What, No Thanks for the Narcissistic Supply?

lisa_langloisBefore you ask, “why are you wasting so much time writing about a person who you allegedly don’t care about?”, the reason is because my readers demand this kinda trashy stuff, and I don’t wanna disappoint ’em! You may now continue.

A former friend of mine is the stupidest, laziest and least creative narcissist I have ever known. Rather than channeling her attention whoring skills into getting a writing job at Slate, Salon or Buzzfeed or starting a youtube channel, where she could utilize her button-covered denim jacket and layers of cat-eye makeup to become the punk rock Laci Green or someone equally as annoying, she spends every waking (woke?) minute of her day on social media posting about how “outraged” she is at the “patriarchy” and “rape culture” and “manspreading” and “mansplaining” and all of the other goofy nonsense umpteenth-wave feminists invented so they could have something to feel righteous about. In fact, she’s so desperate for righteousness points, that she fails to realize that, in an effort to “raise awareness”, she causes all of the “sexist” and “racist” articles she posts to get more clicks, helping turn their authors into mini-celebrities. It’s through HER, that I first learned of Matt Forney, who I now consider a friend. So, thanks, Br(redacted).

I actually blocked this person along with everyone I used to be friends with that jumped aboard the leftist SJW bandwagon and considers Donald Trump to be Hitler/the Antichrist/etc. etc. etc. because having people like that on your Facebook friend list is a liability. You post something; that person comments on your post; you respond with anything that could be interpreted as “hate speech”; someone reports you; and you spend a month in Facebook jail, not being able to comment on people’s posts or respond to messages. You’re like Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense; people wonder if you’re ignoring them, and you’re forced to start a second, third and forth FB account to keep in touch with them and peddle your wears. On top of that, leftists/liberals/SJWs have such thin skin, that you’ll get an angry mob that doesn’t have a clue about politics attacking you as a person, rather than trying to refute any of your well thought out points. Some of my favorite responses from these people are “kill yourself”, “delete your account” and “stop talking.” This all comes from people who consider themselves adults. Interacting with them is just not worth the hassle.

But apparently there isn’t much going on in Grand Rapids these days because the person that I’m talking about in this piece decided many years after we stopped talking to broadcast my current activities to her Facebook community by posting a recent Guardian article in which I’m quoted. I know it’s not exactly secret information, but how did she stumble upon it? Is she an avid reader of The Guardian? More importantly, why did she care enough to broadcast it to her little world? And EVEN MORE importantly, why did her little community feel the need to respond so passionately? One guy said I’m a white supremacist, and one guy said that I’m not rock ‘n’ roll (SLAM). It’s definitely flattering that so many people think of me years after I stopped living there and even more flattering that people feel so disgusted at the notion that I help David Cole organize events for people in Hollywood who hold “unpopular” views that could cause them to lose jobs in the film industry; I mean, GOD FORBID you talk about balancing the budget, shrinking the size of the federal government or supporting a more sensible, less debilitating immigration policy.

So, a week or two after I learned about this through a mutual friend, I sent the person on who this piece is based a little message in an attempt to advertise the Savage Hippie podcast to her friends, while also attempting to prove that she really IS that big of an attention whore.

Can you guess what she did?!

Now, GRANTED, my message wasn’t exactly charming, cute or clever. I told her how a “little birdie” told me that she was thinking about me and my activities, and I talked about the Savage Hippie podcast, mentioning both David and Ann and what they did, and for shits and giggles, I threw in this little story about our loyal listener, David McPheeters, who is going to be doing time for shooting someone in the back five times somewhere in Jacksonville, FL.

In response, she reported me to the Zuck, claiming that I threatened her. Neither David, nor Ann, nor anybody I asked perceived my message as threatening in any way. Creepy? Maybe. Unnecessary? Well, I mean, without it, I wouldn’t be able to write this piece for you, my lovely readers. The powers that be at Facebook didn’t think it was threatening either, otherwise I’d be in FB jail right now or at least would have gotten some sort of warning; she’ll probably chalk up my not getting thrown in FB jail to the “patriarchy” not taking the complaints of women seriously.

But was reporting me to Facebook enough for her? Take a lucky guess, cowboy.

She posted my private message on her Facebook wall, blasting it into the feeds of her two and a half thousand loyal followers; and hoo boy… there were calls for my death and my beat down and plenty of vitriol to go around for 150 or so comments/responses. One former friend suggested contacting my employer. Sorry, Sarah, but my “employer”, David Cole, wants to kill me more than you do. One person was the aging goth skank I wrote about in a different piece, who gives a mighty fine performance in bed, gives a blowjob to boot and got me beat up. She said she’d punch me herself this time; please do, but only after another blowjob and romp between the sheets. And one person even posted my phone number so people could text and harass me. Apparently their outrage wasn’t THAT sincere since I only received texts from two people; one of whom called me “a ignorant pig” (it’s “a ignint pig”, thank you very much!) and one who demanded I send a private apology. All while I was watching the Melvins! Can you believe the nerve of people trying to interrupt my Melvins concert experience?! I mean they were covering “Sacrifice” by Flipper! You don’t interrupt that.

But, let’s be honest here; rather than me send HER an apology, shouldn’t she send ME a thank you message? I mean, without me, she wouldn’t have gotten ALL of this attention from her Facebook followers, many of which are men ready to do her bidding. Especially now that she’s divorced, something she felt the need to broadcast to the whole world. I’m sure ALL of those guys coming to your aid are doing so just as “friends”, and want nothing in return… even if you were willing to give it to them.

So, I’m torn. Should I send a phony apology with this piece attached, have a mutual friend send it to her or hope that she stumbles upon it? In any of these cases, I certainly hope she sees it because I wouldn’t mind the Savage Hippie blog getting a few extra clicks.

Also, can someone ask the two Johns which band they like more: Big Star or the Raspberries. I’ve been mulling it over in my mind for the past week, and I was just wondering what they thought.

Why Mainstream Liberals, Moderates and Democrats Are the Real Problem

eat_a_dickWith some BernieBro “pulling an A-Team” – my new colloquialism for firing a lot of rounds at no particular target and hitting almost nothing – on Majority House Whip Steve Scalise and the recent outrage surrounding Kathy Griffin and her holding a prop of what looked like Donald Trump’s bloody decapitated head, liberals have been feigning outrage, claiming, “GAWSH, they don’t represent US!!! We may HATE Donald Trump and any politician with an ‘R’ by his or her – actually it’s zhe’s, fascists! – name, but we certainly don’t advocate using violence against them!”

I believe that these people are 100% sincere in their claim, and I also believe that they’re sincere when they say things like “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” In fact, I have several friends who identify as liberal, leftist and even “left-leaning” who know I voted for Donald Trump and don’t think I’m the antichrist for doing so. We have many fine conversations about a variety of topics from films, music and the arts but, when it comes to politics, many of my liberal or left-leaning friends balk and guffaw at certain claims that I make.

Some of their choice responses include the following:

“Fine, Edwin, if leftism is a mental disorder, than I guess we’re your mentally ill friends!”

“Yeah, SURE, the Democrats JUST want to take your guns! NO WAY are they ACTUALLY concerned about keeping guns away from psychos, unlike your precious Republicans!”

“Come ON, DUDE, you GOTTA at least admit that global warming is real, COME ON!”

“Sure, Edwin, you’re inclusive to ALL people, especially the Muslims, right?”

Now, first of all, as if this point needs to be made in the current year, the concepts of “liberal” and “conservative” are completely meaningless out of context, and furthermore, Democrat and Republican are just the names of parties (if I told you that I love the OLD Democrats, ya know, like George Wallace, you’d probably never talk to me again). When Rory Carroll interviewed me for his piece in The Guardian about conservatives living in Los Angeles, I told him that, like most people, I vote on policies, but because of my beliefs and voting record, I end up on the “conservative” side of the chess board. If you put a gun to my head demanding to know how I label myself, I’d say I’m a basic bitch libertarian (still don’t know if I’m supposed to capitalize that or not) with a wider Overton window than most; this has made my Venn diagram overlap with that of the Alternative Right, which I either am or am not considered a part of by certain people. However the idea of reducing complicated topics – abortion, guns, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, drugs and crime – into binary choices that fall under the categories of “liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right” or Democrat and Republican is simply acting as a herd animal OR lacking in critical thinking.

With my liberal friends, I believe it’s the latter, and that is why they are so dangerous.

I honestly feel that, as much as my liberal friends are astute, analytical and rational about their respective interests, hobbies and professions – film, literature, music, engineering, math, etc. – they are completely ignorant to the mechanisms that have been running our world since at least the mid-1960s.

The negative portrayal of Joseph McCarthy after the end of the Cold War and the over the top, cartoony stereotypes surrounding openly right-leaning people have made people afraid to label the left exactly for what it is; Communism. Throw in corporate collusion, and you have Crony Capitalism and Corporatism and have it cross national borders, and you have Globalism, which is nothing more than an attempt by a few elites to enslave the peoples of the world under a totalitarian, one-world government.

On the Savage Hippie podcast, Ann Sterzinger asked me when the “modern, far left version of the Democratic party began.” I told her it started in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and his war on poverty, the first real attempt in American history to socially engineer equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

The quick and basic history of the two major American parties goes something like this:

The Republican party began in 1854 with more or less the intention of disrupting the Southern agricultural economy – largely, but not entirely fed by slavery – by pushing for industrialization with factories that were primarily set in the North and owned by top hat wearing, cigar chomping Capitalists with funny mustaches. And if you think for a second that Abraham Lincoln truly cared about emancipating the slaves for some moral reason, you’ve got another thing coming; he made racial statements that would make David Duke blush, and he blatantly claimed that, if he could keep the union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it. On top of that, after the Civil War, he proposed sending every black person back to Africa. Anyway, after the North obviously won the Civil War, by all intents and purposes, the United States became a libertarian country where people were barely taxed, and some people got really rich off of the new industrialized economy; with very little exceptions, there were almost no social programs on the federal level to help people out, and Americans were forced to sink or swim. Some of the ones who swam got rich, effectively showing the potential of a country which gives its citizens the ability to succeed or to fail. Then, in 1929, the stock market crashed, many lost their life savings and a good amount of people lost their faith in a system where the federal government doesn’t take an active role in helping people. Unfortunately, in the three and half decades since FDR’s election in 1932 and the new deal policies which he instated, what was intended to help get a few people working again and to stimulate the American economy morphed into an attempt to socially engineer the nebulous concept of “equality” (again, I ask: equality of what, exactly? Ability? Opportunity?).

So then, am I calling the Democratic party a Communist or Globalist party? No… not entirely…

Again, as I said earlier, I believe liberals and so called left-leaning people mean well, but unfortunately, their lack of in depth political analysis, and their being quick to jump at anything that stinks of “racism”, “sexism” or any word with “phobia” attached to the end of it will be their, and subsequently everyone’s, downfall.

If the war on poverty worked, why are inner city blacks still disproportionately poor? Did any of these people ask that? Do they even know WHAT questions to ask?

The basic notion among the modern “liberal” left is that, if they see something as “unequal”, the laws must be tweaked to “fix” the inequality; it never simply exists as is. Since women and minorities were under-represented in certain professions, well-meaning politicians instilled affirmative action quotas that were implemented either by consent decree or by making the tests to get into certain professions easier; professions such as firefighting. In 1971, IQ testing was outlawed, so now employers had to come up with less efficient ways of testing if a potential employee would be qualified for work. One of the most egregious example of socially engineering equality in recent years is allowing for blacks to get into universities with 200 less SAT points than whites or Asians. Now, I ask, is that judging a man by the content of his character, rather than the color of his skin?

When experiments, such as instilling race or sex quotas or the pumping of money into inner city schools in hopes of achieving higher academic success in kids who come from single parent homes and don’t care about learning, fail, do you then continue to pump more money into inner city schools? When having the government pay a single mother for every kid she has leads to her having more kids so she can have more free money and continue to depend on the government, do you continue having the government pay her for to have kids? When stricter gun control measures in Democrat-run inner cities fails to solve the problem of gang-related drive-by shootings, while dinky, “homogeneous” (feel free to consider that “code”) have virtually no gun restrictions and ZERO gun violence, do you push for stricter gun control measures?

In all cases, logic would dictate “no.” So why do liberals keep advocating for such policies?

The old Communists attempted to recruit people off the streets to attend secret “community organization” meetings, in which someone lectured his crowd about the evil, oppressive nature of the Capitalist system. People would be fired up when they compared their working class status to that of the well-to-do Wall Street fat cats, CEO’s and company owners, who live off the labor of the people they employ, crying “it’s not fair!!! Oppression!” A few rubes obviously bought it, at least for a while. But somehow that kind of thinking went by the wayside when the average American got married, bought a house, had a couple of kids and lived happily ever after in a nice, clean suburb. Not the most exciting life, but we can’t all be Rockefeller.

So, when the old-guard Communism didn’t work, the nu-Communists or cultural Marxists, decided the struggle wasn’t going to be between the “haves” and the “have nots”, but between the so-called “dominant” culture and those people it allegedly dominates. Traditional gender roles were apparently “oppressive”, so came the feminist and “women’s lib” movement to address the “imbalance”, even though there was never a time when women were barred from entering scientific or STEM fields; they then, and mostly now, simply CHOSE not to. There was a disparity between the white man and the negro, so clearly whitey CAUSED that disparity, and now the negro needed some payback – forget that welfare more than compensated for any “reparations” and with interest to boot. Somehow Hispanics and Asians are never compared with blacks, only white people. And of course, the culture is too “straight”, and homos need more mainstream representation, so you better accept their dildo swinging, assless-chap wearing “pride” events, or you’re a “homophobe”; have straight people ever needed parades to represent that they like pussy?

And unlike old-guard Communism, the recruitment to become an apparatchik in the “struggle for equality”, isn’t done in secret meetings, but in the classrooms of universities and on “comedy” news programs by “social comedians” like Jon Stewart, Jon Oliver, Trevor Noah and Steve Cobert. Students are taught that a “history of slavery”, “racist policing” and an overall “racist system” is the reason blacks can’t get ahead, yet completely neglect that the Japanese were put into internment camps during World War II and came to dominate the tech industry. Students are taught that there is a “rape culture” under a system of “patriarchy”, even though rape used to be punishable by death; so does that mean that, during less “enlightened” times, we DIDN’T have a rape culture? Apparently, in universities, 1 in 4 women will be a victim of rape… or is it 1 in 5 or 1 in 7? How exactly do they define rape? Is it when a woman walks alone in the street, and a guy pulls her into an alley and has his way with her? Is it when a girl gets too drunk, and a guy fondles her neither regions without her knowledge? Is it when two consenting adults have sex, but since the woman was drunk, she couldn’t REALLY have consented? I’ve done the third example many times, so I guess I’m a rapist even though I’ve been drunk as well.

Oh, and apparently our culture was discriminatory towards gays until we “fixed” that with “gay marriage.” And while one would think the “gay-struggle” was won, and leftists would take a rest, think again! The left now wants you to recognize a man who dresses like a woman as “transgendered” rather than as a man who dresses like a woman, which WAS typically called a transvestite. And while it’s still accepted that a man who has is ding-dong chopped off and replaced with a fake vaginal device is a transsexual, I’m “transphobic” if I prefer not to sleep with or date this person, since I prefer to date and sleep with women who were, ya know, born women.

And, to top it off, in true Orwellian fashion, new words have been invented to describe anyone who fits the dominant culture. If you’re a “straight white man”, you’re now “hetero cis normative.” If you believe that there are two sexes – not counting hermaphrodites – you’re “gender binary.” And if you happen to be white, “hetero cis normative” and “gender binary”, you’re of the dominant culture and have some sort of privilege.

I asked someone an honest question; “if I’m dating a girl, and she decides to identify as a man, does that make me defacto gay?”, and she took to offense to it.

The question of why she took offense to what is a perfectly logical and reasonable question brings us back to our main point. She considers herself a liberal or left-leaning person and believes that my question comes from the insensitive point of view of an oppressor towards people who identify as “non-binary.” She means well, but she knows not what she does, and she will undoubtedly in the future be the kind of person who will push to implement more policies favoring people with the delusion of being “non-binary”, rather than what the person would have been called a decade or so ago; cuckoo.

This same person sees a black person get killed by a police officer and doesn’t question for a second WHY it happened. Was the black person committing a crime? Was he or she being rude to a police officer during a stop? Was he or she resisting arrest? The answer is always the same; racial discrimination. Forget that more whites, than blacks are killed by police. Forget that blacks consist of 13% of the population, yet commit more than 50% of the violent crime – mostly to other blacks. Forget any of the unpleasant details. If a white police officer – or white person in general – shoots and kills a black person, it’s ONLY because he or she harbored racial animus. The solution? Impede police from doing their job with needless bureaucracy. The result? More violence and death in the ghetto and more disparity between whites and blacks as whites leave the ghetto.

This same person hears of a case where a woman is raped on a college campus and doesn’t for a second wonder if alcohol was involved, if the person had sex with someone she didn’t like and then regret it later, or in the case of the phony Rolling Stone gang rape article, completely lie about it. The solution? Kick men off of college campuses if women accuse them of rape. The result? Men stop approaching women in college or at bars because they’re afraid that they too will get in trouble with the law.

This same person will worry about remembering proper pronouns; she’ll worry if she “mis-gendered” a person; she’ll concern herself of whether it’s more racist to “see color” or “be colorblind”; and if this person happens to come in the form of a man, he’ll worry if asking a girl on a date will lead to a charge of sexual harassment, or in some cases, rape.

And this person will think he or she is completely and 100% on the “right side of history” and in keeping with the times. He or she, who doesn’t follow politics in any meaningful way, will never question the narrative and simply try to keep in lockstep with it, thinking that things always need to be ” moving forward”, and with all the well-meaning intentions in the world, he or she will drive us all off of a cliff.

SavageHippie Podcast Episode 11 B – That’s Just What Ya Did in Rock ‘n’ Roll Back Then

ann_picture_cute_2.0

In episode 11 B of the greatest podcast of all time, Ann gets the hiccups.

Also the big teaser for this brief episode is how David Yow, lead singer for the Jesus Lizard, tried to remove Ann’s clothing onstage at one of their gigs.  In these dark, oppressive times, that type of behavior would be considered sexual assault and the national guard would be called, but in the more care free era of Generation X, that type of behavior was the order of the day… eh, maybe it wasn’t.

In addition to that, Ann answered some more questions about her book NVSQVAM (Nowhere), we also talk a lot about male/female dynamics, how feminism pretty much turned men into a bunch of pussies, how overrated Steve Albini is as a producer and how much Ann hates Slint.

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

I Was Interviewed by John Steele for His Channel

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

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

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

Please listen!

Unraveling An Excusatory Locution

excusatory_locution

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Origins Of Sadomasochism

Special guest post by Jessie Nagy

more_you_know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Review: Who Stole Feminism?

who_stole_feminism_2.0

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrosshalf_ironcrossVery good!

Author: Christina Hoff Sommers

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

CH Sommers’ classic, anti-feminist tome is to gender relations what Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions was to race relations; pointing out what many non-indoctrinated people are thinking, but won’t say aloud for fear of ostracism.  In addition to the fact that gender is a considerably less controversial topic than race, Sommers has a pass to write this kind of book because she’s a woman and calls herself a feminist.  But she’s made the distinction that she is an “equity feminist”, rather than a “gender feminist”, and it is the gender feminists that are the problem.

Let’s be clear; Sommers may call herself a feminist, as one of my good lady friends does, but both of them consider themselves feminists strictly in the 1920, suffragette sense; meaning that they agree with the notion that women can vote, own property and compete in a world that was essentially invented by men.  I don’t call this a feminist, and I don’t see why they would want to either, especially since the hard line feminists that Sommers wonderfully takes down don’t distinguish themselves as “gender feminists”,  but just feminists.  That and one other reason, which I’ll get to later, are why I lop off half an iron cross in my final grading.  The whole, “that’s not a real feminist, this is” argument is an example of the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”

One other thing I want to mention before getting to the nitty gritty is how there is another parallel between Who Stole Feminism? and Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions.  In the rape chapter, the one where Sommers talks about how rape hysteria, that 1 in 4 women will be raped on a college campus myth, bogus “you were raped if you had one drop of alcohol and then had sex” surveys have caused government agencies to allocate rape prevention funds to college campuses, rather than to the inner cities, where women are far more likely to be raped.  Of course, when Sommers says it’s more likely to happen in the inner city, she neglects to mention who the majority of these rapists are.  Hey, you wouldn’t either if you didn’t want to lose a book deal.

In Who Stole Feminism?, Sommers breaks down chapter by chapter how the radical women’s (womyn’s?) movement, in typical Marxist fashion, sought to subvert academic and government institutions for the sole purpose of putting envious narcissists into power.  The shocking thing about their endeavor is how easy it was to accomplish, how all of these organizations, such as the American Advancement of University Women (AAUW), had to do was release a few sensational reports about how women are starving themselves to death to be thin or how women are overwhelmingly victims of domestic abuse, especially on Superbowl Sunday, or how women’s self esteem drops when they enter high school or how 1 in 4 – actually the count dropped to 1 in 5, and then again to 1 in 7 – women are likely to raped at universities, and well meaning government officials will vote to allocate funds to “battle” these “societal ills.”

The fact that people still believe that there is a gender pay gap disparity shows how well these apparatCHICKS (heh, heh) managed to push their agenda.  For the record, to my leftist friends, the reason women make $0.77 for every man’s dollar is because incomes are tallied for men and women in EVERY profession, ranging from janitor to rocket scientist and then are added up and averaged for both genders.  That means that a 74 year old grandmother, who has nothing to do with her time and decides to get a fast food job, is compared with a male doctor.  Women tend to work less hours, take less stressful and less dangerous jobs and go into less lucrative majors like sociology or English literature.  That’s it.

Unfortunately Sommers neglects to mention how biology might drive some of these choices that women make and even implies that a bit of adjustment might need to be made in the way tenure is done at universities to accommodate women who have children, rather than let the free market do its thang.  This is the other reason I chopped half an iron cross in the final grade of the book, but that’s such small part of the book, that it doesn’t undermine the rest of it.

Sommers goes on to describe how university classrooms have become less about education, and more about indoctrination.  One student complained about how she went to an English writing class, but rather than learning how to write, was bombarded with feminist pedagogy.  She further explains how many feminist activists are trying to eliminate objective truth and knowledge, claiming that objectivity is a “male creation”, and want to substitute it for a subjective, “all inclusive”, gynocentric viewpoint.

The most ridiculous examples of this, which would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn’t actually taken seriously, is Peggy McIntosh’s five phase approach to teaching method.  Phase one, the good one, the one that she hates, the “hierarchical” one, is the “malecentric” one, the one where 2+2 is always going to be 4.  Phase five is the one where 2+2 is whatever a woman wants it to be.  I’m not kidding!

What would a curriculum that offers an inclusive vision of human experience and that attends as carefully to difference and genuine pluralism as to sameness and generalization actually look like?

Pretty damn stupid is how it would look like, and we’re finding out just how stupid every single day.

Sommers name drops some of the most important names in feminism; Naomi Wolf, Betty Friedan, Susan Faludi and a bunch of others who I’m too lazy to research, along with siting the important – and I mean important for the changes they caused, not because they did any particular good – studies, which fundamentally changed much of the educational structure.  Keep in mind this book was first published in 1994, the year that the awesome movie PCU came out, back when people were making fun of this stuff.  Now it’s all but accepted by students, faculty and much of the general populace.

In the introduction, Sommers says that her son persuaded her against making corny jokes, and this is a good thing.  The entire book takes such a straight-forward, dry and academic tone, that it makes the material that much funnier; or at least as funny as it can be before you realize that people take this crap seriously.  In other words, the fact that Sommers maintains a poker face while describing how the “vertical approach” to teaching – and I’m not kidding – 1 + 3 +5 to a young girl who had trouble adding would require her to “think vertically, thereby undermining her self-esteem and causing her to become discouraged.  She [McIntosh] urged the Brookline teachers to find ways to ‘put… [students] off the right-wrong axis, the win-lose axis.'”  Wow.

To answer Sommers question, nobody stole “feminism.”  If you don’t want a completely outdated movement, one which accomplished every single goal it was intended to, to be ruined by annoying harpies who want to fundamentally change how America functions in order to increase their narcissistic supply, maybe it’s best to dissociate with “feminism”, and start going by a different term.  How about “equalitarian” or just not a retard.