one character she ABSOLUTELY nailed (in more ways than one) is Cyndi.

Holy cow, the Cyndi character is spot fucking on.  She’s a typical white trash chick, who replaced smarts and learning anything of value with pure snark.  She doesn’t know a whole lot about the world, but convinces people she’s “cool” by knowing a bunch of obscure old bands.  I LOVE and have dated girls like this.  They care not a wink about politics, know not a lick about what’s going on in the world and don’t care for political correctness either.  They think offensiveness – like her collection of boy band posters with Hitler mustaches – is fun for its own sake, and just go with the flow.  Ann, if you’re reading this, the Melissa girl, who I was with on Halloween, was this chick.  She started bitching about how the air we breath is polluted, to which I responded by explaining that the air we breathe is the cleanest in the world, and that it’s China and India that have the dirtiest air. And she said, “Oh, REALLY?! Wow, well, thanks for telling me!  Now I’m a little more knowledgeable!”  Yep, love ’em!

A lot of the writing has the kind of sass that slips through in a normal conversation, describing fruit from trees as alien brains or describing enormous Dodge Ram pickup trucks as giant kill machines.  But, there is one passage that is written so deliciously vividly to the point of causing nausea in the reader (note: it could be a spoiler):

This time it was much easier.  Like a knife cutting a rare steak… Two cuts across, two cuts the long way.  One more across, one more the long way.  That just left the right hand…

In the words of the Cramps, “I ain’t nothin’ but a gore hound.”

As I was reading NVSQVAM, I noticed that some of these situations could have happened in my own life.  If anything, the book is a reminder of why someone should either wear a condom or jizz in a girl’s face.