Less Or Undocumented Info | Bright-Orange-Pills

eliot

This was screen-captured in a forum regarding a post about the taboo of female prison guards having sexual relations with inmates being more common than many know.

I premised: There’s so many whores in this space claiming: “Certain men with paraphilias should be burned alive.” What about women attracted to bad men?

A woman actually working, who chooses to remain anonymous, with the legal system disclosed this: (PRESS: Ctrl + TO ENLARGE TEXT)

D1

D22

Advertisements

Circumcision & The Real Patriarchy | Ayam Sirias

stupid female

One of the best articles on MGM (male genital mutilation.), so I had to re-post it.

I was coming back from the immigration office today and I noticed a big banner flying over the street that said “Sunat Modern” which basically means modern circumcision. It was an ad for a laser surgery type of circumcision and it bragged that there was no blood or stitches involved and that a child could immediately be active after the surgery. Here in Indonesia and other similar Islamic countries the boys traditionally get circumcised at the age of 7, at a party, in front of all their family, friends, relatives and neighbors, while everyone eats snacks and sings songs. Anyway this banner got me to thinking.

Circumcision is a big talking point in all Abrahamic religions especially Judaism and Islam, as most of you know, and until today it is ritualistically practiced on young boys, as I mentioned before, usually on their 7th birthday; unlike secular western countries where it is done in the name of medical health when the child is a newborn. Another thing you might already know about religion, especially Islam today, is that it may be the closest thing to a true patriarchal society that still functions in the modern age.

If we are to take the feminist definition of a patriarchy in saying that it is ‘a society run by men with the sole purpose of oppressing women’, who could argue with that definition? Especially if you believe the feminized western propaganda called the popular media. I mean who hasn’t heard the feminist wailing’s of oppressed women in Saudi Arabia being covered head to toe or not being able to vote or drive? Although you never hear them brag about how 60% of university graduates in Saudi Arabia are women, but who wants to split dyed pubic hairs with gyno-banshees?

But if someone simply called Islam a patriarchal culture I wouldn’t disagree; that is if you define it as it actually is, ‘a culture run mostly by men in where men take on all work and responsibility in order to have the rights they do, while women are coddled and looked after with fewer rights but absolutely no responsibility’. I’m not saying this is an ideal culture. What, do you think I’m a traditionalist? But jokes aside, let’s examine this so called Islamic patriarchy from the perspective of circumcision so you will understand what I am trying to say.

You see, in the modern age, in patriarchal Islamic cultures, boys are still being circumcised as they were 1400 years ago. The only difference being the technology they use now. But until recently, in this patriarchal culture, both boys AND girls were getting circumcised EQUALLY, because realistically there is very little difference between the sexes when it comes to the barbaric practice of circumcision. Feminist harpies and western women in general will try to convince you with a heap of lies, curse words and ad hominems that female circumcision is worse, but anyone reading this now knows this is not true. In fact, the average female circumcision removes far less area of flesh when compared to the complete removal of a foreskin from a male penis. For the females it is a very small cut around the clitoral hood. A tiny piece of flesh you can barely see on the tip of your finger. Hardly an area of skin large enough to collect and harvest to make rejuvenating skin cream for Oprah Winfrey and her followers of women who don’t know how to stop eating.

Now I know there are different degrees of severity when it comes to circumcision, especially female circumcision. But the fact remains that the severe forms of female circumcision that can happen, are nearly extinct and only really practiced in backward tribes on the African continent, if they are still even practiced at all. My ex-wife was circumcised back in the late 70’s. It did not affect her sexual performance or her ability to receive sexual pleasure to any degree. Her sister experienced the same thing.

The point is, within the last main stream patriarchal society on Earth, Islam, both men and women were circumcised as children equally; yeah equality. However, fast forward to today and what do you see? Well in this Islamic society of manly men and testosterone, the Islamic community, all over the world, still slices the foreskin off of little boys with impunity and without reflection, consistently, while at the same time, making female circumcision all but disappear. Yes that’s right. The modern patriarchal culture of Islam has been convinced by modern pressure to almost eliminate female circumcision but still advertises for and expects little boys to do it on their 7th birthday, while everyone eats cake and sings karaoke. Only now with less blood, no stitches and the little guy can get up and play with his friends, right after it’s done. Well at least that’s what the banner said.

So how can a successful patriarchal culture today be convinced to give young women the right to bodily autonomy by not clipping that tiny piece of skin from their clitoral hood while not even giving a second thought to offering the same to the young boys who will one day become the circumcised men who might rule this patriarchy? The answer? This IS true patriarchy. Not the myth that feminists spew but the true form. Where in the end, women must be protected, NOT oppressed. Where the protection and the granting of rights to women with no responsibility far outweighs any form of equality or oppression.

Saudi Arabian culture and most cultures at large are much older than Islam or even Judaism. And though in the past, Islam convinced the masses who adopted it that children and their genitalia fall outside the realm of basic human rights; in the end it is the tried and true patriarchy that wins out. The patriarchy that says, “Yeah maybe you are right. We shouldn’t circumcise little girls. After all, they need our protection. The little boys however can suck it up and deal with it.” And then everybody sings songs and eats cake, joyous in the fact that with modern technology, at least little 7 year old Muhammad won’t bleed everywhere and he can go play with his friends immediately afterwards.

The only question left is, “What then is the real difference between gynocentrism and the patriarchy”? Ask yourself that question, and don’t become terrified when the answer comes to you, bloodied but ready to party.

SCIENCE: Institutionalized Intervention To Boys Causes Somatosensory Affectional Disorder (SAD) | Jessie Nagy

women owe

I do a  review of: www-dot-violence-dot-de with a pan-studious technique. I don’t need to choose one faction & claim left-vs.-right. It is both right & wrong. It is a part of the web-ring to fight sexual mutilation. However, they are naive. Liberating women will only contribute to more male violence & what they would describe as patriarchal behavior.

It’s a bit coincidental that the acronym for Somatosensory Affectional Disorder spells SAD.

I don’t read fiction because I think it’s a waste of time, but I have heard from someone who does that the ‘Marquis de Sade’ admits to having a spanking fetish. De Sade was, according to him, associated with the French revolution of some ways. He states: “We get it from the concept of sin & condemnation. It’s largely catholic. Which is why it’s so common in France.”

Repressed/naive sexuality, additionally to other factors, makes this behaviour manifest. Last time I checked, there is no serious sexual education for any culture.

I’ve asked females why is it they like rape-fantasy, etc.. Most of the answers were, &, reminder: female herds makes anecdotes about them scientific, “because it’s so powerful.” Women make the power of intelligent males reduced. This is part of the reason why we don’t have serious sex education.

My problem with attaining a long-term relationship is that I just can’t find a female that is actually feminine enough, especially of the modern context. There’s this pervasive interrogation by society of: “Is he good enough?” What about her? Is she feminine enough. Every fucking whore now thinks that they’re extra-special because they smoke a vape thing. A lot of females don’t want quality relationships. They just want to compete, for a lack of a better word, with other males. See what I mean? It states: “Cam model… Fuck you, pay me.” & I’m usually not pedentic, but she couldn’t spell you’re properly, so it’s an indication that stupidity controls socializing.

captured whore

Humans are more cooperative than dominant, but things like 70s rock-&-roll & things like ” feminist knowledge generation” popularized the course of meaningless spectacle & un-mindfulness getting more social status than the functional. Thus it automatically proved welcoming of feminist theories. These whores now like to present their casual male partners as if they’re being “taboo,” “extreme,” or “edgy,” or something. It’s actually taboo to present a moral male, not as only accepting with some reluctance, but actually proud of it. because women have popularized & imposed the subset, society has a weak moral preeminence.

Commonly overworked, women (& he) cannot gain real bonding. Having been encouraged by Feminism & competition to sublimate affection of her (& our) nature, she is busy with career & can only have minimal contact with children (“cared” by day-care centers).

Optimal performance of competition, originally started by women, is then encouraged by & for women.

So then we have a new excreted product because of the unhealthy friction of duality: “cosmetic pharmacology,” particularly of the use of anti-depressant/anti-stress drug prozac.

Could it be that females (& males) have stress or depression because they are not having proper affection & more time with personal lives & less time with competition? YES. Romance is actually a technology for psychological health, but women have ruined romance. I have even seen with pro-male spaces claims that men wanting romance is “weakness.” This is actually anti-male. Psychological states determine how societies operate on the macro. Psychological states are determined by the physical. How could it not be considering these drugs make people do certain things?

The use of the drug is not even limited to those who are sick.[2] It’s prescribed for “social confidence,” “social skills of salesmen.” It is a feminist drug, “curing” women of femininity.

Sarcasm – Isn’t it wonderful that the tattooed normal whore has marijuana, etc., for intelligent males to compete with, which cancels things like males researching good nutritional practices[1]. The other normal whore has things like prozac to stop the realization that you’re supposed to feel stressed in an unhealthy setting so that you can change the setting. Instead, they take the typical option of immediate gratification rather than encouraging ways of finding ways to change entire systems.

There’s an idea that males are highly ambitious. Yeah, males are also lovers, which women have taken away.

With the promotion of adroit competition, can both come home well enough with relaxation? So now they’re both plotting. Passivity of the female has also been regarded as prerequisites for best enjoyment of vaginal sexuality. No wonder there’s so much immature & clumsy sexuality – anti-androcentric.

By the intervention of medical doctors during the process of birthing, separating the neonate for extensive periods from the parents into distant nurseries, & the advising of parents not to respond to their babies cries for fear of spoiling them is wrong.

The first contact of the child to the mother constitutes the first socio-emotional, psychic learning the child has & influences later actions.[3]

Even when dealing with sexual interaction, the post-parental raising by female parties has moral guys occulted. They say that social constructs are leftist. Sex is very powerful. Social constructs are also sexual, not just leftist.

Love-hunger is stronger than food-hunger.

Many women want to blame men for bad behavior, yet they never stop to think that it could be their contribution.

Anti-foundational “Hook up” culture is not due to a promotion of what I espouse. “Hook up” culture ruining values is due to a lack of romance. It’s not that women are to be hailed for “cooling the fires.” Men already wanted romance as a technology, but women cancelled that. As intellectual pop.-comedy would put it: ” Men just want her. Women want a journey.” They’re so perniciously gluttonous, & I don’t mean that of an overweight way. You don’t really need intricate formulas to know that. You only need more wisdom.

Women cause, like feminists, S-SAD – Somato-Sensory Affectional Deprivation – because women commemorate extra penurious selfdom/games of strife.

Behavior patterns due to bad/lacking treatment by mothers include what could be categorized as autistic, withdrawn, & hyperactive.[4] With violence being a trade-mark of America, boys are failing things, including social customs posed as “good socializing.”

What is unethical & immoral behavior might not be to another group, however, ethical & moral behavior to females is totally weak & often fake. There’s is only the most obvious things as don’t kick a dog, yet they would have Stockholm syndrome of other contexts. Men aren’t perfect, but if you were to give women the option to lead societies, which requires some amount of more abstract thinking to ethics, more than just “don’t kick a dog”, you would have some of the most ill-considered choices.

Maternal deprivation of cuddling, holding, etc., not only has dangerous affects for mammalian species, but it is an a priori fact that deprivation by fathers does similar effects as well.

Hyperactivity is due to restraints commonly placed to developing children.

Having abnormal social & abnormal emotional behaviors is the norm because of all this. The abnormal sex & violence associations is the norm. A pleasure-prone personality has a low capacity & tolerance for violent-aggressive behaviors – what society would call “sensitive.” Yeah, we’re supposed to be that way. Conversely, the aggression prone personality has a disinterest for sensuous activity: as one “goes up,” the other “goes down,” with possible mixes of the two.

It seems that the first “school” a child should have is the school of affection.

Affectionate stimulation is beneficial for emotionally disturbed & hyperactive children.

Women with masculine ambitions are part of the problem. This is why I do not like intellectual women.

Why should somatosensory deprivation have such effects on mammalian development? primarily, the somatosensory system is the one that mediates emotional behavior. Other basic senses smell, hearing, etc., assume a significant role of emotional behavior by virtue of their association with the somatosensory system.

Stimulation of brain pleasure centers can eliminate feelings of fear, rage, depression.[5]

The child is not “free” to select his “school” of sensory environment. It is dependent upon adults. With female liberation/chivalry, the woman is choosing an ego-based or wasteful, rebudgeted/busy setting, thus his neurobiological development & psychobiological predispositions for certain kinds of behavior.

Since depression, carelessness, etc., is one of the results of this process, it only proves further that women manufacture “beta” males, so don’t believe this nonsense that people try to sell you of the “98 Laws Of Domination.” They’ve had that process done to them to a degree also of the institutionalized intervention by the daddy-state/arbitrary masculinity that women fetishise. Anyway, I’ve seen MANY males – hundreds of them – that would be categorized with low T. – scrawnier with higher pitched voice – who were aggressive, so it completely destroys pop. culture ideas of “alpha & beta.” Society blames depression/ “emasculation” to the male, yet never her. A true “alpha male,” as much as I hate these terms because they don’t really have real meaning, would be more affectionate, careful because he would not have his essence stripped away/emasculated from early age. Women greedily enforce the arbitray/daddy-state that ruins other males’ masculinity.

Unlike violence – usually a “culmination,” not a continuum, pleasure is something the world can’t get enough of. I mean that literally because quality, potent pleasure by affection/romance, etc., is denied or not propper, so people seek other pleasure that is nothing but bad substitutes – excessive fast-food, bong-shops, movies, etc.

It is well known that children who are institutionalized for extended periods with little affection develop very similar abnormal action, such as head banging & rocking.[6] Consider just lesser institutionalization of the male so common & the intervention by work “ethics.” This is the reason for libel of moral guys & the eulogizing of female sexuality – amoral – as the standard.

Institutionalized intervention, not just as infancy, but even adolescence by the arbitrary subset that women encourage gives exact effects of punishment to other masculinity. We can see now cultures practicing arts of defaming other male’s good status to vitiating females, which also encourages disloyal relations – pornographic behavior, like the cam-model, is a substitute for sexual expression lacking foundations. Moral guys even scare women by way of how they reverse the meaning of that controlling as “creepy.”

Female sexuality, as they worship the aggressive “gods” – only a subset – on the film-screen, the literature is actually very similar to bloody coliseums of thousands of years ago. This is sheer proof of how women have not learned that much. Just because women are good with taking instructions in board conference, that is not intelligence. Almost anyone can be motivated enough to acquire influence.

Applied to industrial & postindustrial societies, the findings of affection deprivation has been seriously noted to the amount of warfare, etc..

With the female burden for males to be “heroes”, sexual pleasure is “generic,” “square,” “vanilla,” only used on “lazy days” with frequent demand for sexual violence/non-dexterous/immature sex. There’s an interest of true-crime stories, not for the scientific application, but for cheap entertainment. It doesn’t make any sense, literally – minimized sensuality. They try to stop certain massage parlors, another example of our anti-pleasure attitudes, for a lack of a better description. Sex with pleasure is more commonly associated as inferior & unacceptable, but sex with pain & violence is trendy.

Alcohol is well known to facilitate aggressive behavior, hence why males drink it as “liquid courage,” as they share advice in bars to “be kind of a dick” to impress whores. Although very addicting & harmful, the U.S. basically worships this “magical drink.” Women incentivize more anti-moral/amoral masculinity. It’s usually about how males can change themselves, apply male cosmetics, to gain access to whores, rather than to have them to male terms.

There is minimized bonding-exchange when breast feeding is replaced with bottle feeding.

Studies suggest that males have more brain cells that specialize with aggression.[7] True. How can it not be true considering that males had to explore to serve? However, man’s more intellectual cortex exercises restraining & choice over lower brain regions. What do intellectual & reserved males get for the latter? They get called “boring”, “weird” etc., which is a lot more males than females would like to believe as just “losers,” etc.. Women only see what they want to see, & they have their eyes set on arbitrary masculinity, which causes situations that corrodes other masculinity, one of which is the biological basis of brain influence caused by improper maternal/parental care due to institutionalized interposition. I also conclude a pattern of which some males are obviously condemned for trying to fix an injustice by using force, while other male aggression is not considered, & even encouraged, by women & society.

There is more research happening of other forms of brain damage, which has been unrecognized before. Not all males who experienced institutionalized intervention are necessarily violent, but they still have the associative traits of some rigidity, hyperactivity, etc..

Children need affection (& people) as much as nourishment. When puberty comes, the affects of this affection deprivation will be bad.

Another anti-aggression habit is arguing/good communication skills. Of course, females devalue this – “too nice,” etc.. I find it absurd that pop. science will claim women have better communication skills, yet they seem to go to their female peers whenever there is a problem. Societies that develop elaborate ways of verbalizing beliefs are peaceful.

(Sexual) Pleasure is lazily considered as a consumerist product, even considered immoral of many cases. Violence against the body is often considered morally necessary for “salvation.”

Reminder: Use of alcohol & related experimentation is a source of compensation for deprivation of affection. Those who believe to aggression & being “outgoing” prefer the latter related experiences instead of the experiences of affectional pleasure. This was confirmed[8] in a major publication, yet this is something the pop. culture likes to squelch because they are obviously dealing with conglomerates. It is obviously easier to reach out for a vial than it is to reach out to another person for affection, especially due to alienation of “social networking,” “smart” phones, & the fact that, not much different of how thugs state: “we’ll make you ill if you don’t give us money,” corporations will imply: “We’ll make your life tiresome if you don’t rely on our technology” – a prison of sorts. Sure, that technology is created by extremely intelligent serfs, so I’m not stating there’s something wrong with intelligence, but the companies themselves are owned by others with very unhealthy agendas. Remember when you could ask for an application provided by the business before having to buy a ~$100.00-~200.00 printer to make the same application? The arbitrary wants you to stay ignorant, working full-time, etc., so that they can take more from you.

We must distinguish sensual pleasure from sadistic pleasure, which is obviously a major aspect that a large percentage accepts, which then creates the notion: “because it’s common, it is “good.”

Anti-cuddling, etc., which is additional to rejecting moral males, is a disorder.

Ruined affectional bonds also results with rates of divorce[9]. & who started that thanks to gynocentric competition? Women did, yet they claim that political factions are the main cause of destroying the family unit. I’m not typing about competition for quality. I’m typing about the esurient & prating, domestic affairs.

Mammals reared in sensory-enriched environments with others have significantly more dendrites per neuron of the neocortex[10] than those reared with only pairs or only themselves.

I have reported ad nauseam that MGM causes sadomasochism, but even more profound than that is the finding that boys deprived of the sense of affection is the fundamental mechanism of sadomasochistic behaviour, etc., & even learning disabilities.

As diverse fields as brain-science & anthropolgy, it is documented that affection is an extremely therapeutic psychological application, yet, with females devaluing it as “needy”, “desperate,” sensual applications are disrespected for the replacement of much worse methods.

One change of the brain related to change of character is that a critical neurotransmitter substance – serotonin – has changes of the rate of its synthesis & degradation[11].

Because of some of the chemical changes of the brain, isolated mammals also have poor learning patterns & erratic memory responses.

REMINDER:

don't let women be driven

Some say: “They have bondage in Japan, which has not circumcised as much as the West. Japan also has work “ethics” resembling jail, which would make full-time work in America look like a “walk in a park.”

With circumcision being one contributing factor to violent sexuality, & single mothers contributing to conduct disorders, it’s the female ego that is the problem. Females only have two functions: care & service (not career-woman), not to become intelligent, not to validate male abstractions (other than a little bit), not to become more masculine. If the female ego is not contained properly, it causes the patriarchy, &, yes, the patriarchy is a very real thing. It is a product of feminism/female nature because both women & feminists are the same with different styles – they both promote the female ego.

REMINDER: When women are allowed more liberation, & society makes it a taboo to hate women, the more you will have a paralleling phenomena of the following. They can mask this aspect of their sexuality by saying “it’s just make-believe,” which is really due to the fact that arbitrary masculinity is a subset. The female attraction to arbitrary masculinity is very real. I will show this as a mnemonic device. This was screen-captured from an extremely popular space on social networking of these whores sharing what men they thought we’re “hot.” (The only reason I omitted the actors was because of potential copy-right issues, additionally to identities omitted due to potential “harassment” claims.)

Joani

If it’s too small to read, it sates by one female: “I’ve never been so attracted to a psychopath.” Then other females agreeing in a space they were commenting about popular psychopaths.

To understand these principles, one must understand cause & effect. Do you realize many people understanding the intricacies of cause & effect? We live in a self centered society, which drives people to believe mostly what they want to.

 

References:

1: Young people really ARE getting more stupid: IQs have started to fall by seven points per generation in ‘pretty worrying’ trend, scientists discover | Isabella Fish – DailyMail

2: Domestic Tranquility | F. Carolyn Graglia pg., 256-257

3: Rock A Bye Baby – violence-dot-de

4: James W. Prescott, Ph.D. (1070.1972). Lead Cover Story in The NIH Record – violence-dot-de

5: James W. Prescott, Ph.D.: Before Ethics & Morality – violence-dot-de

6: Body Pleasure & The Origins Of Violence – violence-dot-de

7: New Clues To The Causes Of Violence – violence-dot-de

8: Article: Child Abuse in America: Slaughter Of Innocence

9: James W. Prescott, Ph.D.: Alienation of Affection – violence-dot-de

10: Lionel Gambill: Can More Touching Lead to less Violence in Our society? – violence-dot-de

11: Walter B. Essman, M.D., Ph.D.: social Isolation & Brain Chemistry: Understanding Drug Induced Behaviors – violence-dot-de

 

 

Article Submitted By Peer | Sean Con

confused women

Sean Con’s Bio (His native language is not English):

It suffices to say that:

I grew up under three cultures ( Indian, Scottish and German. )
I have a degree in astrophysics and atmospheric fluidmechanics.
I am an entrepreneur by job – in the branches intelligence and surveillance and land development and private funded space flights.
I traveled more than 15 countries.
And my relation to women had been unfulfilling to the best.

My commentary: This article exposes the female rating system for what it is – mostly just projections/ male version of cosmetics. Then those projections are reinforced by the populace.

It features refutations to Jordan Peterson, who I will not link because there’s already enough of his garbage on the internet, & J.P.s inflated, pretentious garbage is already basically a priori. Sean Con stated, after I claimed that he is just inflated Nietzschean garbage, that he’s not even that, “he’s just taking over the generation of people who came out of entertainment era parents.”

Yeah, you can be a moral man with a woman when you’re like 30-40, when she’s finally matured somewhat, which those moral males were already mature by age ~14.

WARNING: complex post – simple alpha-male, and females who are in lookout for “testosterone” (with the added emph) can skip this. people with low attention span, skip this.

Testosterone <—-> aggressive bad-boy behavior — are they REALLY related? Answer : NO. Not in humans.

Men, you are the carriers of civilization. your expression of testosterone is not the aggressive, impulsive, pushy, alpha, bad-boy behavior.

I already mentioned earlier, that high testosterone, with high vasopressin makes you cooperative. High testosterone, in this case is also now known to make you fairer (cooperative instead of dominant and manipulative). It also makes you tactical. All of these traits have its place in building of civilization.

Reasons for posting :
As always, I try to give men an identity and value.

I recently came across a sort of “testosterone shaming” – if you will (I invented that phrase, but there is always the attempt to delegitimize nice guys as low -T male … so I wondered how is it REALLY?) – and I try to counter that – I try to defend the so called Beta males. As always.

Lately, there have been posting about 37-39 year old ex whores, who can’t find a good man. I am quite sure, that there was the woman who broke off long term relationship with good looking/intelligent/kind men because something was amiss, and now laments everything.

AND LOOK! Jordan Peterson to the rescue of that whore finding an excuse of “low testosterone” on the kind man!

Jordan Peterson is so fake, and dishonest, that he goes on connecting aggressive, impulsive, male behavior with high “testosterone” and kind men with low testosterone lower man.

With all his criminal psychology knowledge, he misses:

1. It has been proven, that testosterone does NOT in humans translate to explosive, reckless behavior. In fact artificially injected testosterone have been proven to make a man calm and more tactful, and more fair:

“The study’s results, however, contradict this view (the popular one) sharply. Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. ” …

“Moreover the study shows that the popular wisdom that the hormone causes aggression is apparently deeply entrenched: those test subjects who believed they had received the testosterone compound and not the placebo stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers. It is possible that these persons exploited the popular wisdom to legitimate their unfair actions.”
(posters note: I think the bad boy = highT = desirable male is probably thankful to social programming by hollywood for 60+% of its existence – women eat shit, if society validates shit as good)

And finally :

“The interplay between testosterone and the socially differentiated environment of humans, and not testosterone itself, probably causes fair or aggressive behavior.”[1]

My own conjecture is that an elevated testosterone may have triggered elevated action/effect of Vasopressin as well. Vasopressin (look it up) is a hormone responsible for cooperative behavior. It is known that in humans, one multiplies the action of another.

Then, most surprisingly[2] :

“However, recent research suggests that testosterone enhances strategic social behaviour rather than dominance seeking behaviour. ” …
“That testosterone induces dominant behaviour among higher ranking individuals and obedience or submissiveness among lower ranking individuals. We found no main or interaction effects of game type on acquiescence, but did find a significant interaction between seniority and testosterone. Senior players acquiesced less if their testosterone was high rather than low, while junior players acquiesced more if their testosterone was high rather than low. This interaction effect between testosterone and social status among persons embedded in hierarchical relationships is a novel finding, which suggests the interesting possibility that testosterone is implicated in behaviour that could be characterized as tactical rather than dominant.”

Last but not least, it is shown that there ARE indeed cases, where testosterone does increase (at least in lab settings) with competitive behavior. Does that necessarily mean, that men who are kind, and exercising self control over impulsive behavior – even during competition – are lacking testosterone?

The answer is NO, it does not necessarily mean, that self control = low testosterone .

” The degree of impulsivity is regulated by serotonin inhibiting receptors. The major agents of neuroendocrine influence on aggression in brain process form a triad: testosterone activates subcortical tendencies towards aggression and cortisol and serotonin act antagonistically to testosterone.”[3]

————————-

Does our dear psychologist go on in discussing all this? NO!

He goes on trying to vilify the kind man as “lacking testosterone” – another case of his prophet fetish and desire to sell a wonder solution to everyone. It is really not believable.

To conclude, as i said above:
=> men, you are the carriers of civilization. your expression of testosterone is not the aggressive, impulsive, pushy, alpha, bad-boy behavior.

I already mentioned earlier, that high testosterone, with high vasopressin makes you cooperative. High testosterone, in this case is also now known to make you fairer (cooperative instead of dominant and manipulative) it also makes you tactical. All of these traits have its place in building of civilization.

With enough social programming, women confuse
* bullying with dominance
* carelessness and illiteracy (dunning kruger effect) with assertiveness
* antisocial behavior with strength
* destructive pushy behavior with winning
* introspection with weakness
* fairness with ulterior negativity

Don’t let women dictate the value of your manhood. Engage them at every moment. Stand your ground. Demand your value. Yes, even if you are a “nice guy, so called BETA man”, you have intrinsic value – a value that is necessary to continue civilization. Demand recognition. If you are a believer, May god speed thee. If not – per aspera ad astra.

 

Sources:

1: Testosterone does not induce aggression, study shows | University of Zurich – sciencedaily-dot-com

2: Testosterone promotes either dominance or submissiveness in the Ultimatum Game depending on players’ social rank | Yukako Inoue, Taiki Takahashi, Robert P. Burriss, Sakura Arai, Toshikazu Hasegawa, Toshio Yamagishi & Toko Kiyonari – nature-dot-com

3: Testosterone & Aggressive Behavior in Man | Menelaos L. Batrinos – ncbi-dot-nlm-dot-nih-dot-gov

Lamarck Is Better Than Darwin | by Jessie Nagy, a.k.a.: Pen-etrator

injure women badly

Though Darwin is the most famous of evolutionists, he was not the first to establish it as scientific fact. It was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Not only was he the first, but his version of it was less harsh. Lamarck suggested that evolution was based on “instructive,” cooperation among organisms & their environment that enables life forms to survive & evolve in a dynamic world. Lamarck gave that organisms acquire & pass on adaptations necessary for survival in a changing environment. Lamarck conforms to modern cell biologists’ understanding of how immune systems adapt to environments as described with the latter. According to him, organisms pass on survival oriented traits acquired with the interaction with the environment, but could take immense periods of time.

Lamarck’s science was dependent on a number of propositions including the laws governing living things that have produced increasingly complex forms of life over immense periods of time. Weisman’s minimal years experiment was not enough to refute it.

Lamarck has been mostly ignored or vilified.

Lamarck has been re-evaluated since the latter by newer science suggesting that he was not entirely wrong & that Darwin was not entirely correct.

One reason: scientists are considering the role cooperation has with sustaining life in the biosphere. We find mutualism with all systems of government. Scientists seek validation from other peers. Scientists have long known of symbiotic relationships in nature.

Women encourage more & more competition by implication.

Understanding of cooperation is even more complex than easily observable relationships.

We have been taught previously to wage war with microorganisms, but this ignores what Systems Biology knows that we are increasingly aware that even microbiology is required for health & development. A classic example is bacteria in our digestive system. It helps digest food & enables absorption of life-sustaining vitamins.

Organisms can acquire “learned” experiences from other organisms.

There is influence of other organisms. If there is influence of other organisms, there is an influence of female selfishness: the “alpha males,” for a lack of a better description, implement policies incited to action. Now that we know this, there is danger of bio-engineering, such as circumcision. Even a very reputable source: Psychology Today published an article stating the harmful psychological effects of it & even, as Natural News Network pointed with an article by Ethan A. Huff, extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain. This is already going to seem like “fake news,” even though Psychology Today magazine can be bought in grocery stores, because a significant number of people don’t care about that alcohol, another item much more frequently bought, poisons the brain.

Healthy brain function is associated with more loving & sexual relationships. Poor brain function: more fighting, more divorce, less sex. Most never connect the brain & sex. With committed relationships, sex is critical.

In the brain, the right temporal lobe is an area associated with both orgasm & religious experience, & the sensory area of the foot is right next to the sensory area for the clitoris. Feet can be one of the best ways to a woman’s affection.

When Ian Miles Cheong typed an article – ‘Google Researcher: Porn Featuring Violence Against Women Is More Popular Among Women Than Men’ – for The Daily Caller confirming that women share, whether literature or video, violent porn much more than men, he also gave me the conclusion that this is actually a way of withholding healthy sex, as male sexuality is more often bodily & visual oriented rather than “role playing” oriented.

When organisms can influence other organisms, female sexuality is suppressing of various masculinity, especially intelligent. The very essence of masculinity is individual. “Alpha” males, whatever you want to call them, is just female collectivism, & although she may not be with one of those males currently, that is her goal while using other men as a means to it.

Decreased blood flow impairs function. Physical trauma – circumcision, toxic exposure, smoking interferes.

Likewise, decreased blood flow to brain means probable impaired decisions & subsequently less sex.

Sexuality is one of the most powerful drives motivating life. Sexual activity makes it possible for us to do more & for our species to survive, yet female sexuality interferes. It leads to debauchery. It leads to politics. It leads to stress, which also looks really good to women – sarcasm. It leads to dishonesty. It leads to a lack of real bonding & care to realistic masculinity because it reinforces facades. It leads to confusion, it leads to unnecessary aggression, it leads to habits of materialism, it leads to negative group-think (anti-masculinity) due to how other females rate a male, other females are often not even involved, etc., etc..

Withholding sex, as a weapon of control or punishment, is detrimental.

Masturbation though often causes excessive, addictive activity.

Thoughtful sexuality is likely to prevent heart disease & cancer.

It has been proven scientifically to stop anxiety & stress/hostility. Physical touch increases the hormone oxytocin. Duke University gave that, for men, frequent sex is a significant predictor of longevity.

Psychosomatic Medicine reported that an inability for women to have orgasms is suggested to contribute to negative effect on women’s hearts.

A Swedish study found increased risk of death of men who quit sexual intercourse earlier in life.

Gynecologist: Dr. Dudley Chapman confirms orgasm helps immunity to 20%

Genetic evolutionists warn that failure to know lessons of shared destiny, which teaches cooperation, we threaten ourselves. Darwinian theory stresses competition. Evolution is more dependent on interaction among species than interaction with individuals within a species. I know that creates issues of semantics because I typed that males are more about individuality than women, but you know what I mean. We must consider the totality of organisms & environments.

Kids are much more competitive & “biting,” yet the way females encourage interaction by implication is not much different from that immature state. Younger people also tend to take things much more personally. When you get older, you stop caring about such stupid things.

Consider that females have the potential to ruin generations with their immature sexuality, etc., & survival-of-the-fittest Darwinism if their influence is not controlled. That’s how people like me change it. I am an adjunct to the environment.

The 1980s brought to first attention to academia that mutations have the possibility due to specific triggers. This was heretical.

A south Asian tribe of “sea nomads” – Bajau divers – have a DNA mutation for larger spleens due to having the extreme skill of staying submerged for as long as 13 min. at depths of 200 ft. Most can only do it for the maximum of a few minutes.

Adaptive mutation conflicts with neo-Darwinism’s conclusion on chance alterations in heredity based on natural selection.

Unlike Darwinism, Lamarckianism implies that evolution-producing mutations happen from an organisms “need” to adapt to life-threatening environmental stresses, so they are not random & to a large degree environmentally predictable.

The all-out-struggle of Darwinism has emphasized, & much more so of the beginnings of gynocentrism, continuous wars over material possessions, over-consumption that has lead to unsustainable resource exploitation, etc.. But this is only temporary, as stated that the beginnings were worse, future wars are increasingly intellectual & reduced of past female motivation for action.

Altruism is not “mysticism.’ This does not mean you should become ‘Mother Teresa.’ It just means it benefits life.

Organismal cooperation is not the exception to the rule of evolution. It is one of the primary ones.

There is no “cooperative competition” as some females want to re-appropriate. That’s just a notion some women want to keep when female sexuality & psychology is more well known.

Dr. James W. Prescott, PhD., gives that deprivation of physical affection is a main cause of depression, aggression & drug use. He studied that wild monkeys deprived of physical contact with their mothers or social contact with others develop abnormal stress profiles & become violent sociopaths.

Women are not to enjoy the “individualistic” activities of what men do of pursuing philosophy, etc.. It is very dangerous. It leads to no balance, one of which is males doing what females ordain – putting on acts for her.

Dr. Prescott further studied with an assessment of human cultures: Those that physically held & loved, including by fathers, which is why we are not supposed to be greedily attaining competition & more work, as it has a bad effect in the family as well, its children & did not disallow exploration of affection were always peaceful. Societies that deprive their kids of extensive touch are inevitably violent. Many suffer from somatosensory affective disorder. This disorder has an inability to physiologically suppress surging levels of stress hormones, a precursor to violent episodes.

This isn’t “social losers”: These findings provide how violence pervades the U.S.: Rather than endorsing closeness, medical & even psychological practices discourage it. Boys are institutionally snipped & Pop. culture endorses competitive sexuality.

I do not promote the politics associated with Dr. Prescott at : www-dot-violence-dot-de., & I do not, I repeat, do NOT, 100% share beliefs with all references.

If women want men to be more “manly,” or whatever, they actually have to do their effort of rousing masculine energy.

 

References:

Evolution & Diversity of Life, pg.: 227 | Ernst Mayr

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage | DArcia Narvaez Ph.D. – Psychologytoday-dot-com

Extreme trauma from male circumcision causes damage to areas of brain | Ethan A. Huff – naturalnews-dot-com

Sex On The Brain, pg.: 3-6, 10-11, 13 | Daniel G Amen, M.D.

Google Researcher: Porn Featuring Violence Against Women Is More Popular Among Women Than Men | Ian Miles Cheong – dailycaller-dot-com

‘Sea Nomads’ Are First Known Humans Genetically Adapted To Diving – science-dot-slashdot-dot-org

Mayr E.(1976). Evolution & The Diversity Of life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, Mass., the Belknap Press of Harvrard University Press.

Milius S. (2003) When Genes Escape: Does it matter to crops & weeds? – Science News 164: 232+

Morris, Kevin (2012). Invited Editorial: Lamarck & the Missing Link The Scientist 26

Netherwood, T., S. M. Martin-Orue, et al. (2004). Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nature Biotechnology 22(2): 204+

Nitz, N., C. Gomes, et al. (2004) Heritable Integration of kDNA Minicircle Sequences from Trypanosoma cruzi into the Avian Genome: Insights into Human Chagas Disease – Cell 118: 175-186

Nowak, Martin (2012) Why We Help: Far from being a naggin exception to the ruleof evolution, cooperation has been one of its primary architects – Scientific American (July 2012): 34-39

Pennisi, E. (2001) Sequences Reveal Borrowed Genes – Sceince 294: 1634-1635

Pennisi, E. (2004) Researchers Trade Insights About Gene Swapping – Science 305: 334-335

Rogers, Kara, (2009) The Rebirth of Lamarckism (The Rise of Epigenetics) – Encyclopedia Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Ruby, E., B Henderson, et al., (2004) We Get By With A Little Help From Our (Little) Freinds – Sceince 303: 1305-1307

Ryan, F. (2002). Darwin’s Blind Spot: Evolution beyond natural selection. New York, Houghton Mifflin

Saey, Tina Hesman (2013A) Year in Review: Your body is mostly microbes – Sceince News 184 (Dec. 28, 2013A)

Saey, Tina Hesman (2013B) People’s genes welcome their microbes: In mice & humans, genetic variants seem to control the bacterial mix on & in bodies – Science News 184 (Novemeber 30, 2013B)

Spencer, L.J. & A.A. Snow (2001), Fecundity of transgenic wild-crop hybrids of Cucurbita Pepo (Cucurbitaceae): implications for crop-to-wild gene flow – Heredity 86: 695-702

Steele, E., J., R.A. Lindley, et al. (1998). Lamarck’s Signature: how retrogrades are changing Darwin’s natural selection paradigm. St Leonards NSW Australia, Allen & Unwin

Stevens, C. J., N.B. Dise, et al. (2004). Impace of Nitrogen Deposition on the Species Richness of Grasslands. Science 303: 1876-1879

Thomas, J. A., M.G. TElfer, et al, (2004). Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, & Plants & The Global Extinction Crisis. Science 303: 1879+

Waddington, C. H. (1975) The Evolution of an Evolutionist . Cornell, Ithaca, New York.

Watrud, L.S., E.H. Lee, et al (2004) / Evidence for landscape-level, pollenmediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bengrass with CP4EPSPS as a marker. Proc National Academy of Sciences 101(40):14533-14538

Whitaker, R.J., M.B. Bush, & K. Richards (1989). Plant Recolonization & Vegetation Succession on the Krakau Islands, Indonesia. Ecological Monographs 59(2): 59-123

Wu, X., J. Feng, et al (2003). Immunoglobulin Somatic Hypermutation: Double-Strand DNA Breaks, AIDS & Error-Prone DNA Repair. Journal of Clinical Immunology 23(4)

Prescott, J.W. (1996) ‘The Origins Of Human Love & Violence.’ Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health 10(3): 143-188.

Psychological Science: Female Sexuality Is Immature | J.N.

single mothers

The way women objectify men does much more harm than the way men objectify women.

The philosophical group known as men-going-their-own-way has been hijacked by trad-cons & others who keep emphasizing “don’t be a nice guy.” By doing that, they’re just being like them. I don’t call myself one of them. I am strictly androcentrist.  The other problem with men-going-their-own-way is that they’ve decided to take a life-style of seeking more play rather than studies. Why this is problematic is that, when they do discourses, it results with them arguing with other men like them, causing them to lose the original point, which is to investigate women, not have issues of semantics with each other, etc.. There’s also a lot who belong to men-going-their-own-way who want to prove that they’re alpha-males, but they state that, because the system is a “leftist” one, or some other reason they try to find, they can’t do it. REALITY CHECK: You’re missing the point: Women selected those alpha-males – the daddy-state – that are now depreciating your acclaimed alpha male characteristic. Now you still keep perpetuating alpha-male characteristics without even realizing the process: Your basically worshiping your own depreciation.

Women create the problem, then Feminists take credit for addressing the problems by blaming it on men.

The men who would employ some kind of rape-fantasy as a sure way to keep them actually have a more desperate mentality, yet whores call more romantic type of males “needy.”

Gynocentrism is more threatening than feminism. Factually, feminism comes from gynocentrism.

Finding by Xiao Zhang & Siyang Luo for ‘Empathy In Female Submissive BDSM Practitioners'[1] gives that being in the submissive position role during bondage, discipline, sado-masochism weakens female empathy. Here’s the thing: Those females were already drawn to that before the process. It also stated: “Involving with BDSM practice did not necessarily result with weakened empathy abilities.” That’s because some females were “switches” – not serious about it & just doing it to try it. It’s toughening them. The women who seek that already have a desire to alter themselves. It’s a collectivist seeking.

The main problem is female selection: When the daddy-state is selected, the greed is a product, as well a cause, of those men obsessed with competition for women. We don’t have to get technical economic references, so I’ll just use an example of this type of herd drive: I’ve worked as a dishwasher at a large restaurant. I’m not a loser. What happens is: the boss expected me to just magically almost instantly clean a large sum of dishes, etc., with a certain amount of time because he didn’t want to pay the amount it would require for an extra hour or two. There’s only 1 dishwasher in the entire place, while the servers & others get tips, yet the dish washing is the hardest & a very dangerous job. This greed is obviously due to him wanting to impress women.

As I’ve stated before, it was not dominant, willful Nietzschean philosophy that created civilization. The dominant is just taking credit for what isn’t theirs. It was abstractions like Neuton & Tesla that created civilization.

I’ve philosophized many times that most males that women approve of just act like women. This is the scientific proof: Psychology Today, which is a reputable source – a source you can even buy in your grocery store, so they can’t just say it’s “fake news,” published an article[2]: ‘Interacting With Women Makes Men Stupid’ by Scott Barry Kaufman. The conclusion was due to men impressing women. They start acting foolishly, which just proves exactly what I have been stating: that alpha-males are just applying the male version of cosmetics. It’s no wonder that high-school & college is just ripe with males adopting nonsense. It’s why males are obsessed with being “cool.” If you get rid of this drive that males are doing, females will naturally be forced to do that role much more. Her limit though, because women are not innovators, that smart, etc., will be applying more looks, which is good. Separatist schools is probably a good Idea. It’s not “just like the feminists” Males & females have different levels to be taught. It’s no wonder that men also adopt “alpha” male garbage.

Let’s establish what an alpha male even is anyway. It’s arguable, but the contemporary definition would be Johnny Depp. Compare that archetype to the quantum physics scientist: Wolfgang Pauli. Johnny Depp, as proven with the previous citation, looks pretty stupid compared. Gynocentrism devalues science, philosophy, etc., so there is a market for garbage like Johnny Depp with two ways: 1: The man comes home exhausted, so he doesn’t want to expend more discipline with reading an important books. He wants to rent a DVD. 2: Women want professional losers like Johnny Depp, so now other males idolize idiots like that.

After you’re seen as a number & cattle due to the daddy-state that females select, additionally to some bad economy, the lady is dissatisfied with him being busy. Afterwards, women contribute to conduct disorder[3]: 70% of inmates in juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences, thanks to the implication: “Conform to my PMS”, etc., were raised by single mothers. No wonder males have a feminine aspect as hipsters, which, contrary to what they would try to deflect, that word does have real meaning, bad-boys, alphas, etc.. REAL masculinity is boring, humble, & rational. Women are ruining the family unit by female sexuality.

It is very likely that rodents evolved with the dinosaurs gone. Mammals then discovered fire, invented the wheel, etc.. With female sexuality eventually made illegal, intellectual males will be able to rightfully control.

Implicated by the divorce industry, women are selecting, or I should say: TRYING to select, a mythical man that is somehow brutal yet elegant, & other unreal things, which is why the post-modern man exists. Women are not married to husbands, they are married to law & corporations.

What happened is that the brain was designed to solve problems related to surviving in an unstable outdoor environment & to do so with nearly constant motion. We were not the strongest on the planet, but we developed the strongest minds. Here’s the thing you have to realize about that process though: It was men who did the majority of this kind of work while women were lagging, so they have less developed minds. Our ability to understand each other is our chief survival tool, hence why knowledge of female psychology is essential & why political correctness/ female narratives must be controlled, yet women don’t even have a real understanding of masculinity, whether it’s feminists complaining about male “privilege”, or if it’s the generic women gossiping together with delusion.

The brain isn’t supposed to take long-term stress. If you have a bad boss, originating from her incentives, a stressful marriage, this is obviously bad.[4]

Stress ruins every type of cognition: memory, executive function. It can ruin motor function. Long periods can damage immune function. Depression is caused by stress. Depression, exhaustion is not an aphrodisiac to women, yet women started all of that with their incentivizing. They think that a man is going to be a work-machine, or whatever, & still have a sexy stamina. Right, your fantasies are really going to happen – not.

Women compete with envy of appearance. They compete politically to other relationships. Soccer-moms compete with envy about children. They compete with envy regarding jobs.[5] & since the author of the book: ‘Tripping The Prom Queen’ was too stupid to number her pages (at least my edition), additionally to her other stupid justifications, I can only cite chapters instead of pages. The idea that men are the only competitors is false. Men compete for survival, which this article discloses how male-to-male competition does some good but also some bad. Alpha males do most of the bad competition, like fighter championships for one example. Beta males do most of the good competition, like Neuton & Tesla. Women compete for what you could almost describe as fun, or some kind of juvenile state of mind. That book is absurd, but gives a report on the scattered, facile psychology of females. In fact, one of my past relationships got ruined by other females because I was giving this one female attention. Her female peers didn’t like it – took it personally, started gossiping, persuaded her to rid me. The book states: We finally seek positions of power that men have always had. No. men have this because they have to give that to women. It is pseudo-power. It is a projection of female greed to want to take that from the fields of men, as feminists generally try.

The effect of female greed, which features a characteristic of female competition being different from male competition, most of the women get a relatively small amount of more competitive men, so it is much more difficult for the majority of men, & I’m not referring to low-lifes, I’m referring to other men that are good.

Former Reddit CEO: Ellen Pao was quoted to state: “You almost certainly have incels as employees.” This is exactly the type of dangerous competition that women indulge in. Female competition, which men participate with, is more likely to cause violence to groups of men, as they complain to other ignorant, useful men, than any forums that could cause a little bit of it. Think about how this was just vaguely used as “almost certainly.”[6] They use the daddy-state on other males that females don’t like. If they want to suppress such memes, think about how female sexuality is more likely to cause violence towards other groups of males. She doesn’t define what she means. Does she mean every guy out there who has trouble with females? That’s going to be a rather large amount. This is exactly what I mean: They have the daddy-state “pummeling other males faces into the ground,” forcing others out. Female socializing is disgusting. Forcing other guys out of a job is going to lead to more anger, & dare I type hate-speech. Women hate different men that would be called or “autistic”, or whatever. Why is it that whores can monopolize their hatred, yet males can not defend themselves against whores?

Alpha males, whatever you want to call them, are effeminate – artificial intelligence, lust for greedy power, histrionic personality disorder, callousness, posing for the camera, etc..

Pick-up-artists might have some skill with luring females, but they miss the points extremely.

The cases of kids & others being mauled by pitbulls, etc., got worse[7] during the 90s in the UK. The Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 was done.[8]

What a lot of thugs realize is that it is more practical to train rottweilers, etc., to fight. [9] (& I refer back to the effects of single mothers)

These alpha males are to women what those dogs are to thugs[10]. Women get to control social dynamics with the aid of the daddy-state with the pretense that they are nice & needy, & the man gets a dog to do the same. Thankfully, the cruelty of dogs was banned[11]. The next great procedure would be to ban female sexuality & rights, other than basic ones.

Women effectively control the discourse. Any man who’s socialized with whores knows he’s going to be different near them. The greater aspect is not sexual tension, but because you have to be careful of what is said, etc.. Women are trying to maintain the rules & to castigate the different. Men are not really afraid of the woman. They’re afraid of what the woman will make the other men do. Men start behaving with a completely different manner. Other men are more willing to punish you for some slight disagreement because a woman cries a few tears.

Being a “beta” male is a good thing. You think: I’ve just chosen some bad examples to discredit the “merits” of an “alpha” male. Let me repeat again: Newton was a “beta” male. Tesla was a “beta” male. Those are the true merits. By becoming an “alpha” male,” you’re just putting yourself, even if you’re one of the good ones, you’re just putting yourself in a stupid game. It’s not worth it. A beta male unlike Neuton or Tesla is a female orbiter who has no leadership skills – true, however, alpha males are also female orbiters. They just do a parallel of the same thing slightly differently to make no real change, so become a “beta” male instead, kind of like Neuton, write a pamphlet, or something, “exposing women in the nude,” & distribute it in your community. True: a male feminist can be a beta male, but since feminism is the female ego politicized, what makes the “alpha” male different of how they promote & reinforce the female ego? Either way, your category of “alpha”, faults, whatever, is mostly irrelevant because the real issue is female nature. It’s time for decent males to stop measuring yourself as a male & start reporting female nature. Who the fuck cares what is “beta”,”alpha”, whatever?

Read some Otto Weininger.

We’ve forgotten what it is to have a few goals & be well with doing those few goals. Now women want almost everything, so we have what seems to be 100 goals instead. There were various studies claiming more educated women are less likely to divorce[12], & yet, there were other studies with mixed conclusions that stated that (American) 60-80%[13] of career-oriented women file divorces, which causes the question: What constitutes as success to a woman anyway? The answer is obvious: it is a relentless greed for the ~5-1% of the MOST successful CEOs, etc. The real titles of those articles should’ve been: ‘Don’t Marry A Career Woman Because They Are Unrealistically Relentless’. Why was it that these studies regarding career-women stated that they have more successful marriages, yet also gave conflicting answers that, according to many social scientists, marrying a career woman gives the risk of being cheated, having a wife less interested in doing things that you’d like, & even getting divorce? It’s because those studies stating that career women have “more successful partnerships” are not giving the complete answers. There was even a study from quora[14]: (You heard it’s an “amateurish” source, so it must be “wrong” – sarcasm.): Lee Witt, with a Ph.D., missing the point completely, reports that college educated women initiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men. He tries to package that this is a “good thing” that the female ego is liberated. It is basically ruining structures. & then he tries to compare that males are likely to cause non marital separations as somehow as bad as divorce that women indulge with. Don’t call this “female selection for health”. It’s just ruthlessness.

Yeah, I’m sure more educated women with pretentious degrees that don’t amount to real discovery can have her “little buddy” of a husband being docile, & also persuade female collectivism to try to get other unrealistic things.[15] Women continue to try to get more unrealistic men the more educated women become, so the more educated women become, the more deluded they become. Of other words: when a setting that females are in becomes even better, the more expectations of even more novelty, etc., women want. Do these women ever consider that there are other good men who don’t have to be the apex of men to be good? Of course not. They’re deluded & greedy. What those women have done is they’ve just created another bad realization for men: It’s kind of like saying to a 17 year old: “You might, perhaps, just maybe, be able to win a wife if you join the army.” Wow! Thanks – not.

Women & feminists complain that men, who do more technical & dangerous jobs, get paid more, yet if you were to pay women more for their generic clerk jobs, you would have women seeing other men of middle class to be “heroin addicts.” (This also makes me remind that the work that I did was pretty dangerous & stressful. It was not just a regular dishwasher job, yet the servants, who were predominantly female, got to keep the tips. Women are more likely to get those jobs by simple observation that a cuter face, nice manicured hands, etc., is more likely to get hired. Seriously, what is so wrong with a man just settling to lift lumber, etc.?)

These claims that women are just becoming more driven just translates that women should be assigned as herd servants. It’s mostly just AI. What successful women study is not technical, it’s not science, it’s not philosophy. It’s business matters or arts. So now the woman has another flashy little fashion accessory to flaunt, which isn’t impressive. Willingly working for the system – the daddy-state – without trying to find alternatives under the pretense of “being smart” is actually stupid. Yes, you – women – should be spending a large portion of your time not really thinking, which only a man would use the pretense that it’s “fulfilling.” When you try to make conversation with me & tell me that you’re finishing college for this & that, it doesn’t impress me. All I’ve gotten from it is that you are greedy with a mask, have AI, & that you would take the opportunity to have an aggregate of 12 year old kids to employ in a sweatshop if you had the chance. Millennials are “solipsistic” because you fail to realize the latter. I’m not typing about lazy men, criminals, etc.. Men are just not motivated because they know the rewards are a gamble, inconsistent, & basically slavery, for a lack of a better word. Sure, the guy who makes more money is more successful, but what is really the difference when the dishwasher & the more successful guy still have time consuming jobs, neither of which makes him seriously appreciated. This is why women are so good with signing themselves for such procedures: they lack imagination.

Women are seduced by evil. By a Buddhist definition, & this has nothing to do with being “sensitive,” it’s a moral principle, things like dance, etc., is an evil. Such things delude, waste time, & cause arrogance. Females abuse knowledge – A.I. – as an excuse for greed, for delusions of grandeur, corrupting mankind, desiring only a small aggregate of masculinity, which then other males have to worship. The musical band: The Beetles, you are worthless. If female herds are an external mass, how is this behavior of masculinity to them intrinsic?

With the prospect of working “inside a box” for ~6 hours a day for long hours, boys are not particularly interested that much anymore. They’d rather just not even try as much, settle for some generic clerk job, & come home to a mediocre apartment. Women now are proud of gleefully taking stupid cubicle jobs & the like, so now they see those other males who would rather have what at least resembles something that is better, as “losers.” When women get more, they devalue other things.

Statistics have given[16] that boys do better with science & math while females do better with language & arts. This is a rhetorical question: Could it be that boys are just simply not motivated to study things they don’t value, & from lack of motivation during early age, as professor Pollack suggested, because of a learning bias against their strengths, boys become uninterested & may even try to get attention by negative ways?

Problem solving & social skills can be learned with building blocks, woodworking projects, etc.. Current schooling deny this. Boys are much more interested with motor skills, technology, & problem solving. With the boys’ interested for collaborating, taking risks, being innovative rather than linear, while boys could be rewarded in the workforce for this, they are denied it & punished for it in the schools.

Some research believes changing grades is due to changing demographics rather than intellectual capacity.

By the time boys start high-school, there is another problem: peer pressure to shun academic things. With their obsession with the fashionable, social politics, & novel trying & discarding, females don’t make it particularly “cool” to be smart during that age, & although females don’t lead the parties, they control them.

Professional research claims boys’ nihilism is due to socialization rather than raw ability.

Ask boys if they read outside of schools, they often assume that reading pertains to fictions, which they generally don’t like. They should be teaching some Androcentrism in schools & all the uncomfortable truths.

Boys are very visual, so, yes, they need additional “comic book” type of learning. Action is part of a writer’s craft.

With the female work habits & reception to linear teaching habits, females have more developed career notions because there’s less offered to boys. Now there is less men women want because women have more status: When women are rich, they see – always wanting more – another successful man as a “loser.”

Alcohol & tobacco – thanks to the daddy-state finding bad ways to make a profit, which is sourced by gynocentrism – has been proven to have the same effects of ADHD to children during fetal development.[17] Other food substances & chemicals have been suggested to correlate to ADHD, but research has not found them to contribute to it.

It’s like: “Welcome to your future of sitting in a tiny square compartment in front of a box for 6 hours per day, 7 days per week for the rest of your life instead of something more satisfying like a job related to being taught about how objects move in space,  .” “Gee, thanks.” Yeah, of course, women are going to excel with preparing for the former.

What happens when you get unmotivated is you behave badly, & schools don’t offer what boys need. If teachers expect boys to behave worse, which they do, they might miss girl’s behavior problems & see well behaved boys as anomalous.

Teaching is dominated[18], especially earlier schooling[19], by women. If female PMS is one determining factor combined with the other factor that most criminals come from single mothers, how is the teachers’ treatment of what is naturally going to be boy behavior going to be the best treatment? A study[20], & this was even published by TIME, so you can’t say it’s “fake news,” found that boys are being treated inappropriately by teachers: It found that boys got lowered grades, even of cases of, such as science & math, test scores being equal or better than girls’. This grading was due to boys’ attitudes. In fact, well-socialized boys received bonus scores.

Boys are likely to internalize the message that school is not for boys.

Affecting all boys, what does the ~1% of the population have to directly do with how boys are with early schooling now [2018]? Those male CEOs were boys in early schools 40-60 years ago.

We must be the proverbial nice-guys, for a lack of a better description. The problem is women & gynocentrism encourage more entropy.  We have to be it, not just as necessity, but also as a challenge because humans are wired for challenge & construction, not comfort & convenience. The destructive thriving for comfort & convenience inculcates that we are wired for that though. It requires more will & self control to not do the trendy, & you will be considered wrong & defective & not good enough, even though most of good men are humble, “boring”, rational, & do not have the characteristics of the daddy-state that makes it a taboo to reject feminine notions. They’d say, “well, what you’ve just typed is cultural constructs: You don’t know how biology works.” Actually, it is biological that women evolved to be subjective. They were not exploring to the same comparison as males.  They were mostly tending their bodies, etc.. It is a form of delusion. Because of that, they select for this whole process of only projecting delusions. Female collectivism is also biological, which is why they’re attracted to a very small percentage of males while basically ignoring (or using) other males.

There’s a pop. culture idea that for a man to show he has confidence, he has to be some amount of obnoxious, he has to waste money on alcohol, etc. especially by the immaturity of females. A man who has confidence doesn’t need to show to others that he has it.  A confident male is not a trend-follower, but a trend creator. With the cited study published by Psychology Today that male interaction with females makes them dumber, those males bout the caricature of a “strong man,” while doing what others do for fear of not being accepted. Being loud, etc., is actually often done to compensate for a lot of fear.

A male who has confidence will wear, & not to attain eccentric prominence – validation, an atypical plaid shirt with a blue tie, & will approach a female seriously with the gift of a lollipop. Maybe a bad example, but you get the point. Society will claim he has a syndrome, yet it’s female incompetency for hating the different.  The common narrative is: “He’s really smart, but he doesn’t know how to socialize.” No. The real problem is societie’s failure to realize that, when you become smarter, you are different.  Societies failure to realize this is the reason why women are so comfortable with the collective of men being stupid, & why things like sarcasm is encouraged to try to impress whores.

Female liberation has caused more problems. Female obligations is a healthy equilibrium of business service & nurturing children. There is a mammalian universal reaction to being separated from a mother’s proper care[21]:  Years later, a confident child is made by the mutual contact of the child & mother. If that is gone, the reverse happens. Improper mothering has also been disclosed to be a contributor to deliquency.

Now it is considered that, if a male is “emasculated,” we “should” blame him instead because society basically guards crimes committed by women.  This is what happens when you make it a taboo to hate women, which makes it a taboo to even criticize women: They’re less accounted for their obligations.

Expressing hurt is a mature version of the baby’s noises. That’s right, I typed it. We adults have the same mechanism of babies’ protest response. The only reason that women imply us to “grow up,” “shut up” about it, that we’re “bitter,” “grow some balls,” etc., etc., & why they seem to fail to understand that it’s harder for males to deal with the stress of [22]divorce, etc., is because the female ego gets offers frequently, gets to replace men for almost any reason you can think of, & sees sexual interaction of terms of power, which is why females have rape fantasies: a rapist is a powerful man to a woman.

Lesser organisms as lizards, fish, snakes, & turtles are not capable of intricately expressing or noticing emotional messages[23]. Not exactly the same, but we find a similar experience with the human female to male experience. Society is so ready to categorize males as “autistic” for being more systematic, yet we find that females have the attitude of “drinking male tears” frequently. Why aren’t they labeled with a disorder? The problem is women are allowed to monopolize their emotions, yet men are not seriously. This little phrase that people use: “Your arguments are emotional” to deflect is really quite silly when used during discourse of male issues. I understand the principle of not being able to solve an intricate problem when reminiscing about a theme park, but emotions have a biological function: they do something for an animal that helps it to live & communicate[24]. Even one who studies biology should know this is an axiom of evolutionary studies.

If society is ready to denounce intelligent, systematic males as having a “syndrome”/socially inept, what makes it justifiable that female nature is “good” when hybristophilia & Stockholm Syndrome is very common with females? It’s actually pathological that women would expect males to have exact, specific body language & facial expressions just for her liking. It makes the whole deflection that a male is “autistic”/ a “beta” male irrelevant.

Males were violent during the beginnings because of the harder times, not because they wanted to be. Now, because females are not as evolved, they still have demanding desires for that. Males aren’t seriously like that anymore because the times aren’t as hard, so the other way she can usually get that is by primitive masculinity, including by guys who have more money – a male can have more money, but he’s fucking primitive – & male cosmetics.

 

Citations:

(I do not 100% espouse all references derived.)

1: Empathy in female submissive BDSM practitioners | Siyang Luo, Xiao Zhang – sciencedirect-dot-com

2: Interacting with women makes men stupid | Scott Barry Kaufman – PsychologyToday-dot-com

3: Hawkins, J. (2009, April). Ann Coulter On Single Mothers: Statistics From ‘Guilty’

4: 12 things we know about how the brain works | Shane Parrish – theweek-dot-com

5: The Myth Of Female Solidarity | Susan Shapiro Barash – Tripping The Prom Queen

6: FORMER REDDIT CEO ELLEN PAO CHALLENGES TECH EXECUTIVES TO REMOVE ‘INCELS’ FROM SILICON VALLEY | BENJAMIN FEARNOW – Newsweek-dot-com

7:Law on dangerous dogs | Audrey Gillan – theguardian-dot-com

8: The Dangerous Dogs Act 25 years on: How effective has it been? | Claire Jones – bbc-dot-com

9: Bite club: fangs, gangs & the hounds of hell | Kack Grove – timeshighereducation-dot-com

10: How Fighting Dogs Are Trained: The Grim Reality | Patrick Lumontod – topdogtips-dot-com

11: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 – legislation-dot-gov-dot-uk

12: NO, A HIGHLY EDUCATED WIFE WON’T LEAD TO HIGHER CHANCE OF DIVORCE | ZACH SCHONFELD – newsweek-dot-com

13: Are College-Educated Women Bad Wife Material? – themodernman-dot-com

14: Why do college educated women intitiate divorce 9 times more often than college educated men? | Lee Witt – quora-dot-com

15: Better-Educated Women Still Prefer High-Earning Husbands | The Editors – ifstudies-dot-org

16: Why Boys Aren’t Learning | Susan Murray – teachmag-dot-com

17: What Causes ADHD? 12 Myths & Facts | Kristin Koch – health-dot-com

18: Why Don’t More Men Go Into Teaching? | Motoko Rich – nytimes-dot-com

19: Elementary education: a female dominated field | Morgan Allred – byu-dot-edu

20: Do Teachers Really Discriminate Against Boys? | Erika Christakis – time-dot-com

21: A General Theory of Love | Thomas Lewis, M.D., Fari Amini, M.D., Richard Lannon, M.D., PG: 73-77

22: Divorce & the psychological damage done to fathers | Joshua A. Krisch – fatherly-dot-com

24: The evolution of emotion: Charles Darwin’s little-known psychology experiment | Ferris Jabr – blogs-dot-scientificamerican-dot-com

Pseudo-Intellectual: Camille Paglia Defends The Burden Of Fem. Nature | by J.N.

1426568750892

Don’t take a female intellectual too seriously. They are “bipolar.” They are mostly only good for stimulation. If she doesn’t even look good, don’t waste time looking.

Just because something is natural, that doesn’t make it good. Cobras are natural. Doesn’t mean we want them.

A kink is something that diverts. Whores who call themselves “kinky” concede the point, a kink having a twist. Although I have my own fetishes, none of them have anything to do with violence. It is all based, disregarding the “sub.” connotations that a deluded aesthete would have, by the original context of a fetish – an object of stimulation.[1]. I always use the word fetish of the context of the original meaning. If we consider fetish by the original context of an object of stimulation, we conclude that female sexuality is vastly different because it is simulation/role oriented much more so. Women are contaminating the social dynamics.

The literary critic: Camille Paglia makes the assumption projected from the feminine that sexuality is mainly aggressive. She is wrong. Brain chemicals released during sex, such as oxytocin, causes males to put “women on a pedestal,”[2] for a lack of a better description. Most feminists don’t even desire proper sex. Camille Paglia might have been fooled by the first waves of Feminism – masks. Paglia, another idiot, believes the female idea that sex is about “power”, when it’s really about giving & receiving. Society is the source of sexual violence: the busy lives of competition/ego-seeking causes stress: stress causes hostility[3]. Males were persuaded by external forces to find food, etc.. A.P.S. lists irritability & out-bursts of anger as one symptom of hyperarousal[4]. Society has a tendency of inhibiting the gazing/fetish based nature of masculinity for the power-displays for whores. Just because rude sexuality can unite in a complex male mind, & appear fine, doesn’t mean it is the masculine indication.

Camille Paglia, you ugly fucking faggot, you are not objective or a scientist. You are an aesthete, & I know “faggot” sounds “wrong” of this context for using it to a female. It’s a metaphor. It originally meant a bundle of sticks.

These philosophers (like Jordan Peterson) are pretentious, lame, pseudo intellectuals & pop. philosophers. Aesthetic analysis & Jungian Archetypes are inflated & a waste of time. Sure, there’s some truth, but it’s not necessary, & they’re over-inundating actual good, quality philosophers & scientists. Aesthetics is pretentious, & I’m not stating that to be inflammatory. It’s just an objective definition: The process of creating aesthetics is imagining another world. You are pretending when you do this, so people who start long discourses on the validation of aesthetics without even realizing that just proves how preoccupied  they are.

Some ( like J.P. )[5] have the idea that order & chaos, good & evil, etc., are for each other – that you “can’t have order if you don’t have chaos.” This is false. Good & evil is created because we have the choice. You can make good or bad choices. It’s simple: If we make better choices, we cancel chaos. If we make bad choices, we have more fear-based mentalities of callousness & vain inconsistency that women have & of being grabby & greedy & “loud”, etc..

As women complain about wanting to get paid equally to men for not doing work that men do – more hours, dangerous jobs, etc.,[5] there is a homologue of the exact same thing: the shaming to “beta” males, which doesn’t have objective meaning, implied by whores is just males giving to females when they complain, etc.

The taboo of women infatuated for criminals is actually more common than thought [6].

A local artist of Portland Oregon, which I have chosen to keep mysterious to reduce slander issues, has gained money for the purpose of donating books to prisoners. This was captured on social media before it could get lost with the shuffle:

br2

There is a pattern I have noticed with female collectives of which when fathers give too much to their daughters, they contribute to the next generation of the above phenomena [7] – whores with stupid plans, picky mentalities to the point of bad selection, etc..

What a clever deception. You are not a “mystic.” You’re a slovenly piece of shit, & that is the valid Jungian archetype. You’re also a failed alt. girl because, if you weren’t, you would be jaded with all of that. You are attracted to degeneracy, & you are just waiting for your pathetic boy-friend to fail to be replaced by a savage.

I knew that money collector. She is using fake virtues, that is the most exciting to her which sustains her attention, whilst maintaining excuses for her immature sexuality. She told me that she cheated on a past guy because he “put her on a pedestal,” which the REAL reason is obvious. My rhetorical question is: if she’s willing to save convicts this way, why wouldn’t she be willing to save that other guy who supposedly had a “flaw”?

Contrary to what some might believe of female rape fantasy being a result of directly only to be due to repressed sexuality of females – to have men take the stress away, which is a Feminist theory that female rape-fantasy is due to repressed urges due to slut-shaming, professional researchers[8] found the apposite: women who are more confident have more of a fascination with rape & more arousal level to rape fantasies.

The fantasy enjoyed with this research was the male expresses attraction & communicates to her. She is unresponsive. Then after refusing him, he overpowers & rapes her. She is resistant, but the coercion is enjoyed.

This not only proves the hypocrisy of the “me too” phenomena, but also proves how it manifested: by cancelling good communication skills, she calls whatever impulse of males she likes winners/dominant, whatever she doesn’t like to be harassers. No wonder women are anti-science, etc., which is ultimately anti-civilization.

A total of 62% reported to having these fantasies (exploring other aggressive fantasies.) Considering that this research also proved that women are anti communication skills, there’s probably a secret percentage that is more.

Again, a result of that study was that women who want rape-fantasy have high self-esteem. So much for the idea that they are just timid, little submissive creatures – no: they are egomaniacs selecting more egomania.

The ultimate correlation is not women “wanting men to lead.” Ultimately, the correlation is that women are immature, prone to sin, & hate (OR USE) rationalism.

Of course, that study on female rape fantasy was “stuck in a little box”, as the author made an opinion that these whores were “fine,” because they failed to realize the next:

The celebrities & aesthetes who could assume the public would accept an immoral, slovenly life were also violent, had narcissistic personality disorders, were cruel, & dirty.[9]

Unsurprisingly, these aesthetes & inflated losers had other women gravitate towards them.

Jean Paul Sartre, professional philosopher, had the Feminist Simone de Beavoir with his credo of “travel, polygamy, transperancy” – inconsistency, just like their philosophies. He boasted of his affairs, proving that, regardless of the mask women use, they promote barbarism, & that most of what women say isn’t even real. Isn’t it absurd: S.D.B., the delusional writer who stated that women are treated badly actually goes to a guy to be treated that way. It’s interesting of the mindless hypocrisy of the feminist: S.D.B. claiming to “know” masculinity as the “toxic, oppressive” force, yet indulging with that very thing that is only a small percentage of masculinity.

Ernest Hemingway, with four wives, was abusive & alcoholic, & was a notorious liar.

Pablo Picasso, acclaimed as the greatest artist of twentieth century, was also abusive. He was an expert manipulator. With an interview, he stated: “I am only a public clown… I have understood my time & exploited the imbecility , the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries.”

Picasso was faithless & cruel to all of his mistresses, & brutally beat his mistress Dora, even making her unconscious many times. He burnt another mistress of his with a cigarette, & even refused to take her to the hospital for birth, telling her to find her own way because he had to go to the 1949 World Peace Congress.

There are others, & it just proves that whatever “flashy” facade a bad man has, women will go to it like a fly towards shit.

Egomania is not masculinity. Women just promote more & more of that by being with these few & then inflating it.

The problem is not women as servants. The problem is women are prone to be that to the wrong men. This is what happens when women are allowed to monopolize.

It should be known though that trad-con women like Phyllis Schlafly might be anti-feminist, but they are pro male disposability. It’s questionable what trad-con writers like Phyllis Schafly would do if they weren’t critics. Would they have the same exact tendencies? Probably so. because the truth is is that Feminism & the female ego are the same thing with different masks, &, proved earlier, female linguistics is not real, & they, in fact, hate proper communication, so next time you hear of this “bullshit,” as they would say, of the so called “friend zone,” & that the guy was “too nice” or a “beta,” realize the REAL reason of it.

 

References:

1: fetish – dictionary-dot-com

2: The Brain That Changes Itself, Norman Doide,
M.D. ,pg. 350

3: Stress Effects – stress-dot-org

4: Anger, Hostility & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in Trauma-Exposed Adults: A Meta-Analysis, Ulrich Orth & Elias Wieland, .p 1

5: Jordan Peterson – Why is chaos symbolized as feminine? – youtube-dot-com

6: Professional Victim Culture | Tommy Sotomayor & Stefan Molyneux – FreedomainRadio-dot-com

7: Why women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds, Ryan O’hare, dailymail-dot-com

8: SHOCKING! Former Feminists Ticking Biological Clock Causes Major Panic! | Stefan Molyneux – FreedomainRadio-dot-com

9: Women’s Sexual Fantasies – The Latest Scientific Research, Dr Raj Persaud & Dr Jenny Bivona – PsychologyToday-dot-com

10: Feminist Fantasies, Phyllis Schlafly ,p. 67-72

Neuroscience Finds Fem. Subs. NOT What Most Think | Jessie Nagy

stupid cultureI’ve numbered references for those who would slander this as “pseudoscience.”

So we’ve put memes, the serious kind, not little pictorials with slogans on them, of hybristophilia – the varying degrees of female attraction to scoundrels/hatred/use of rationalism. The next paragraphs is brain-science confirming more of what most of society has been oblivious to because they worship personality disorders without even realizing it.

Western culture is an impatient one. It involves the culture, &, of course, business & electronic toys. When the environment changes, thought changes. The way concepts are delivered changes. People don’t seriously tolerate big thoughts. When I ask questions at work, people, especially females, think of me as “weaker.” When I explain that a past manager at an Indian store cheated me of money, other managers think I’m “negative” because of the little “bubble” that people are living in. They’re also addicted to immediate satisfaction. There’s no “depth,” & I’m not fooled when a women claims the she likes a man with grey hair because he signifies “depth” – false: She likes him because he’s with his latter jaded years.

Cell-phone consuming & cam-star females are now avoiding males that are different. Culture wants to blame “immature men for being addicted to porn,” yet why do they stop there when there’s a whole other sex who have paralleling inclinations.[1] There hasn’t been specific studies of it that I’m aware of, which is likely due to culture’s dismissive attitude to female disorder, but I have read studies that typifies it. Females are more likely to maintain trends than anyone by fact of them being herd-animals: “Who is this loser who can’t keep up with the life-styles?” This phenomena is the true cause of the farcical “beta male.” It’s because women ruin rationalism by their “impulse,” for a lack of a better word. The problem is not the he’s not some “cool” guy with trade-mark hair-cuts; The problem is greed. Greed comes from the urge to perform for female nature. In a way technology is actually making people dumber.

Many of the executives of Steve Jobs took money from shareholders by deliberate, calculated actions, including fabricated records.[2]

Reuters, news agency, got rid of 20 American & European journalists in 2004 with a replacement of 60 hires in India just to save money.[3]

With the ranks of the alpha, they have dangerous situations, maybe even more so, because of psychopathic surroundings.

Rules & morality define a civilization. Without them, there is no civilization. Females have a short attention span for rules (other than a gesture). With masculine abstractions, the spread of literacy, etc., we began to expand rule-making that wasn’t the force of warlords, etc..

A student who sold her virginity for 1 Million euros has “fallen in love” with her buyer[4]. Sarcasm: yeah, right, you really love him. & how does a man earn that to have 20 minutes of her? He has to start from early age (unless he inherits) of extreme hard work, with absolutely no consideration for what was required of the male. He also has to spend the money. Whores keep preaching the wage-gap though. This is sheer proof that women dominate men because of the strife (whether it’s something related to that or some kind of performance) that a male has to generally do for them. Male “dominance” is a pop. culture myth. Even in hyper-patriachal societies, the man is expected to show strength[5]. The independent researcher: Ayam Sirias has typed an amazing article: ‘Circumcision & The Real Patriarchy,’ which can be read via sheddingoftheego-dot-com.

With females claiming or implying the “conservative” ( not necessarily politically) are “toxic”, they then get to enjoy thugs & swindler culture. (Those normal guys afraid of non-perfectionism, maintaining acts at some fancy restaurants to be liked by petty women & petty families – they’re not really conservative; they’re CON-servative: conning.)
Just remember this when a feminist wants to use some extremely flawed analysis that testosterone “causes problems”:

Near London, in 1980, Christine English, with full speed, drove her car at her boyfriend, killing him against a telephone poll. She was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. She was released on probation. Her defense attorney (con-artist) argued C.E. was suffering with premenstrual syndrome – PMS. The same year, 29 year old Sandie Smith was convicted of killing a co-worker at the London pub. She too was sentenced to probation for PMS.[6] As a condition for probation, Both Smith & English were ordered to take monthly hormone injections for PMS.

Women are naturally unsuited for leadership & responsibilities. They should be assigned to shuffling in department stores, etc. – slavery – to keep their egos contained.

Yes, not all women are going to do something extreme like that. I know that, but the point is: if you have a female training you for a job, you wouldn’t want her to make absurd claims because of her disorders. Maybe a bad example, but think more.

How is society ever going to realize the impulsive or criminal aspect of female psychology when the masculinity dominating law, etc., just gives them placation?

As the metaphysics of pure Buddhism puts it, & science is lagging & taking credit for good metaphysics: Their consciousness is too defiled. Since it’s metaphysical, rather than asking for a citation, you’re supposed to think about it.

Rather than recognizing it as a disorder that needs to be contained, the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders offered other treatment.

PMS is a feeling of tension for 7-10 days before a period, causing irritability, unrest, & a desire to find relief by foolish & ill-considered actions.” They even become unreliable, irresponsible, accident-prone, & even violent & suicidal. No wonder MRAs are so naive with solutions due to not addressing this reality. No wonder the divorce industry is so frequent. No wonder women love these idiots called “alpha males.” No wonder female psychologists want to celebrate this by claiming: “Men get moody,” as they celebrate each other with irrational males posing as “rational.” (or the alternative: a very oblivious or desperate beta-male she can have temporarily) No wonder they deject reality. PMS has been reported to encompass 150 symptoms.

The symptoms generally happen during a point after ovulation (around mid-cycle) & pause during start of menstrual period. However, Perimenstrual syndrome is timed differently then premenstrual syndrome.

I like my females sort of modest & knows to keep it checked.

MRAs, the left-vs-right types, the distracted by current events, etc., don’t even have these realizations of biology & psychology that might make them reconsider egalitarianism.

With 150 symptoms, 20-100% of the female population gets it. Meaning: varying degrees.

Although there are some studies claiming improved task performance premenstrually, that does not negate a sinister interaction with other male workers, which gives more argument for their assignment to servicing rather than seriously influencing or controlling.

This was a study confirming what I have known for many years: females don’t desire what they do because they want “strong” men. They desire what they desire because they want a “mirror in front of them”: They’re collectivists & they want others like them or at least act like them:

According to a preliminary research on BDSM, female submissives have reduced empathic responses to other’s suffering.[7]

I always knew women who were the most intent on BDSM have major personality disorders.

Submissives had weakened empathy to other’s suffering at both behavioral & neural levels.

The female “switches” – switching between dom. or sub. – did not have significant decrease of empathy though. I think this is because the “switches” are generally not as intent on BDSM: they probably just have a mentality of “you might as well try it.”

One of the quickest answers by males to this is: “Oh, I’m going to have a buffet of all kinds of sex. This is going to be great.” That’s not the point. The point is: When something realistic happens to you – you get fatigued, something tragic happens with your family, etc., although she may not readily show it, she’s going to make it harder for you.

Whether a woman is explicitly interested with BDSM or not, most women do interpret sexuality & interaction by a subjective/deluded way.

Males, especially young boys, have “toxic masculinity,” not because they’re naturally aggressive. That is the most ad hominem reduction. Males have “toxic masculinity” because it’s an adaptive, residual trait of the past, when males had to explore to give. Really, you need a citation to know that men were mostly the objective sex, constructing & philosophizing? In 2018? When boys generally choose airplane toys & water guns, it’s because they’re sampling a potential tendency of maybe being an officer when older. Only a subjective mind would be unable to realize the objective tendency of males.

There’s a meme that transsexuals have “personality disorders.” I don’t believe that. They’re just some type of homosexual, but that’s not even the point. I’ll just use an example derived of that. The transsexuals that trick other heterosexual men do have personality disorders, & the ones, which is a popular agenda, who use their transsexual agenda to claim that sex is a “social construct” do have personality disorders. Even those transsexuals have different hormonal levels – a biological reality, not social construct. This is a similar phenomena that is happening with female sexuality being defended & promoted: Because it’s popular, it makes it “good.”

Detractors like to think that because I’m not authoritative enough, it’s “wrong.”
I had a debate with a Feminist. She used the deflection that the content I ‘m associated with is deemed as “hate” by the S.P.L.C. (Southern Poverty Law Center). Firstly, that’s guilty-by-association. Secondly, hatred is an evolutionary product of being discerning. If she claimed that I was “stalking” her because I was replying to her comment – what that space was designed for, what would she do with a live setting? She would resort to tactics of using authority against me by claiming that I was “threatening”, etc.. Why does she get to have a monopoly on hatred, but I don’t? Hatred is a healthy emotion if used properly by logic, i.e., not used by female collectivism.

Morality is a metaphysical/masculine thing. It is qualitative. Thinking of terms of power/survival rather than ethics is feminine.

A report by psychological scientists: Jessica A Kennedy & Cameron Anderson found that employees of high-ranking positions are less likely to report unethical practices.[8]

If a large percentage of women are not psychopathic, they are related to it. The culture’s dismissive attitude to female bad behavior & cruel attitudes, such as laughing to male experience, only proves that there is inadequate objectives of female psychology, so how can we even take female MRAs seriously when they they state that the most seriously critical of female nature just have “autism” or “don’t know how to socialize,” when, in fact, a lack of empathy is the hallmark of psychopathy[9].

The human brain processes empathy of a similar way to the experience of physical pain[10]. If women have a tendency to seek forceful experiences, whether intensity/”dramatic” force or physical – “making me a better person”, then society must be cautious of the fact that female disorder is a very real thing contaminating society.

Some men might want to have sex with women with grey hair (although it’s highly doubtful that it is a specific attraction signal), but that’s because we want variety, not because of a “political” sexuality. Women will try to tell you otherwise – that they like men with grey hair[11] because they’re more experienced & mature, but the real reason is because these men are jaded, brittle, used & worn due to their exertion, which she can keep on mute. Female sexuality is disgusting & decrepit.

According to deluded sex researchers: Dorian Solot & her little allowing idiot: Marshall Miller, it is believed that involving sex with power play & pain & saying “no, stop” as a role is “healthy.”[12] Again, this comes from the feminine projection of what they misinterpret sexuality as, which is correlated to corruption & poor impulse control. Real sexuality is about visual stimulation, almost kind of like a meditation. That’s the pure masculine reality of it. There’s a characteristic of a male who prefers visual stimulation: They’re more concentrating/sophisticated.

& this is the true reason why feminists hate it when males talk about male experience. It’s the reason why female M.R.A.s are illegitimate, which makes male M.R.A.s the same since they worship the female M.R.A.s. It’s the reason why pick-up-artists are ruining masculinity by eluding male experience. It’s the reason why women hate the different – philosophical/realist types.

Do not think that equality with the sexes is a good idea. They need to be contained. With equality, you will have more men acting like women – prone to sin, etc. – because of female herd instinct & the histrionic personality type of disorders. The other alternative of egalitarianism is women trying to be like men, which is not probable because of the PMS process just typed & other cognitive processes.

Conclusion: females owe themselves to masculinity. If it’s by her terms, it’s obvious of the consequences.

 

References:

1: Smartphone addiction is indirectly linked to commitment-phobia, according to new psychology research – PsyPost-dot-org

2: ‘Free Lunch,’ pg. 16, David Cay Johnston

3: ‘Free Lunch,’ pg. 48-49, David Cay Johnston

4: Student Who Sold Her Virginity for 1 Million euros Has Fallen In Love With The Man Who Bought Her, Rebecca Shepherd – ladbible-dot-com

5: Circumcision & the Real Patriarchy, Ayam Sirias – sheddingoftheego-dot-com

6:”Women, Men & Society, C.M. Renzetti, D.J. Curran, pg 31-37 (I believe this source is from the enemy – feminism/egalitarianism.)

7: Female submissives have reduced empathy to others’ suffering, study on BDSM finds – psypost-dot-org

8: Higher-Ranking People Have More Difficulty Spotting Unethical Behavior – psychologicalscience-dot-org

9: Psychopaths are not neurally equipped to have concern for others

10: Why it hurts to see others suffer: Pain and empathy linked in the brain

11: New Survey Finds The Majority Of Women Find Grey Hair Sexy, Scott Fox – z1035-dot-com

12: I love Female Orgasm, D.S. & M.M., pg., 182-183

A Message To Mr. Wax | by Jessie Nagy

27654561_1996526223721377_6292057500223624042_n

Stay the fuck out of electronic music. You see, electronic music is very consistent & has a firm substrate, which you lack. Although the sound may be nebulous, the principles of it are firm.

You just mostly do gas-lighting & resent anyone who takes the attention away from your “Mtv.” orbit.

& you support swindler culture, destroying strength of intelligence, because even the guys not cornered into it or participating, they have to compete in the trends set by whores. It helps you be liked by dumb whores, which allows them to maintain more of their little hierarchies & politics of bashing other guys who aren’t some “cool” swindlers, wasting money on stupid life-styles.
Most of the drugs come here from central America,[1] & those females are some of the worst. They have histrionic personality disorder. It’s like being with a whore during her p.m.s. moods but every ~15 minutes.

Come try have a real argument with me instead of your fake virtues. Of course, you can’t do that because you take things out of context. What, you’re mad that G.C. made a better profit of selling drugs, or something, than your fucking inconsistent attempts with such a low goal could do? You’re really not that brave because you’re only doing easy acts. You don’t have the “balls” as would say, to say something that would get you beaten, & that’s why you go crying to fucking “mommy” whenever I point the reality of what you are.

You just think you “know” because you go around trying food in different restaurants, & you persuade people to your dumb ideas.

I know this makes me seem not “hip to it’: You have narcissistic personality disorder & histrionic personality disorder, & I think it’s because you were raised by a single mother for the most part.[2]

Don’t compare yourself to my father. That’s insulting to him.

More questions & less assumptions & opinions from you, you dumb cunt.

 

Citation:

1: Report: Nearly all, 99.8%, of illegal drugs shipped to U.S. from Mexico – washingtonexaminer-dot-com

2: Victim of a Crime? Thank a Single Mother, Ann Coulter, pg., 33-71, Guilty

Origin Of S.A.T.F. Deflection| by Jessie Nagy

essential pointPerfectionism is delusion.

The deflection of “they’re the same as the feminists” (SATF) to serious criticism of female nature, that isn’t just your superficial “mattress girl” story, etc., really manifests by the instinctive mentality to betray another man who could embarass them at a party, etc., or make them look bad somehow when associating with whores.

Ever notice, especially the more domineering whores, although less domineering whores just have another rendition of it – a desire for a good/constant entertainer, etc., have a demand for perfectionism? Reality check, you deluded whores: humans aren’t perfect. As Iv’e stated before, even computers glitch, malfunction, become slow, or even “crash.”

There’s a lot of confusion by pseudo intellectuals & anti-intellectuals who completely misunderstand the concept of divorcing emotions from abstractions. It doesn’t mean what people think it means. It means that a person can’t “gas-light” objective reality when they’re not distracted or with a state of cognitive dissonance.

I’ve read that it was men who tamed the sexuality of women to start things like agriculture & industry [1]. I believe the next major revolution would be to tame female’s mental states: “No, your opinions don’t have much merit,” etc..

You have to wonder: if men are not supposed to cry, why are we wired with the mechanism of tear ducts & emotions? Of course, this question is trivialized when the apex of “armored” men that whores select has had many other males experienced MGM (male genital mutilation).

Anger is probably the most understandable emotion to whores. They might be receptive to enjoyment, but it’s not an objectivism to it.

When I saw my father cry when his dog – his love of life – was diagnosed with cancer, I remembered why it was that his wife called him a “wuss” for coming home to action movies & beer. Women have a relentless implicit demand for almost no rest from the man.

A study from the American Academy of Pediatrics by Katherine Johnson, Melinda Caskey, Katherine Rand, Richard Tucker, Betty Vohr [2] stated that mothers responded preferentially to girls versus boys at birth. To be fair, it stated that fathers respond preferentially to boys by 44 weeks. Whatever the specific reasons for that was not addressed, but I think that it’s actually due to how we’ve been taught to deal with emotions by the way females treat us for it – “get back to work,” or whatever.

When males have this mentality of “don’t make me look bad in front of females/collectives,” it causes those men stuck on performing for whores to take things out of context, imply a vanity contest – interpret realism as “hogging the podium” that the performing competitor believes is being threatened to “his” territory, “gaslight,” & becoming even more dramatic when the performer realizes that the other is not playing his implied little vanity contest.

 

Source:

1.: The Art of Selling Sex in Islam & South East Asia, Ayam Sirias – Sheddingoftheego-dot-com

2.: Gender Differences in Adult-Infant Communication in the First Months of Life – aappublications-dot-org