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

me_at_work

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

me_ann_david_freaks_2-0

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)

nvsqvam

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.

SavageHippie Podcast Episode 13 B – Get To The F@&#ing POINT!!!

me_choking_ann

Without a doubt, Episode 13 B is our most annoying podcast for both participants and listener alike.  What was intended to be a fun afterthought to the rather dour Episode 13 A, in which David talks about former Friends of Abe member Goombah Romano and what effects his outing had on his family before making some, shall we say, dark statements about what he would like to see happen to him along with the other people who outed him, Ann and I had intended to record about a half hour’s worth of fun material.

Instead we got to yackin’ and things turned serious again, but then our stupid recording technology stopped working prematurely, and we only caught 20 or so minutes of us talking about (what else) Nazi films and Thomas Sowell.  So, we agreed to try recording again the following Saturday.  It just so happens that, in that time, Matt Forney of The Matt Forney Show PUT US ON THE FUCKING MAP when he said my attack on the Common Filth podcast/channel was dishonest.

So, we decided to switch our approach, respond to his claim and talk about what we see as people from the Pick Up Artist community fiercely swinging the pendulum of their “dump ‘n’ dump” lifestyle in what we see as the puritanical Common Filth direction.

Of course, by the time we ACTUALLY get to the topic about 45 minutes in, we interrupt ourselves and each other about fifty times beforehand to talk about a whole bunch of other stuff, including how we needed to hurry up so I could go see Slayer with Anthrax and Death Angel (I missed Death Angel), how much we love the Replacements, how Ann’s former roommate, who bought heroin in order to have the courage to hang himself, left behind a Death (not Death Angel) t-shirt as a consolation prize and the Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo.  On top of that, the call kept dropping.  I’m sure if you’re smart, you’ll figure out where.  Also, in some spots the editing is a little rough.  Deal with it or pay us for professionalism!

Overall we feel this episode should leave people with a good feeling since we drop the “shtick”, and Ann delivers a heartfelt and life affirming message at the end, but we also feel that some might see our sappy, pro-romance message of moderation as going against their long held beliefs about the genders.  Sorry, but we refuse to be ideologues.

And, of course, the song at the end is “The Diet Has Failed” by Yesticles.

Introducing Phallocentrism

phallocentrism_2.0

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

THE FOLLOWING IS WRITTEN IN AN ANNOTATED FORMAT. THIS IS NOT CONVENTIONAL.I REPEAT, THESE ARE ANNOTATIONS. THIS WAS WRITTEN IN A “BRAINSTORMING” METHOD – THE PROCESS IN WHICH A BOOK OR ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BEFORE IT IS CONVERTED INTO A BOOK OR ARTICLE. IT WAS ALSO WRITTEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING AN EXORDIUM, ESPECIALLY FOR OTHER WRITINGS. THIS WAS ONE OF MY FIRST PRE-ARTICLES I TYPED AS A WAY TO CREATE  A LIST OF THINGS TO TYPE ABOUT FURTHER.

INTRODUCING PHALLOCENTRISM (ANNOTATIONS)

BY JESSIE NAGY

NOTICE: I PRESENT THE WORDS “PATRIARCHY” & “MALE DOMINATED” IN QUOTES TO SIGNIFY A FARCICAL MEANING CONTRIVED BY FEMININE CRITIQUE.

NOTICE: THIS IS NOT REFERING TO THE POSTMODERNIST OR DECONSTRUCTIONIST PHILOSOPHER’S “PHALLOGOCENTRISM”, NOR ANY DEGRADED MEANINGS OF IT STEMMING FROM POPULAR OR FEMININE CRITIQUE.

TO SERVE IS A SACRIFICE.

Notice: The word “aesthetics” is not defined in this context of it’s visual associations. I use it in the context of females being more concerned with how something is delivered than the actual thing itself. Yes, males are naturally more visual creatures.

Before reading this I would like to clarify this: Firstly, you would have to read this, especially due to its off kilter execution, in its entirety with full alertness. Secondly, Many will obviously mistake this, but what’s more is that some will mistake the fundamental message entirely for some sort of religion of sex, basically. That is not what I am saying at all. I’m saying the exact apposite actually; it is that sort of hypnosis that many males waste their time with that actually helps the stagnation &/or decline, not only in their own lives, but on a larger cultural scale as well. If males were to stop promoting females’ egos by realizing that their main unction in society is to breed & related, & examine sexuality purely objectively, it would naturally become just another easy custom in society rather than a task for males.

Essentially what I am proposing is what patriarchy would be if it actually existed fully.

In short summation:

BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY IS GYNOCENTRIC, NOT PHALLOCENTRIC/ANDROCENTRIC, MALES ADOPT FEMININE TRAITS – VAINESS,CONNIVING, INTEMPERANCE, AMORALITY/NIHILISM, (NOT IMMORALITY PER SE) SUPERFICIALITY & FASHION-ISM, APPETENCE FOR EMPTY MATERIALISM, BLIND MOB RULE, ANTI-SCIENCE, TENUOUSNESS, ETC. – TO GAIN RECOGNITION FROM FEMALES – ESSENTIALLY, TO SPEAK AT THEIR LEVEL. IT’S BASICALLY A VICIOUS CIRCLE WHERE THE STUPID MALES – THE MACHIAVELLIAN MINDS – OUTNUMBER THE INTELLIGENT MALES – THE MECHANICAL MINDS, WHICH I EXPLAIN WITH A SCIENTIFIC CITATION LATER IN THIS ARE ACTUALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE “PURE MALE BRAIN” (SOUNDS DRAMATIC. IT’S NOT. IT’S JUST SIMPLIFIED NEUROSCIENCE) – & BECAUSE FEMALES GENERALLY LACK IPSEITY, WHAT ENSUES IS A WORLD OF FEMALES FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF STUPID MALES.

WHAT I WONDER IS:WHAT IF THERE WERE A REVERSING PARADIGM SHIFT? IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE FEMALES HAPPY ENOUGH ANYWAY, SO RATHER THAN WASTING TIME BEING CONCERNED WITH PLACING EMPHASIS ON CATERING TO THEM, SOCIETY SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTALLY CONCERNED WITH PROMOTING THE MASCULINE ASPECT INSTEAD.

In the abstract:

Female sexual preference selects for the reactionary. This instinctual female sexual preference has habitually & indirectly sculpted anti-intellectualism. What soft unscientific “sciences” of Feminism, which translates to art, not science, doesn’t grasp is that “male dominance” is a result of, historically speaking, males sacrificing themselves to be of service to build & organize, which has, as a natural side product, resulted in occasional aggression & shoddy strategizing. SELECTION = PRIVILEGE = MATRIARCHY.

The matriarchy can be described as a culture revolving around institutionalized kitsch/art, a mindless consumption of base materialism, as apposed to higher “spiritual” strivings, celebrity styled dominance hierarchies, systematic procedure of genital mutilation (although this practice is most likely the result of the trial & error experimental methodology of male concocting/sacrifice, which should be compared to the ultra violent, obscure female-led Amazonian culture.) of male babies that deprives males of their full sexuality, as thousands of nerve endings are contained in the male foreskin. (speaking as an uncircumsized male myself born in Brazil where ,at least to my knowledge of Brazil’s current stance on circumcision, this procedure does not occur, I am NATURALLY & HEALTHILY much more interested in sex than the average male.) & an unhealthy emphasis of p.c. taste over rationality/truth, which has stalled the progress of science, which could help promote a more technocratic oriented society.

Our society is mind-controlled (not as defined as “reptilians”, etc..) by the matriarchy that is often mistaken, especially due to the lies of the soft social “sciences” known as Feminism, for a “patriarchy.” This mind control has occurred through the ages mainly subconsciously. The so-called “patriarchy” – a sacrifice by males to serve – has only been conditioned by the covert matriarchy, as female sexual preference selects for males of service, the archetypal “alpha males” have been projected on the macro as the “patriarchy.” Women have selected the “patriarchy” , & men have enabled female leisure.

Love, although I am not denying that love is a very real & valuable emotional bond/support system, is generally initiated by some form of business transaction, usually material, sometimes otherwise. Because men are so easily amused by female sexuality that is accompanied by an indifference to female habitual collusion, males have allowed themselves into receiving the inculcation that it is a “fair deal” to pay the female sex, whether materially &/or otherwise, for the purpose of giving them their utility. Even sex itself, although it is surely reciprocal, is predominantly an activity in which the male gives to a passive recipient in money/materials, energy, thrusting, sacrifice of prudence, & sperm. The former illogical barter system has been triggered on to society because men are weak to female sexuality.

It is males who construct & organize society, therefore it would only be a proper barter system for males to enjoy the benefits of their labor by having females defray towards male societal utility.

Of course the notion of “natural” human rights are only contrived by fluctuating human movements, it is still self evident , if one thinks logically, that the current barter system to initiate reciprocating love is not truly based on a balanced foundation of pay & receive, but pay & give. I’m no economist, but the current barter system is analogous to a hypothetical situation where one pays you to take you to a theme park.

Females generally consume, while males do, & females will continue this dis-balance of having males pay them for the purpose of basically giving females a life because females know, whether fully conscious or subconsciously, that they can get away with it.

MALES, STOP IMMEDIATELY CATERING TO FEMALE VANITY & THE MATRIARCHY IS DEPOSED! If a reversal of the approach would be initiated, females would naturally be enforced to cater to a phallocentric society, thus following higher pursuits, as they often do follow.

I do consider that females instinctually evaluate male status for the purpose of discerning potential support for the child when enduring the painful process of birth, ( one year. big deal, which still doesn’t counterweigh male societal performance.) , which can be alleviated & assisted through technological ingenuity provided by male service/sacrifice. Females have been reported to excel in subservient multitasking, while males at concentrating, & it would be an honorable attitude to adopt for them to be willing to give their progeny to the sex that represents the half of humanity that builds & organizes most of it. Females “gave us life”. More accurately, we gave females a life. We assisted them with technology & ingenuity so that now they can use the vague planning, excuse of giving birth to just maintain more greed. Even though a female may not be greedy for external materialism, they still have the greed for  internalized materialism.

The counter argument is that females select on the basis of high status symbols for the purpose of promoting potential offspring. Reply: Females are the ones who prioritize offspring first. Overpopualtion is a myth. More intelligent, rational males, more innovation & civilization. Females are not giving 6-7  children to these “boring” accountant types.What they do instead is they spend the teens to mid 20s sifting through descent males, wasting time, & also trying to find this unrealistic fantasy that barely even exists of the similar type of success of the “boring” accountant but who also has the dominance of Mike Tyson. That only works sometimes when it is postured a certain way. Males generally want an affection based relationship first before evaluating options of creating offspring. Males are the first ones to plan with condoms, etc., then start thinking about family orientation after planning is established.

THE ANNOTATIONS:

ALTHOUGH M.R.A.s HAVE GOOD INFORMATION, MY MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PHALLOCENTRIC.

PEOPLE WILL MISCONTRUE THIS. BY EXAMININING TOWARDS THAT MIDDLE OF THIS, THE NEUROSCIENCE I BRIEFLY CITE CONFIRMS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MASCULINE LOGIC & FEMININE INTUITION. MY POINT IS THAT IF MASCULINE LOGIC WOULD OVERTAKE FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROCH ON THE MACRO, MASS SOCIETAL NEUROPLASTICITY WOULD ENSUE. THIS OF COURSE WOULD REQUIRE MALES TRANSCENDING PROMPT INSTINCT, & REMAINS PURELY THEORETICAL SINCE IT HAS NEVER MARKEDLY OCCURED ON THE MACRO & RAMAINS UNTESTED.

The term ‘phallocentric’ might connote to more superficial minds that such a motive is only sexual, (& I do emphasize more sexuality in this) but if you get towards the build up of the climax in this segment,(pun intended) it is not sex itself that is the main motive, but the newly replaced impetus that would ensue in the aftermath of a mass hypothesized reversal of our current gynocentrism that is the main motive.Don’t be so superficial,

ONE MUST READ SUCH MATERIAL OF “MASCULINIST” & SEX STUDIES IN GENERAL WITH PERCEPTIVE JUDGEMENT. THE EQUATION OF MALE SACRIFICE/SERVICE WITH “EVIL PATRIARCHS” IS STILL INFILTRATED IN MORE ADVANCED WORKS OF SCIENCE.

IN ORDER TO BROADEN A MUCH MORE ENCOMPASSING SCOPE WITH MISSING LINKS & INCONSPICUOUS AXIOMS, ONE MUST STUDY EMPIRICAL, ANECDOTAL, AS WELL AS COMPARATIVE INFORMATION. THERE’S MUCH REVELATION EVEN IN WORKS OF THE ENEMIES.

Do not mistake phallocentrism for traditionalism or patriarchy. Any definition of patriarchy as “man centered” is a misnomer due to mass subjective contrivance. Zoologists acknowledge ant society revolves around catering the queen. Humans can not apply the latter analogy because humans are not 100% objective onto themselves. Patriarchy is right in asserting itself that masculinity is the predominating force that constructs/ organizes society, however, where paternalism is subject to blunder is in instinctively tendering to femininty.

Males are the tools of society. Females SHOULD be the tool boxes.

Some argue that feminine intuition is superior in selection for Darwinian weeding, however, phallocentrism on a mass societal level has never been tested, so the former argument is unsubstantiated. I take the stance that masculine logic is superior to feminine intuition.

Some might ask: ” Why are you so concerned with sex in regards to the Feminist problem?”

Answer: Society is quite literally triggered from a sexological & psychological point. If you examine the causal roots, the effects become lucid.

Look to evolutionary psychology, sexology, neuro-science, & general psychology .

This phallocentric conjecture remains as purely theoretical since this has never been markedly tested, & will probably remain so in this life time.

Masculine logic is distinctively different from feminine intuition. Phallocentrism holds the position that masculine logic is a much better impetus than feminine intuition. In a phallocentric system masculine logic would take the monopoly of their sexuality since masculine logic would replace feminine intuition as the selective/ Darwinian weeding methodology.
Let us learn from Elders: The northern Asiatic has been reported to be the most functional people of them all. They are very good at abiding by systems. However, to use that model, I think we would get some very good results if that method of a more rigid patriarchy would be applied to the more exploratory western culture. Asiatics are very good on following instructions, but they don’t have that “daring” spirit of the western & septentrion. It is also true of the stereotype of Asian females. I know from anecdotal as well as scientific confirmations; they are better companions, both in terms of loyalty, as well as much better of sex. I think it’s do to having higher i.q.s allows them to deal with situations by much more functionality & a mature way.

Imbedded in Chinese Societies is to favor boys over girls. Important links to ancestors & family names carry through male line, as well as economic reasons as links. The Chinese system of tenancy is an important factor. Farmer families receive one plot of land, & since historically girls who marry move in with family of groom, a family with a boy has a better chance ultimately with the land-allotment system. Boys are also better able to tend farm & also to care for aging parents.
Due to political reasons of Mao’s rule, it was planned to have one-child planning, designed for exhortation to patriotic couples to have large families. Prior to the latter rule, as the Key’s to China’s geopolitical heft & industrial might, the state aggressively promoted large families in the mid. twentieth century.
(I don’t actually believe in the myth that overpopulation is a bad thing per se. The more concentration of more intelligent stock, the more likely you’d have more innovation. It just depends on who’s breeding. Yes, China is highly populated , but with that, there’s more likely for them to make new methods of fixing problems of overpopulation.)
In 1979, the state mandated couples to have only one or two births. Number depends on location of families & of the order of births. City couples are only allowed more than one if couple are in second marriages & desire a child together. In the country, 2 children are legal if the first child is a girl. The tip towards boys was so strong that the government allowed it.
Preference for boys is due to the fact that they simply know that males are just more productive than females.
Say whatever you want about their politics & the fact that they incline to Communism, however, few mistakes does not negate the fact that they are a wiser people. I’m not “blowing-smoke-up-the-ass,” purely informative, the average I.Q. of the Chinese is from ~105-110. Genius is in the 140(+) range. The average i.q. of America is 90-100. Of some cases it’s even below 90 depending on what sub-set of American groups.
China’s population is stabalizing during its increasing wealth.
The Chinese call the male surplus “bare branches.”
Authors Andrea M. den Boer & Valerie M. Hudson criticize the bare-branches, worrying that the high concentration of males can cause future violence.
But if we actually analyze this impulsively resentful critique by females realistically: True, the absolute number of crimes in China will be high due to the fact that population is high, statistically, China’s average homicide rate is 1/100,000/year. Ours is ~6 times higher. Specifically gun deaths: including suicides & accidents, ours tops 30,000/year – 10+/100,000. More like Iraq than China, & we’re less populated than China. This comes from a director of China Affairs at Strebesana Resources, LLC – Rebecca Weiner, & she has about 30 years of experience with Chinese business. Real life China is a relatively safe place.
Countries that had been reported to have the best public order in the world is Japan & Switzerland. In may of 2012, a newspaper by the Ministry of Public Security stated that China’s Murder rate had decreased below those 2 aforementioned. Figures compiled by UNODC – UN Office on Drugs & Crime – show that of 2009, from a comparison of 3 countries, China had a murder rate of 1.1 per 100,000 people, compared with 0.7 in Switzerland & 0.4 in Japan. By the UN agency’s count, China is better in that department than Australia & Britain – 1.2 in 2009 – & America – 5.0.
They are not grouping with terrorist cells, etc., they are joining construction crews, etc.. Additionally, China’s concentration of inclining to super-power-dom is more due to masculine leadership championed to thrive. Women also become much more desirable due to the stern hard work of males.

Citations: ‘China Inc.’ by Ted C. Fishman, pgs.: 101, 102, 103, 104. The Economist, Apr. 6th, 2013.

** FUN FACT*:

SINCE FEMALES ARE GENERALLY RESTRICTIVE OF SELECTING COMPANIONSHIP BASED ON WHAT POWER-DISPLAYS, JUST GIVE FEMALES A LIFE.

* FACT!:

Male simplistic desire for beauty & loyal affection, which is much easier to maintain & relative in comparison to status, is paradoxically persistently perceived as shallowness. In contrast: female higher expectations  is rarely as compromising.For every “ugly” or “mediocre” female, there are literally hundreds of males who will find them attractive. Not only that, but many males are ready to substitute certain body parts as relics to compensate for an unsatisfactory face.

**MATHEMATICAL EQUATION:Act like you find most females enticing & that all of them perceive you the same way.Because females don’t think for themselves they will only find you of value if their collectivist consensus percieves you as such.
“WOMEN CAN BREAK THE VICIOUS CIRCLE OF MAN’S MANIPULATION & EXPLOITATION – BUT SHE WILL NOT DO IT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPELLING REASON WHY SHE SHOULD. IT IS USELESS TO APPEAL TO HER FEELINGS, FOR SHE IS CALLOUS & KNOWS NO PITY. & SO THE WORLD WILL GO ON, SINKING DEEPER & DEEPER INTO THE MORASS OF KITSCH, BARBARISM & INANITY CALLED FEMININITY.” – ESTHER VILAR

You can see the initiation of what corroborates with the above quote by Vilar when a male e in a bar degrades himself by consuming alcohol just so that he can speak at a woman’s animalistic level; “Uh… beer & shit.”

****FUN FACT!*:

External experience/life lessons does not necessarily guarantee a thorough understanding of the “how”, or point out that a given situation is morally right or wrong, but often merely enforces one to adapt, & often people mistake the latter form of learned adaption for a profitable lesson.Documented information found in books & such are merely recorded experiences, so you could say that those who read more books, experience more.

Females will often experiment with various forms of sex, with various steering males, but there is one form that she will tend to not partake in. That is: intellectual sex – honest & planned.By the time the female reaches the 30 ages, she will come to a dissatisfaction with the “alpha” types that she claims to “bond” with, & this is the age when she will most often begin to look for the “beta provider” she can exploit to try to compensate for all that lost time. When the female reaches the late 20s-30s is the age range when she has had enough of her sexual appetite satiated by the more “aggressive” types & will begin to think in terms of what is efficient to her in terms of courting. This is when she will finally opt for the “beta provider”, but not due to real respect, but mere exploitation, while often times still fantasizing &/or reminiscing, in such a way as playing back home-made mental videos, about submitting to who she really wishes would replace her current utility, thus unsatisfied prior to the late 20-30 ages, as well as unsatisfied after the late 20-30 ages .

In a phallocentric society – where masculine attributes are catered to – boutiques would be replaced by libraries.

Relatively recent neuroscientific findings have confirmed the correlations of “extreme male brain”. In the book ‘The Essential Differences’ by Simon Baron Cohen, extreme forms of masculinity is correlated to deeply systematic forms of reasoning. It is also found in ‘The Essential Differences’ by Simon Baron Cohen that those representative of “the pure male brain” are more concerned with objects, while those representative of femininity are more concerned with socializing with others.

As an aside, it is interesting that the prototype of harder psychology known as psychoanalysis once had a mystical contemplation of this finding when C.G. Jung stated that extroversion is feminine.

While feminine characteristics are generally more pronounced in homosexuals & bisexuals, & such homosexual relationships are usually bounded by a dichotomy of one that is more masculine than the other – even amongst the homosexual representative versions of masculine to feminine dichotomous interchange in confinement of such effeminate models – still, usually one is more masculine, i.e. logical, while the other represents femininity. True masculinity is broadly defined under an umbrella spectrum as logic.

**MATHEMATICAL EQUATION*:

THEY VALUE BALLS OVER BRAINS, OR STUPIDLY DARING & EXCITING OVER INTELLIGENT.”

WHEN A MALE DOES NOT AGRANDIZE A FEMALE’S EGO BY IMMEDIATELY CATERING TO HER VANITY DUE TO REMAINING OBJECTIVELY DETACHED FROM HER SEXUALITY, OUT OF RESENTMENT, THAT FEMALE WILL OFTEN GOSSIP THAT HE IS SOME SORT OF A WEAKLING, A CREEP, OR A POTENTIAL HOMOSEXUAL, BECAUSE, WORST OF ALL TO HER, HE SERVES AS A MIRROR THAT REFLECTS BACK HER TRUE IDENTITY. (OR LACK THERE OF.)
**Fun fact!: Even Helen Fisher, a cultural anthropologist & expert on dating, has stated that dating is not really about rationalizing/blunt honesty, but novelty, excitement, & even danger which can boost dopamine levels in the brain, & she has even further stated that highly intelligent males have a hard time dating.You can see what sort of subtleness & animality ensues when females retain the evaluative throne.

The female is amoral, not immoral per se, but Amoral. They are two distinctively different characteristics. Immorality means a negation of morality. Amoral is neither a negation nor an inclination towards morality. You could say that this sort of middle position of amorality is even worse than immorality.Just observe how a female, out of nihilistic self interest, will dub a brute as “intense”, “interesting”, or “mystifying”, while often simultaneously play as mediator by using the “beta” provider.

Females network differently than males. They’re much more co-operative in a personal way. Males are simply co-operative in regards to task & can overlook people they don’t like. Due to the former female co-operation style, workers are often subsumed under a too personally evaluative way, which can lead one to be ostracized due to hypersensitive exaggeration & false claims. Females co-operate to form gossip circles, they can use these gossip circles for various reasons. : One is to evaluate the “alphas” to the “zetas”.

We’re familiar with conflated sexual harassment claims, but let me instigate another concept – LACK of sexual “harassment” claims. Oh yes, it’s true. I have seen it before in my past profession; a woman actually reported another male coworker because she felt insulted that he did not validate her vanity. Luckily for the reported coworker, the boss did not take this report seriously. Had it been a female boss, the situation could have been worse. On a similar note, at this very same job I had, I was perceived to be the famous, “faggot,misogynist who has “mother issues”” in the aftermath that I had stated to another female coworker “Look, don’t play games with me. Let’s just keep this strictly professional. Leave me alone” after her returning from her lunch brake by being dropped off by her romantic partner after she had attempted to receive validation from me by stating “Let’s go out to eat sometime”. I had already known this was just an attempt to get attention from me or to actually evaluate if she could get an upgrade. Ironically, this stupid cunt was even more attracted to me after I had displayed authority as I had pointed my index finger in her face & stated what I had stated.

TRADITIONALISM WILL ONLY STAGNATE EVOLUTION. TRADITIONALISM ONLY FURTHER ENABLES FEMALE INFANCY. TRADITIONALISTS & PATERNALISTS ARE BY PROXY FEMINISTS WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT BECAUSE THEY PUT FEMALES BACK IN THEIR EVALUATIVE POSITION (THRONE), WHICH FEMALES DON’T DESERVE. THAT’S UP TO MALE LOGIC. FEMININE INTUITION AS A “SUPERIOR” SOCIALLY DARWINIST TOOL IS A MYTH AS EXEMPLIFIED AS FEMALE PROPENSITY FOR UNECESSARY NOVELTY & THE CURRENT & HISTORICAL STATE OF FEMININE ENTROPY.BY NOT IMMEDIATELY CATERING TO FEMALE VANITY/SELF INTEREST ON A MASS SCALE – BY ADOPTING A DETACHEMENT FROM FEMALE SEXUALITY & AN OBJECTIVISM TOWARDS FEMALE PSYCHOLOGY – THIS WILL ENFORCE NEUROPLASTICITY THROUGH INTROSPECTION ON THE PART OF THE FEMALE, AS THE FEMALE WOULD LEARN TO ADAPT TO MALE DISCERNMENT/ EVALUTION , THUS REVERSING BRIFFAULT’S LAW, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ADOPTING EARNEST FORMS OF APPEALING, I.E., CONTROLLED LOGIC ON A MASS SCALE. Provider/protector roles were once absolutely mandatory when the climate suited such roles hundreds to thousands of years ago. However, we now live in much more developed civilizations.Paternalists/f traditionalistsare naïve in thinking that going back to such a political methodology will some how ensure order because, as a historical product, which its effect as a historical product is self evident in of that itself being historical, would only create a pattern that would loop back into another state that is identical to the current state because it puts females in the evaluative (throne) position. Does the maxim: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” resonate? You can naively throw around different political names & ” ‘isms” to contrive new methods, yet these same ” ‘isms” still overlook a natural process. Feminism, paternalism, traditionalism, patriarchy are all different hydras of the same natural process that is gynocentrism.

****MATHEMATICAL EQUATION:

Highly intellectual males are so preoccupied with higher strivings that they can not simultaneously attend to giving females a life, or, for that matter, corroborate with subtle, animalistic, feminine registration; because females are generally not cerebral, she will often expect that you just put your hand down her crotch when “the time is right”, rather than waiting for a male to just respectfully ask permission in a logical or methodological manner towards such advances because females have the “need” to feel like a woman by “being taken”.

There aren’t enough detached studies of females’ true behavior & psychology. This is most likely due to males’ constant catering, whether in a steering or a submissive way, to female comfort. Hence we often get the absurdly packaged new age styled interpretation of them being the ethereal, “mysterious” goddesses. Thus the predominantly politically correct/feeling based field of the humanities studies obfuscates blatantly obvious rudimentary aspects of female psychology & perpetuates itself to the relegation of superior cold scientists – laughing at the humanities while absorbed in a preoccupation in a distant league of their own much more technical disciplines & mathematics – as rightly dubbing the humanities as “feminine” ( If you do not know scientific nomenclature, you will not understand the latter obscure reference.) while truth struggles to leak out in alternative outlets & often working class, or semi-qualified commentators & sometimes, if lucky, folk psychology.

FEMALE-LED SOCIETIES – IN THE CASE OF THE OBSCURE AMAZONIAN SOCIETIES, WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO BASICALLY MYTHICAL – HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN QUITE BLOODY, IF NOT BLOODIER.

A finding in ‘The Male Brain’ by Luanne Brizendine: The medial preoctive nerve – a center in the brain specifically designed for the pursuit of sex – is nearly 3xs larger & more active in males.

THEORIZING!: Let me specify in regards to the last finding of the medial preoctive nerve. Actively pursuing sex does not necessarily entail being more sexual, but simply more active. I believe that females are actually more sexual, but it is not commonly understood as such because their passivity does not make their sexuality blatant, in addition to the fact that many people assume that because females often don’t orgasm through generic vaginal penetration – because they do not understand that the female orgasm is much more complex than as such & is not solely confined to inner generic coitus – many will believe that female sexuality is actually less sexual than males’.

If one reads sexology they emphasize that a female’s orgasm is much like a cloth ironer – slowly cools down after being charged. In contrast: male orgasms simply comes to a single pointed climax & then quickly retracts.I theorize that if males stopped immediately catering to females on a mass societal scale, female sexuality, which it’s level of craving remains a mystery due to passivity, would simply accustom itself to becoming a natural trade of the female. Therefore, the female could attend to its pursuit, while males attend to logical orientation. This is simply theory though thus far.

& I quote a small piece from the book ‘The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans’, page 188:

“The female orgasm has been described as psychologically more elaborate than males’. With women reporting significantly more intense experiences.(Mah & Bink, 2001, 2002) Multiple orgasms are far more frequently reported in women than in men” (masters & Johnson 1966)

NOTICE: The following statement does not at all condone female sexuality, but apposes it.

‘Forbidden Flowers’ by Nancy Friday, along with ‘My Secret Garden’, is telling of latent female psychological predilections towards masochism & other perverse sexual fantasies. I should differentiate male sexual predilections, which is predominantly oriented to body parts/objects, & female fantasies which are rampant with simulation. Although males do occasionally share such ‘S.&.M.’ styled fantasies, they are often not occurring at same frequency, & generally engaged in an indifferent mode. With the aforementioned books, it’s actually what isn’t written in those books that matters. The safer examples found in those books is just the hints.

“HIS IS LITERAL; OBJECTIVE. HERS IS APPROXIMATE; SUBJECTIVE” – A quote from the book ‘Brain Sex’ by Anne Moire P.H.D..

Geneticists & neuroscientists find in this scientific work (Yes, REAL SCIENCE, not politics, not pop. culture, not soft sociology, not some stupid comment you saw on social networking, not middle brow self help guides, not some drunken frat girl who blogs as a side hobby. Do you fucking get that?) that females tend to comprise demographics of fiction novels much more frequently, while males can be identified with demographics of nonfiction subscribers. Of course the obvious correlation in this finding is transparent to those more astute. Both of the authors of this book have debated with 2 soft sociologists( Both of which I do not care to name so as to not sponsor them.) One of them was a prominent Feminist, so of course her arguments were feeling based, while the other was a proponent of symbolist literature who had the nerve to reference an art film. At one point in the debate the proponent of symbolist literature blankly states “This is crap.” before a clapping female audience. Does the cited correlation come to mind? The overarching principle of that scientific work is that females’ brains are generally wired for the purpose of instinctive intuition.Hence the archetypal concept of “feminine intuition” & females’ general predominant involvement with art/emotion. Males’ brains, in contrast, are generally wired for the involvement of logic/reasoning/concentration. Hence why science & related is distinctly masculine. Here’s a little hint for the weak-minded who have become knee jerk prone to this statement: Take a look around you & see all of the engineered stuff & then compare it to the opinions of something like Feminism. I study a lot of linguistics, so I tend to forget that in this world of Orwellien ‘New Speak’ the average people barely even speak real English. When I use the word aesthetics, I’m using it in the broadest sense of the word. I’m not saying “painters are faggy” or something like that. What it means in this context is that activities involving pleasing the sentiments of others is feminine in that it is unconsciously adopted from them which leads to blind collectivism – another feminine trait. Of course, there are plenty of males who are involved in the realm of aesthetics, but these males are usually  instinctively doing it for the purpose of gaining attention from females. It’s not perceived as such because it’s INSTINTUAL.

In contrast: aesthetics are distinctly feminine. This neuro-scientific finding has profound implications considering that females are relatively illogical in comparison to males, & the unscientific, catharsis/art based field of Feminism is a macro politicized extension of this illogicality.

Warning: As I’ve stated before, one must read such material with a discriminative mindset. Politically correct infiltration still seeps into the higher echelons of science. Some sentimentality & style is featured in this book to attempt to build bonds to a more general readership. It is also likely that the front cover is featured with male & female names juxtaposed together to artistically signify sentimental expression for the feminine readers.

NOTICE: The following statement does not at all condone female sexuality but is apposes it. Study 2 subjects called proxemics & kinesics to understand the following statement.

The disgusting female rape fantasies (believe it, It is actually much more common than you might think.) is a female’s subconscious expression towards reinforcing an authority figure by appeasing him with this ridiculous form of flattery. It is an episodic form of inculcation – as sex often processes core meanings to repackage as subtextuality – onto the male that he is to take charge of the relationship because females enjoy the feeling of being owned. It is A ritualized form of deriving power from the male by feigning vulnerability. Not all forms of communication are linguistic, & not all forms of language are completely conscious.Of course none of this applies to all situations, obviously. The more common suburban wife will settle for restaurants and shopping malls, although she may have her own light version of the occasional hair pulling and gentle slaps during sex. In other words: In other words: females claim to want a guy to be angry or “stand up for himself”, but this is simply not true in the context that it would be translated to masculine context. Females don’t speak the same language as males do. Females only want males to get angry at them in a sexual way. You can’t actually get angry at females in a healthy way. They prefer that you get angry at them in a sexual way because that anger that would otherwise be transferred to analyzing what & who she truly is instead gets thwarted to cessation of rational thought. That’s why the rape fantasy, etc., is so popular with females – it ensures that, not only will she derive entertainment, but also that sexuality would never bring critical analysis of her that would take away her power.

Generalizing is a cardinal factor of the scientific synthesis of reasoning & even daily human reasoning. Generalization interprets the actuality of a tenet . As such, generalizing is the requisite substructure that encompasses analysis in order to infer corollary principles by accumulating divisions of facets. The mechanism of testimony is paramount to conclude whether an epitome is a truism.

75% of divorces are initiated by females for the #1 reason: “She wasn’t happy.” Straight-from-the-horses-mouth in ‘Friend Of The Court, Enemy Of The Family’ by Carol Rhodes. To paraphrase from her: We have to accept the cold hard fact that women start most of the divorces.

Even in pure business matters a female will view such communication as if there is almost always an addendum of a sexual subtext. Just notice how a simple approach to simply ask for the hour on her watch will register in her mind that the approacher could be a potential “creep” or a successful romance initiator, yet it is commonly misconstrued that males have what society calls a “one track mind”.Personal anecdote: I have a natural talent for illustrating visual artwork. I occasionally attempt to peddle my drawings. Once I approached a couple of middle aged females at a local shopping mall to be met with displayed expressions that signified as if they had seen a ghost. (That’s “superior” feminine Darwinian intuition for you.) In the aftermath of my inquiry I had heard one of them whisper: “Did you see that pervert?” That is just one example out of many.I propose that phallocentrism on a mass societal scale would eliminate such animalistic subtleness because the onset of catered masculine logicality on a mass scale would hypothetically process such advances in the same way one reads microwave instructions – controlled masculine logic on a macro level. Masculine logic is superior to feminine intuition.

Although males are more concerned with actively pursuing sex, this does not make him necessarily more “sexual”, but simply more active. I believe it is females who are actually more sexual; in the sense that they are more “libidinous”, i.e., sensation based rather than cerebral. Men can separate the two aforementioned aspects. Females intuit in terms of their own vanity. Most females hold the attitude that they are by birth the Queen of the libido and will assume her inheritance & place in her own throne. It is likely that the female is actually more sexual, not sexual in the sense of actively pursuing, but sexual in the sense of applying it to her mentation – vainly equating what feels good with what is good; truth.

FUN FACT*

Hybristophilia -What is it?

Hybristophiliacs are people who are sexually aroused and attracted to people who have committed cruel, gruesome crimes such as murder and rape. It occurs more often in women than in men. Every year, notorious criminals receive romantic and sexual fan mail from female admirers – hybristophiliacs, known to staff members. These letter-writing groupies (known as SKGs — serial killer groupies) are attracted to incarcerated men – bullies, idiots, males of impulse etc. This phenomena is a spectrum. Most females have it on some level.

Feminists’ rejection of real, hard science & limiting fixation on political aspects with a decorated rendition, does not show any profound causality of human nature, but only effects, which are quite eronious.

Females generally earn less because ,on average, they employ less hours, less dangerous, & less technical jobs

What has feminine entropy – excessive glorification of catharsis over truth, due to catering to feminine sentiments – triggered on the macro, amongst many things? Answer: postmodern man. Around the 1960s we entered an era characterized by new “lifestyles,” “identity” & art. Modern society was shaped by mass production & the industrial revolution, the Postmodern age is shaped by the entertainment “revolution” – the “ethic” of meaningless consumption, fast changing styles & a lack of firm commitment to solid perspectives. “Pomo”splices genres, fashions, attitudes, styles. It neither criticizes nor embraces, but views the world blankly, with trivial feelings & a histrionic commitment to irony.Postmodern man’s – a product of p.c. – stance is one of irony. His tastes & life styles are formed by fashion. He changes shape at will. His life revolves around aesthetics rather than truth. This has also given way to the rampent narcissistic, egotistical temperament of the youth today sometimes exemplified as the arrogant “punk”/rebel/”beatnik” (or “hipster” for a lack of a better word) ,covered in tattoos who claim exception because they play in a band, host or frequent dance clubs, or something meaningless.
Feminine entropy does not necessarily entail that females are attracted to chaos (although sometimes it’s so) of course they are attracted to the orderly provision for themselves &/or progeny they can derive form a guardian figure, but what it entails is that their selection for such high provisional status will often extend the side product of such entropy because what is often required to meet such provisional status is ruthless cunning. This of course will be overlooked by the general female due to their innate self interest & amorality. Hence we get sharks, such as lawyers & other professional criminals & conmen; “As long as you got the goods for me”, or sometimes not even that; “as long as yoy take full action” is implicit. Cunning is then equated with intelligence. Instead of aspiring to the feminine, a newer/futuristic model should be put forth, so this phallocentrism/androcentrism/male-centrism is another link of futurism because gynocentrism is literally of the primitive past, so the males participating in it will never grow-up, playing dress-up, sports competitions, cops-&-robbers, perpetuating the cyclic “samsara”  because no tranquil formula was established do to the anti-scienceof female monopoly & collectivism. Female prerequisites change with the weather. Although even some females will claim that a historical figure, for example, like Genghis Khan was respectable because of his genius strategizing. Female prerequisites adapt to whatever is normative to the particular climate that is in confinement to her own amoral self interest. I can not stress enough that amoral & immoral are 2 distinctive traits. As a result of feminine entropy, cunning becomes “intelligence”, catharsis becomes an ultimatum, base consumerism becomes “progress”, lies become “science”, logic & truth becomes “narcissistic self indulgence”, fashion becomes “heroic”, etc.. What is perpetuated are defiled cultures who retain memories of self indulgent people – just like Picasso, athletes, or Hollywood degenerates – due to the impression that such types are “contributing” to society, while those who really are contributing gain little respect in comparison only to collect dust &/or rust just like their contributions. Can you recall who invented the microwave?

In strictly metaphysical terms: The feminine represents energy. One only needs to look at the action of birth to witness such furious energy. The masculine represents awareness. Rather than having energy ordain awareness, thus causing chaos, why not have awareness dictate energy? There are essentially 2 types of people in this world; male & female. For the progressive & intelligent, females should be  assigned accordingly. Most females would enjoy their roles or not be bothered by it. In such a hypothetical state, males could spend their time well to produce mechanics for such things as food, agriculture, etc., & females could press the buttons. It would be a state of male leadership & female apprencticeship.
I would even claim:
There needs to be separate schools for each sex; Indoctrination for young boys for their future in logic, & indoctrination for young females  as a servant class, keeping them preoccupied, while males should be indoctrinated to be technical & philosophical. Once the dumb animal gains menopause, it should be legally optional, but not necessarily mandatory, to get a teen. Logic is “synthetic” & all the people, especially the double digit i.q. retards, are just emoting by collectivism. That’s not real logic. When you consider something like the systematic procedure of genital mutilation of male babies, depriving males of their full sexuality, as thousands of nerve endings are contained in the male foreskin. (Speaking as an uncircumsized male myself born in Brazil where ,at least to my knowledge of Brazil’s current stance on circumcision, this procedure does not occur, I am NATURALLY & HEALTHILY much more interested in sex than the average male. You could say I was never sexually abused. In contrast: female circumcision, such as occurring in Islamic & African cultures, for example, which is not solely confined to just females, is not really an issue of males-oppressing-females, but rather an issue of incompetent cultures carrying out traditions & procedures in a primitive manner. In such cultures institutionalized punishment & various procedures are commonly excessive. ) that’s actually a form of indoctrination, but society doesn’t think about it hardly because their minds are all dictated by the popular. Real logic is beyond the emotional limitations of conditioning trends.

The Truth About Knew York “Hardcore”

capitalism_best_and_brightest

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

Yes, every writing is mine. I don’t spend my free time getting drunk at bars just to speak on the woman’s level, so why assume otherwise? Do you ever see me at your stupid parties? To actually pontificate an essential point: let me ask a somewhat rhetorical question: Did you envision the technical formula that would be used to produce your guitar amps? Hmm? Did you weld those metal pieces together. You have your tools to create meaningless pollution, however, I have my tools to create what actually matters.

Those with merit opt for equity, unskilled ones for equality – the confusion of “fairness” for disregarding individual intelligence.

Art school – institutionalized debauchery & inefficacy with delusions of grandeur.

One of the most disturbing phenomena is the cult of the celebrity – the interest in completely unimportant people.

In a Capitalistic system hosted by democracy, what will wrongfully be “better” are people like Shaq, who are basically doing nothing. No. Fuck you, Ayn Rand. The most appropriate system is a technocracy, or some type of meritocracy of science. In a Technocracy, scientists would create robots to replace the menial work.
Technocracy is not political. It’s scientific.

In Knew York, the environment is already hostile. There is a climate of competition & having to prove how “hard” you are. There’s a saying: Move to California to mellow out. Move to Knew York to become hard.
With the Knew York hardcore/post-hardcore/metal-core scenes, it was a degenerate version of the original hardcore, which is hardcore punk.
Many forms of even so called “punkrock” these days is really just a form of grindcore & even metal. The funny thing is: I used to be a “death-rocker.” That’s a hybrid of goth & punk, not new wave, bands like: Deadchovsky, Southern Death Cult, Mighty Sphincter (that’s a hybrid of black metal & deathrock, excluding their thrashy & punk stuff.) 45 grave, Ausgang, the early recordings of Mephisto Walz, early Siouxsie & The Banshees (before they turned new wave), melencholic punkrock like The Mob, Uk Decay, & I used to subsidize for less by going to these more thrashy types of bands, & the people there, who barely even knew the history of punkrock, thought that I was some kind of “poseur”, yet the form of music that I listend to was actually more closely related to traditional punkrock in sound than the punkrock that most punks listen to these days – a lot of versions of thrash, grindcore, & metal.
The point is though is that this thing called Knew York hardcore is that the knew york hardcore scene, which is basically managed by a lot of bullies & idiots, has been hijacked by imposters, & what’s more is that these imposters is a prime example of the Anton Levey mentality, whether they realize it or not, of believing that they’re all, simply put, “hot-shit” for doing nothing. They strut with the notion that they basically just own everything. In actuality, they’re closer to being “poseurs” without even the slightest idea of what the history is, which I’m not defending any side of all that. I don’t care about that juvenile stuff. I only care about knowledge now. I’m just making a point of how juvenile it all really is.

That’s just one derivative. Even in the so called egalitarian scenes of like crust punk or generic punk, they all have this mentality of thinking they’re extra special just because. They have never learned the importance of hierarchy. Hierarchy is a good thing. In these scenes, if you are beyond “peacocking” – you show real intelligence, worth, competence, that’s “getting out of line.”
For all their talk on “wh… (taboo word) privilge” that they just parroted from the mainstream, whether they realize it or not, on their stupid little text phones, or whatever, because it’s somewhat of the new fashionable tattoo to comment on stuff that they don’t really know what they’re talking about, I think they should visit Nigeria where the police are corrupt, it’s extremely violent, & the standard of living is just horrible. This fake virtue signaling is like putting bumper stickers on cars just for vanity & entertainment. They don’t really have a concern for the objective anyway. Privilige happened because they were busy creating it from history, some mistakes sometimes because that’s what happens when you work hard.

The indie rocker community is another version of this politcally correct mediocrity. They’re not going to flaunt it the same way, but they have the idea that they’re all important by just being stylish. I’ve even known some of these idiots who smoked heroin & were worhsipped because they had a sexy way of presenting it. These fucking idiots want to believe that it’s all perfect, beautiful, etc.. Just listen to some Smashing Pumpkins, man, or whatever bands I don’t even care to investigate. That’s probably not a cool band, but whatever. They’ve never actually realized anything beyond plaid shirts, tight pants, & some obscure vinyl records, so if you were to tell them anything real, you’d already be some bad authoritarian figure. Same as the others, different uniform – lame, worthless.

These kids are not “interesting” because they collect obscure art, “extreme”, “independent”, “subversive”, special, or whatever they like to imagine themselves in front of their mirrors. You can’t even give them a slight suggestion or a realistic dialogue without them reacting. It’s just vanity & emotions. How is that “intense”? That’s womanly. (E)m(p)t(y)v. losers = empty.

Rhetorical statement: Although I will admit SOME black metal is good, like bands as Vigsoroth Moshamarahoth, which I would be very glad if someone can send a link to their full music selection because I’ve been trying to re-find this lost band, one song sounds like nebulous violence, most black metal is not what it is hyped as “strong”, “intense”, “powerful,” “brutal”, etc..  There’s some impressive blast-beats by Immortal, but most of that stuff really just sounds like 5 to 10 minutes of struggling.

Bragging in a crowd, implicitly or otherwise – there’s already people with low i.q.s doing that. They’re called rappers.

When I had a previous blog that gained some fame a few years ago, which is why I switched to other methods, many of these types of “Mtv.” losers started rumours on the internet about how I was some kind of faker & that I just contrived what I typed about because their casual schema is bounded by beer, music, fashion, & things directly related to that, so anything beyond that is just too mysterious to them. Most want to give orders, but no one wants to take orders from an intelligent authority.

Nietszhe, Raynd, Le vey, it’s all just Mtv. I’m not enchanted or impressed.

The more the culture over-emphasizes instincts & performing, the more jaded & entitled the consumers become. With the calculating approach, the skilled & competent can preponderate rational, scientific sovereignty, not the fake kind feted for the superficial & carnal, by reclaiming the dormant scientific recovery, truly representational of progress, which has been adumbrated by imbuing by the apposite type.

There’s been some mass confusion on a particular word. I will type, with citations, the etymology of the word hipster.

Sure, I used to like some of them on a superficial level when I was younger – because they made some impressive music, etc., but now I don’t have to pretend anymore, & for those who are thinking about becoming better than all that, trust me, none of what bounds your social groups with others is good enough. These (empty) M.-TV.-losers thought that I “sold out”/quit their little groups due to an apparent – what they assumed – “inferiority complex.” Essentially, the life-styles were people barking, some drinking, posing, & some competition, occasional fighting, etc.. I thought: Really – this is the game I have to involve myself in? Now that I don’t have to be bombarded by the stupid subtle contest of who is the most fashionable, etc., I’m now more free. It takes a high level of narcissism to believe that typical (e)M.(p)t(y)v. lifestyles is somehow “phenomenal”. You’re not “extreme”, or anything like that. You’re just deluded enjoyer types.

The “M.t.v.”/”hipster” culture – glamorizing an absurd version of consumerism & modeling – was born of the 1930s jazz scenes, also called “hepster” for those who knew about that music & smoking marijuana. Oh no, you feel bad for me because I’m reporting something realistically & all you mostly know is feelings. “Hepster” was printed as early as June 8, 1938 in ‘Variety’ Magazine, & had been “hipster” in the early 1930s in association with fashionable dancing – movement of a person’s hips, then morphed to “hippy”, then traveling to spawn Black Sabbath, influenced by both “blues” & hippy Rock-`n-roll, which then spawned the various “doom” styles & other branches – all same branches of one tree. The modern-day hippy/hipster/punk-rocker, & it’s various sub-styles – metal-head, goth, raver, lounger, etc., is mostly a person, but not limited to, of *Eu****** ancestry ( * Star before “bad-word” indicates foot-note. If you read books, you know what a foot-note is. I’m not trying to be “witty.” However, stars occluding word indicates “bad word”) acting like a ne****. It was sympathy romanticized from the ~1930s trash jazz groups spawning the various experimental styles now, then disco, then various electronic, etc., & the blues groups spawning swing, rockabilly, & all the various sub-genres from rock-`n-roll. Hippies came from hispters, & the modern day indie/punk, etc., came from from hippies.

There’s much more important mastery than collecting series of bursts of happiness, inaccurately called experiential “learning”. I’ve seen these M.T.V. losers abscond to serious plans & have had this done to me as well because there is this silly attitude that many have that because they can emulate M.T.V. idols really well, they have the unrealistic notion that they are extra-important, accompanied by disgusting losers who like to imagine themselves as more “clever” & “stronger” because they’re willing to cheat & sell drugs, etc.. With these “M.t.v.” losers, claiming of plans would be deceptive when it was no longer entertaining to them, then when questioned or suggested about it, they’d resort to calling you “materialistic”, or something, or disrespect your needs, even though they’re the ones so addicted to sensation seeking – a form of internalized materialism, which makes them flighty. I got influenced by these idiots’ cute-little-jokes when I was younger when I was a truly despicable person. Associating with these “M.tv.” losers is completely anti-constructive. Everything is just turned to a vanity instance. These M.tv. losers have joined the trend of making fun of something different – me, & I’m not complaining about it from a “hurt” state, but what I am stating is that these M.tv. losers can’t create anything original, so they follow & emulate. But the main reason I despise these “M.tv. losers” most of all is because they’re addicted to pleasure/sensation seeking/ego gratification & they continue to promote more of it, which also promotes lies & insincerity from distractions. Even the word sincerity sounds like something to have connotations of the crippled, & it actually just means deceit.

In all-caps to signify deep inhales (it’s outhales that are hard, jabrony-blowhee fucker dawg:

POSTMODERN AESTHETES ARE INFECTED WITH “FEEL GOODITUS” – STUPIDITY FROM INFATUATION. IT’S THE CONTAMINATION OF MULIEBRITY. THESE “SUBCULTURES” – (OR AS I LIKE TO NEOLOGISE: SUB-COUTURE) AESTHETES – WILL TAKE FRUSTRATION OUT ON THEIR FELLOW BROTHERS. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR FRUSTRATED, IRRATIONAL TRIBALISM STEMS FROM AN UNHEALTHY INSTINCTUAL YEARNING TOWARDS SYMBIOSES WHO EVALUATE & DENY A SOCIAL LADDER ON THE BASIS OF CATHARSIS.

APPARENTLY, THE SOCIOLOGIST NORMAN MAILER, WHO, I THINK, WAS SADLY PRO THIS “MOVEMENT”, BRINGS CLARITY ON THIS SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN DEGRADED BY IRONY AS A DEFENSE MECHANISM. THE WORD (NOTICE: PLEASE FOCUS ON THE DESCRIPTION OF STUPID ACTIONS OF THAT WORD RATHER THAN THE WORD ITSELF THAT HAS LOST MEANING THROUGH IRONY, AS THAT IS HOW THESE PEOPLE COUNTER ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. THEY “DEFEAT” THE CONTEXT BY DILUTING THE CONTEXT, & THEY APPLY THIS WORD LOOSELY TO A MYRIAD OF PEOPLE TO TRY TO EVADE THE DEFINITION.

THEY FEEL EXCLUDED EASILY. YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU ARE BEGINNING A NEW HOBBY & THEY WILL RECEIVE THAT AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE & THEN THEY WILL STATE SOMETHING TO TOP YOUR STATEMENT OR WILL ADOPT YOUR NEW HOBBY WITH THEIR OWN LITTLE RENDITION , NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FLOW OF THE CONVERSATION OR TO UNDERSTAND AN ACTIVITY, BUT JUST TO REAFFIRM COMPETITION IN THEIR LITTLE “COOL KID RETARD” CONTESTS – A CONSTANT VANITY STRUGGLE. THEY ENGAGE IN DEBATES NOT BECAUSE OF GENUINE INTEREST IN INQUIRY OR CORRECTING, BUT JUST TO HOG MORE ATTENTION.

THEY ONLY THINK IN 2 SIMPLISTIC TERMS; “EITHER YOU’RE HIP OR YOU’RE SQUARE”. BUT WHERE DOES THIS PRIMITIVE FEELING BASED MODE OF “THINKING” & SENSATION SEEKING REALLY COME FROM? IT’S UNCONSCIOUSLY EMULATED FROM SOMETHING ELSE, OR RATHER, OTHERS. RATHER THAN SPECIFYING FURTHER, I’LL GIVE YOU THE WONDERFUL OPTION OF FIGURING IT YOURSELF.

They allow art & sports in academia so all the females & retards can feel special. It’s a democratic form of understanding based on a double arrowed property of flattery. Society will not give the podium to anything ratiocinitive because that would result in the enforcement of the separation of direct subjectivity. The ones who should be winning “Grammy awards” are the ones who are conducting rigorous research, cracking mathematical codes, showing light in a world of darkness, not your fucking “Hollywood rockstars” & “pin-up models”.

Related to the hippy culture, or fashions, actually: uncharted aspects of education:

“Learning” by regalement is not good enough for me. Most rebuttals against me have been that I need to experience the validation of what is counter to ratiocination. The same culmination I have gathered has been shared by other men who are either in their mid. ages or who are seniors, if they weren’t spared such conclusions at the time when many women seek middle aged men to use for all the time that was wasted in their younger years. I gained the answers in my early 20s. I already nebulously knew in my late teens, but did not refine the answers until my early twenties. Martin Van Creveld, author of ‘The Privileged Sex’, who I cite subsequently, is one of those who is both much older, as well as highly bookish – double the power.
Females are accommodated from dangers of all kinds – physical, emotional, & mental. First I will Explain the physical & emotional aspects, then the mental aspects. It’s not necessarily bad to accommodate them from such. What is bad is when that atmosphere presides most of a culture.

For one example, Males In Britain are more likely to suffer from lack of psychological support, overcrowding, & lack of amenities. Most males universally already want to be tough around age 4.

There are behaviours & attitudes that would make parental & authority figures create difficulty for the male child. It is conversed for female children.

To say that the following is due to “patriarchy” is faulty. It all commences from feminine oblique appraisement. Females naturally have an inborn prepossession for the most leathery of the apposite sex, regardless of what they express to be the contrary, & they favor this over brainpower. They might be attracted to doctors, for example, but not because of the will of his mental concentration, but because that doctor holds authority. That is generally what females are mostly concerned with. If you don’t believe, try this: next time she customarily asks you “how are you”, reply with “not so good.” You’ll notice that your relationship will soon recess & possibly be terminated because of her.

In many societies around the world, males may have to endure humiliation by having their hair removed, even pubic hair occasionally removed, make absurd poses, get naked in front of elders, recite self mockeries. Symbolically familiar? Ordeals of nutritional & sleep deprivation can also occur, & physical pain, such as body modification & tattoos. In Papua New Guinea, some tribes climb to a high place, fasten a rope around their leg, & then plummet. (Supposedly what inspired bungee jumping). Just very basic samples of universals. Other many examples would be too lengthy for other readers, & possibly exasperating. The enigmatic issue of male genital mutilation is the biggest example. Tribal women in Australia told a researcher that they would not marry a man who could not show himself to bear the pain. It is seldom told by reasoning to discipline young males to remain hygienic & in control of such regions because reasoning is extirpated. Simply, females select stupid males, so we have a stupid society. Female genital mutilation is outnumbered & due to amateurish societies jointly, not males-oppressing-females. Many actions of such cultures are poor.

On the mental aspects accommodated:

By around the early 1900s, it was not absolutely mandatory for females to take hard courses of mathematics, Greek, natural sciences, & Latin. This was the prototypical setting to modern equal opportunity.

What female separatist schools shared in common was pleasantries. The Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who once managed such a school, stated that it was here where the pupils were “first spoiled”, both for the U.S. & earlier Russia.

From 1850, schools became intensely feminized. By 1900, 0.75% of all public school teachers in the U.S. were women. By 1920, it was 90% & above. Boys were now being taught en masse by women for the first time in history, which caused the boys to be treated more like girls. They were disadvantaged because of this.

By 1950, females were getting better grades than males in elementary school not because of better skills, but because of more accommodation for females. The trend has grown since then to also high school & universities. Simultaneously, importance of grading has been ruined. When schools admitted females, they were hustled to remodel the system to meet females’ needs.

Because more educational opportunities are open for females, they also have more collegiate options, like the arts. One of the feminine demands is to include cleaning & cooking to be worthy of grants as much as Latin & Algebra.

If females were separately taught, it has been claimed that they’re discriminated against. If taught with boys, that they’re needs aren’t supplied.

Feminists blame the fact that females’ tendency to be involved in the humanities & the arts is due to society steering them towards such. It’s usually the apposite actually. Past attempts to introduce technical work to females didn’t change females’ tendency.

A president of Harvard – Larry Summers – actually lost his rank because he dared to suggest that there should be further studies on mental differences of the sexes.

Surveys conducted by several countries prove that female academics are generally less productive than males.

Other than perhaps devising a means to rate how technical a female can be, usually sexually dimorphic – masculine – females, it’s best to keep females simple & out of the way of male endeavor. Invent new schools for females to specifically further their generally limited nursing capability.

Advocating their traits in academia does not only have consequences in academia, but also in the external social arenas as well.

Political Correctness is a tool used by governmental factions as an attempt to control populations by economics. Since these factions are concerned with maintaining economics, they would not be concerned with idealism/”spirituality” derived from truth of real science, only a means to support practical materialism so that populations are preoccupied with consuming.

Obviously, in order for political correctness to thrive well, it had to acquire help from academia. To try to present political correctness as “scientific”, The Institute for Social Research was opened at the University of Frankfurt in 1923. To ward off deeper thinking & discernment, one of the dominant ideas in the humanities field & social sciences would be that society itself was the most powerful force determining how we all are. There is some truth to this, of course, considering how this social engineering will cause most supporters of scientific realism in a debate to be bombarded with counter-arguments that “sexual identity is a social construct”, or who try to dodge the nature-vs.-nurture debate by loosely replacing a newer concept of sex with the word “gender”.

Scientific realism is that biology precedes culture; the phenotypic – nurture aspect – realities we have now were originally cast by genotype – nature aspect. If there is variation in how populations behave now which influences behaviour, they originate from rudimentary nature which caused the nurturing effect of the environment to reflect upon that.

It had been said that Plato once stated that if the artists are given too much dominion over the mind, there will be a decline in society.
One of these obstacles to scientific realism that helped foster these ideas that society is solely & only shaped by the external culture were the behaviourists, which would unfortunately give support to the “flower-power” generation in later years who held the same belief, which was the predecessor to the adherents of postmodernity that uses notions of taste to try to detract scientific realists in this entertainment era fueled by mostly distractions – the generation upon generation of young daughters who think they’re smart & qualified because daddy bought them a certificate that states they studied puppetry, or whatever, who have their parents give them lots of money to fund for their “collegiate” pursuits of smoking marijuana when they’re not attending their stupid art classes, whilst drinking alcohol & having sex with jiving degenerates because they’re entertaining. They act like independent thinkers with their glibness but they’re “independent” thinking is only supported by un-courageous thought processes inflamed by the dramatic & pleasing.

The politically correct & postmodernist can not tolerate the drudgery of real science, so they look to more mesmerising beliefs such as psychoanalysis & ‘Critical Theory’. ‘Critical Theory’ taught today in the humanities field of universities was contrived from when the Frankfurters in the 1930s started to probe culture much more to have a better understanding of how socio-economics grow. It’s an extension of the politically correct idea of a dialectical critique for the purpose of not to understand truth but to try to make populations complacent consumers.

The behaviourist Skinner – a proponent of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ belief – liked to think of himself as “scientific” but he only proceeded his dull craft of social engineering psychology after failing as a fiction writer. Along with the fashionable word-maze artist Michel Foucault that Feminists have been influenced by because of his statements that the body & sexuality are purely “cultural constructs”. Eric Fromm – a non-technical psychoanalyst lacking in neuroscience & biology – was another key figure building on the work of the anti-science of the ‘Frankfurt School’ of political correctness. If you are the type who can sharpen your own mind by grinding your thoughts against dull slabs of tablets, you can discern the political correctness in writings like Fromm’s ‘Art of Loving’ & ‘Sane Society’. Adherents of his liked to shun that intelligence is heritable in the 1970s. Fromm is one of the key figures who especially tried to think himself as adequate enough to speak on differences of males & females, stating the “socially constructed nature of sex” in his post structural writings.’Eros & Civilization’ by Herbert Marcuse was a major un-scientific piece of garbage that helped spawn the 1960s rebellion of the youth who held the attitude that progress is meaningless & fashion & escapism is good enough, hence their dislike of real science that requires much discipline.

These -isms & pseudo intellectuals posing as true philosophers & social scientists were key figures in promoting the self centered me-me, rebel-without-a-brain attitudes of the 1960s generation that Feminism aligns itself with.

Not exactly the same but paralleling these anti-scientific people, Laveyan Satanism is for those who prefer something that seems different but still above-all encourages the same a-science escapism & Dionysian hedonism that reinforces subjective sentiments & distractions. One of Anton Szandor Lavey’s insistence is that people who are that stupid should be taken advantage of to be propitiated away from competence. This just stokes more stupidity & dis-functionality that ruins it for the intelligent who don’t deserve it. Laveyan Satanism borrowed heavily from Nietzsche – a descent poet that liked to over-hype himself as “important” while favoring the Dionysian aspect over the calm, more thoughtful Apollonian aspect, who appropriately became infected with a sexually transmitted disease from a prostitute. The philosopher Ayn Rand also pontificated further Nietzche’s “will to power” by re-appropriating what it means to be objective. Real objectivists are doing science free of cultural conditioning, not seeking happiness & evasion.

I hate so many philosophers.

The biological probabilism that is essential to understand scientific realism is the forerunner before cultural nurturance. The pervasiveness of such cultural figures reveals that such politics is used to advancing themselves as an organism naturally would try to in order to adapt to the environment. They conceal the original scientific realities of biological probabilism so that logical coherence is weak to create cultures of the farcical & the attitudes in people that they’re level of conjecture is special, that what is contemporary with what is marketed, & acceptable by such a populist, is better than the quality of highly rigorous work, & that science is a “big-bad-authoritarian” enemy, when it’s actually used to make societies functional.

Thankfully, just like how when a male injecting himself with an affair with an unavailable female reveals to the original romantic partner how she truly handles so called dedication & that the original partner was entangled in an illusion, during the attempt to muddle distinctions of true femininity & masculinity, destroying the family unit only revealed, to those smart enough, the true nature of females. It is females who are the most receptive to Feminism & related ideas that amplifies their true nature. It is females who are receptive to such illogical ideologies because females are themselves illogical, which only disproves p.c.’s antithesis of biological probabilism further.

So, closing with final need realizations:

This is a transcript of an audio presentation. Instead of assuming as an idiot by slander that because I’m minutely using others’ models, that I’m “inauthentic”, think, instead, of how much hard work was implemented in re-typing from sound format & how that would be logically inferable of how diligent I would be in my ability. I compose much more elaborately than the following representatives, so…. There were three commentators in the audio dialogue. For the sake of convenience, I have labeled Jacque Fresco’s commentary as “J.F.”, “C.#1” – commentator number 1, & C.#2 – commentator number 2. Also for convenience, I have discarded small irrelevant stuff, such as “um”, etc., & other garbling stuff.

This subsequent pre-commentary is mine:

The coherent understanding of collectivism is a cowardly means of following trends & orientations which keeps progress static, or, in many cases, actually causing detriment; in a case of bystanders joining a pecking order in expulsing a genius with better plans because another authority group judged the expulsion to be the good action.

A collectivist would give you a false answer.

The coherent understanding of individualism is individual thoughts, not instinctual drives, that causes intellectual evolution.

It’s a tricky understanding because almost any idiot with delusions can claim to be enlightened, but this is actually due to collectivism’s insistence of congealed temporal habituation that pauses real intricate idealism. The minority ones with the truth are scoffed after the attrition with: “You’re insane.” More accurately: One becomes unnerved from dealing with others’ foolishness.

Because sociological vocabulary is often depriving, individualism taking over a culture would paradoxically be “collectivism.” It’s individualism – intellectually evolved by disaffection, as those are the alienated ones concerned with technical details – that would cease deprived contention.

The universally initial appreciation for a given art-form is predicated on its own introduction; meaning: you only like what you’re exposed to, & you think it’s “significant,” but it is only “significant” because your limitation to the style of it deludes one to not understanding that all aesthetic forms are trivially generic; “my extreme blackened thrash noise wall is different & better than the juggallo-surfer-indie,” when, aside from a very slight variation of language that is emblematic of temperaments & inclinations, it is actually all relatively the same, & only fixed by a difference of an opinion of liking or disliking (sometimes neutral). Even forms, for example, classical music, that acclaims of superiority because of abiding by an attentively required formula is trivial. What a waste of time. All the grand concentration held by the producers of the latter could be used for something better, instead of wasting that skill on a self-insulting level. Art does not make you smart. If you think art makes you intelligent, you are the proof of how stupid you are. This delusion then creates the attitude that a generic one is special because this mistaken notion that a personally entertained figment is only of themselves, when it is actually just a different version of the same universally, & gives the maudlin feeling ; “I just can’t explain it” – a form of confused retardation.

Since appreciation for a given art-form is only predicated on its own introduction, an anti-art technocratic oriented society only functioning on rationalism would replace such preexisting stalling notions because the extra result from rationalism would naturally instill stimulation or tranquility, thus putting the universal & generic truth about art back in order. For example, generators make stimulating sounds. The shimmer of metal is stimulating. It is even more stimulating if that’s all you’ve been introduced to.

We don’t need these disgusting attitudes in society that one is extra-important just because they have “talent”. Intelligence is what matters the most.

The worded recording:

J.F.: “In a tribe that was just about to go to war, & they were tense, & they danced around the fire, & yelled & screamed, they danced around the fire & relieved that tension before they got into battle. Soldiers, when they march, sing. The reason for that is to take their mind off: “how’s my wife doing?” “I wonder what’s happening at home with my kids.” But if you got them singing, like the Marines sing ‘Blood Makes The Grass Grow,’ takes the attention away from home, you’re better off, & if you can involve them in little games, dancing, sports, that takes the attention away from social problems.

Boxing, wrestling – sports in the future, there will be nobody punching one another because that damages the brain, & nobody seems to give a damn, except that they like that. A ballet dancer in later years will have a lot of trouble with her ankles. What they do is not good for the body, & they rehearse long hours, & they damage their body because we have emphasized ballet – we like it.

Now, if you consider ancient Rome, where they used to feed Christians to the lions, & kids would say “Daddy, can we come next week to see Christians being fed to lions?” Daddy might say “If you behave yourself.” Now, these kids are not mentally ill. (My commentary: I completely disagree. Most humans, usually the intellectually un-evolved, are naturally sick because of their cowardly collectivism towards almost any expectations.) They’re brought up in a society that’s warped. Our society is warped.

It’s hard for me to talk about the things that normal people have come to like. Do you understand what I mean? It’s like walking over to an Indian, saying “Why are you dancing around the fire with feather hats?” That’s ridiculous. The Indian doesn’t say “Gee, thanks for telling me that. I never thought of it that way.” Don’t you see, people can no longer step out of their culture by a lecture or a single movie. It just takes a long time to learn where these things came from, how they emerged, how they evolved.

Now, putting decorations through your ear, piercing your ear, something dangle from your ear, if a  person came from another planet, they had a watch on the wrist, he might say “what is that?” You’d say “well, I can’t keep accurate time. This machine helps me keep time.” & He’d say “what are those glass things in front of your eyes that appear to be transparent?” He’d say “well, I’m losing my eyesight where I can’t read, I can’t see anything far away, & this helps me.” “Well, what’s that thing hanging from your wife’s ears?” “Oh, that’s decoration.” “Yes, but what is it..” See what i mean? That’s the same as a primitive person painting their face in different colors to keep evil spirits away. Now, they say that with a straight face. You can’t tell them what they’re doing is primitive, backwards”

C.#1: “You know, being an individual is not how many rings you have through your nose, or what color your hair is, or if your hair stands straight up, or, you know, the clothing that you wear. It’s how you think, & you have to think about what all these different fashions are for, too. A lot of people make a lot of money by changing fashions every year, so it’s good to consider the motive of all these things.”

J.F.: “Same with automobiles. They hang a tail-fin on them, or a… (can’t distinguish word). This is all artificial. I would spend all that money on safety devices, instead of a tail-fin. Like, if you build a monument to veterans, the veterans think that’s a good thing. I think it’s a terrible idea. If you have any surplus money for monuments, give it to the veterans’ hospital, & build M.R.I. machines & x-ray machines. Build what is needed in the hospital to help veterans, not a monument.”

C.#1: “You know, in the old days, we didn’t have cameras & things like that, so people painted portraits of one another, & they were pretty accurate, & they were pretty good at one time, but today we have the camera. We can even do x-rays right through people if we want to see what they look like, but you don’t need people to draw portraits of them anymore. A camera does a better job in many instances.”

J.F.: “But you can’t superimpose that because people were brought up with ‘art appreciation.’ There’s a lot of parasitic beliefs we have that will vanish in the future (My comment: Good!). I don’t expect people to turn around at one of my lectures, but I do hope they’ll think about it.”

C.#2: “You’re saying, to a degree, at somewhat, that they’re irrelevant, but, yet, you decide that in the future, they’re still going to be “sinners” with cameras & musical instruments & all the equipment that someone would need to perform these artificialities?”

J.F.: “Yes, that’s true, during the transition.”

C.#2: “Oh, during the transition.”

J.F.: “You need all those things as normal people, so called “normal.”….. A “normal” French man accepts France. A “normal” headhunter accepts headhunting.”

C.#2: So you’re saying, eventually, we won’t need those “sinners” anymore?”

J.F.: “We will have new forms – new art forms. I’m using the word art because that’s what people associate it with. But in the future, we’ll have new art forms. I’ll tell you a little bit about what that means. New art forms means that furniture will not be designed by artists or designers. Furniture will be designed by anatomists & physiologists to conform with the human body; as they lean forward, the chair helps you get out; the chair adjusts itself to the pressures, rather than you moving on the chair all the time to change the pressure-point, the chair will move. That’s what I mean by anatomists; Dinner wear will be designed by people that study the physiological shape of the human body, & the forks & knives will be designed to best accommodate human attributes.
Art was a great thing 100 years ago, where people didn’t have any ideas at all so they just made a lot of people buy a Kennedy-rocker. Its a most uncomfortable chair in the world, but Kennedy had one, & he was an important man, so people did things un-sane. Un-sane means not the best way for the human body.

It’s going to take a lot of movies, a lot of education. You can’t practice medicine without going to a medical environment. First You have to go to medical school. If you want to be an engineer, engineering school. You have to go to an engineering environment. We are not brought up that way today, so we have thousands of problems that generate more problems, as we invent more & more laws. Laws do not deal with problems. They’re attempts at a quick fix, but they don’t deal with the the problem. We have to eradicate the conditions that produce serial killers.

In the future, all this was transitional – the golf courses, the tennis courts. That’s all transitional. You can’t suddenly put a new society down & outlaw the patterns that people have been conditioned to. They have to outlaw that through knowledge.”

C.#1: “Yeah, there’d be churches in the city, too. You can’t ban anything, otherwise it goes underground. It doesn’t work.”

Search for recording: Art in the Future – Jacque Fresco

Citations:

‘The Woman Racket – The New Science Explaining How The Sexes relate at Work , At Play & in Society, pages 6 – 11.

‘The Privileged Sex’ by Martin Van Creveld, pgs. 48,49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60. (Much enemies, much honor indeed. There’s more cited examples of the dominance hierarchies, not intellect hierarchies, females create but, it’s enough typing.)