Science Finds Negation For Female Sexuality | by Jessie Nagy

the different hated

People addicted to entertainment call what doesn’t entertain them “awkward.” Science & philosophy is supposed to be “awkward.” They don’t understand the first principles. More questions & less opinions from those idiots should happen.

First of all, women don’t even know what “shy” is. Women are so fucking facile/stupid. Have they ever heard of the “strong silent type?”
They hate the different.
Women have no concept of masculinity other than of what they can benefit from it & the force that helps them occlude multi aspects of masculinity.

Female sexuality has a brutish component to it, yet it is difficult to find serious discussion of it, even scholarly reports of it.

When I was reading The final chapter: ‘The Question Of Female Masochism’ of ‘Sexual Utopia In Power’ by F. Roger Devlin, to spare you of the disgusting paragraphs, the conclusion was mostly (with correlations/subtlety. I have to repeat that, of course, not all women are like that, but they are related to that. ): A thing for nasty boys. If you put a woman in a room of a dozen men, she’ll be focused on the meanest, brutal fellow in the room.

I had major problems with that chapter, not because of the reality of female sexuality – of course, I already knew that, but a misleading concept: “sensitive” vs. dominance:

” Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings….What women say comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends on their evolutionary more primitive limbic system . Even campus Feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with.”

Female panda bears continue to instigate fights with male panda bears to test how strong he is.
Abused masculinity – that’s what women like: “How many “war scratches” does he have?” That’s what women think is sexy: “How tough is his mindset due to a hard life?” They just don’t call it what it is. They call it “dark” instead or “mature/leadership” or ” he has depth.”
Women do this kind of behavior of the panda bear, much of which is instinctive. The more aware women are about those tests, the more manipulative they are.: She does Slamming doors, etc., & other passive aggressive tests, the silent treatment of claiming there’s nothing wrong when there really is – horrible communication skills. Her emotions do not seriously hear & respect the male logic. She then withholds sex because you dared to be masculine – seriously logical.
Isn’t it disgusting that women are much more prone to behaving like wild animals than men are?
The men who promote this kind of “alpha” behavior to be validated by her tests are promoting that female/wild animal behavior that was too late & failed the “class-room” of how to live in a structural world of masculinity.

Men who have an evolved, mainly bodily/visual sexuality are not “sensitive.” They’re just objective.
Anyway, even if you are a sensitive male, there’s nothing wrong with that. When a male has all senses fully operative, that male is “sensitive.” The senses developed in interaction with the multiple patterns & influences of reality.

Of the chivalrous traditions, female greed was promoted, so now female greed has been proven to desire unreal/destructive forms of novelty, as they casually get to dismiss whatever they don’t even know, because they’re too stupid to know, as “sensitive.”
Just like there is no real rape-culture (other than a minute one), there is no epidemic of domestic violence by males, but just an epidemic of hysteria about it. This was according to Massachusetts District Court Judge: Milton H. Raphaelson. Women are more prone to be interested in rape-culture & domestic violence. This proves how delusional female greed/psychology is, as they’re more willing to try the defective, & chivalrous traditions promoted female greed.
Modern man has fixed many problems of the beginnings. It is female nature that will keep promoting more stressful atmospheres. Female personality disorders is a byproduct to male modernization.

Dominance without abstractions leads to basically nothing – a repetitive cycle. The problem is “dominant” men keep reinforcing women’s cancellation of men of abstractions. Women occlude men of abstractions (even when they’re with them.) It was not dominance that constructed. It was abstractions.

Today we obviously don’t behave like wild animals or basic primates. Although this article uses a zoological model that might seem contradictory, it’s to state what gynocentrism does: that female sexuality is very archaic, occludes patient/intellectual males, & can lead to past models. We have been socialized by abstractions to make better decisions. Women have been making decisions to cheapen abstractions.

I got called “creepy,” etc., by whores who masturbate to drug-dealers & other idiots. They say: “get over it.” But the teenager years are actually the most important times of your life. This is the period when you’re actually setting your life.
Thanks to dumb whores, we have generations of losers amplifying, quite literally amplifying, their worthlessness, when they didn’t even make the formula for guitar amps, they didn’t weld the metal pieces together, yet people, especially whores, equate the same level of “skill” or “competence” thanks to the survival mechanisms of female collectivism. Getting a tattoo on your arm doesn’t make you different. It’s how you think – the abstractions, which makes patience, & women absolutely hate (or use) that, which is associated with rational/philosophical/science types.
When females use that, it’s not seriously female sexuality. It’s female practicality.

Some say: “I don’t hate women. I get sex from them. I don’t hate plumbers. I call them when I need something fixed.” Firstly, equating women with something as functional as that is just stupid. Secondly, that’s nice. However, some of us are more capable of analyzing female psychology & it’s detrimental effects. You want a cookie, or something, for being a vagina critic? There’s differences between opinions & facts, You might as well not even speak.

With most of the articles of “you’re a “beta” male”, a lot of it isn’t even pseudo science. it’s just casual garbage.

It’s not “too nice.” It’s “maybe” logic.

A woman who wants a “strong” man has desires for bad situations, which is the problem firstly.
Women know it’s taboo for women to be in a situation of being attacked, even of the abstract war. It is rare for real reasons for her to be protected. They’re also more likely to resort to tactics of gossip for revenge with other females – rarely beatings. When they say they want a “strong man to protect them,” it really just translates to them wanting to indulge with their immature sexuality.

Robert M. Sapolsky has studied free-ranging baboons in an African Reserve for stress-related diseases.
He found that subordinates to the ruthless exhibited higher relative cortisol levels – the silent killer – when they were subjected to higher rates of stressors & decreased opportunities for social support.
Dominant men use their stress, instead of patient contemplation, to dominating other men: Throwing men to go fight in a war with little pay, etc.. Society has the dynamic of men as just utilities, of which the rewards are little.

Chronic activation of the stress response is harmful. We need minimal amounts of it though.
Chronic activation can damage by various ways: healthy tissues atrophy & fatigue happens. With enough time, cardiovascular changes promote hypertension, which can damage the kidneys, the heart & blood vessels. When constructive processes are deferred indefinitely, the body pays a price of reduced fertility, susceptibility to peptic ulcers, impaired growth & tissue repair & diminished immune function.
What once helped us survive a very long time ago, when we resembled wild animals much more so, is now the scourge of our lives, which women promote, often not even realizing it.
Women basically feed off of the state of emotional lives, with the few/defective men infected with female psychology, who will even beat men of abstractions.

Women are bad with abstract thinking obviously. Most desires for protection – excuses for clumsy sexuality – is usually an irresponsible one: “Beat him for soliciting.”

Sapolsky didn’t specifically state much on female sexuality because he was busy with his zoological model, but that’s basically what it would translate to when applied to female psychology.

I’m not telling you to give free welfare checks to drug-addict losers. I’m just pointing: “grow up, kids.”



Sexual Utopia In Power by F. Roger Devlin, pg. 160-167

Stress in the Wild by Robert M. Sapolsky – Scientific American, Vol. 262, No 1 (January 1990), pg. 116

Are subordinates always stressed? a comparative analysis of rank differences in cortisol levels among primates | D.H Abbott, E.B Keverne, F.B Bercovitch, C.A Shively, S.P Mendoza, W Saltzman, Ct Snowdon, T.E Ziegler, M Banjevic, T Garland, R.M Sapolsky – sciencedirect-dot-com

Tantric Secrets For Men by Kerry Riley & Diane Riley, pg. 21 ( I do not 100% endorse all references used.)



better Hedon's sample

Notice, this article is by a colleague that I know with the single pen-name: Hedon, not myself. The reason for duplication is that original version featured nudity, which some spaces would not take. This article, not to “blow smoke up anyone’s ass,” is far too important to not read. This is one of my favorite pieces, not because of the disgusting aspects of women I have already known long before, but because of the needed confirmation. The final axiom is now – women are  postponing men by the archaic.


Human sexuality is quite complicated when you consider gamuts of things people are attracted to sexually but fortunately for us the advent of technology in rapidly changing times, in its iconoclastic fashion, has been very instrumental in illuminating sexual instincts in us which may have been too taboo or unpopular if expressed decades ago. Female hybristophilia, the female attraction to violence, has been well discussed in the MGTOW sphere. For reference, check out Bar Bar’s brilliant video on Hybristophilia (Link below). Since intelligentsia in academia, people who should have an honest scientific approach to education and exploration, are too tepid to deeply study human sexuality and explore these hard controversial topics, we are left with no other choice as thinking men than to do the job ourselves. In the words of Barbarossa, welcome to the age of crowd science, gentlemen.

Female attraction to violence, if studied closely, has been apparent for quite some time, whether it’s women’s incessant preference for the mindless brute, the bad boy, the empty “alpha male” jock, violent offenders in prison, serial killers on death row, or in their malevolent utilization of the state and the government in what could be called violence by proxy to hand out punishment to men whenever men “get out of line.” To say nothing of the effect this demented mentality is presently having on the human population, it elucidate plainly the female irrevocable nature that not only seeks chaos but is infatuated with it. The more violent and brutal the man is or seem, the more appealing and irresistible he is to the infantilized female mind. This infatuation with violence, however, has its roots in biology. Homo Sapiens would not have had such evolutionary success had gender roles not strictly defined or adhered to. In order to propagate the species in this unforgiving environment humans found themselves natural selection must select for the biggest and the powerful. The bands in hunter gather days would’ve died off had they catered to the weakest among them, namely the old and the sick. Women, even though relatively weak themselves, are blessed with the fortunate task to vessel human progenies thereby propagating the human species. However, unlike other species of animals with shorter duration of pregnancy and could birth multiple babies at once, the human female has to carry a pregnancy for 9 months of which she is completely helpless or limited, and usually could only birth 1 child at a time. Throughout this 9 months and the years beyond of which she has to nurse the baby, she’s merely a burden on the man and the foraging band. This necessitates having a man who is physically capable of providing for her, himself, and other kids during times as this. This is the way it has been throughout human history, through the hunter gather days, through the agricultural revolution, through cognitive revolution, through the industrial revolution, and so on.

However, nature smiled back at humans perhaps for the first time in human history and augment modernity with a leap so vast that human evolutionary process is unable to keep up with it. As a result, modern times, with its rich scientific and technological advancement, do not require this antiquated evolutionary process mainly because securing survival in modernity isn’t based on one’s physical acumen. Selecting for brute power is utterly useless to human evolution in modern times and its sole utilization as a deciding mating factor could only impede human progression and may soon destroy civilization. Modern civilization wasn’t brought about by the men women would typically prefer because women are anti-intellect, civilization was put into gear by the brain and the mind, by the individual men whose intellectual prowess is beyond comprehension. As much as I hate using this terms because they are demeaning to men, these aforementioned men are indeed the true “alpha males” in every sense of those words.

But you ask, why then do women’s primitive mental faculty still prefers this primitive behavior in men when modernity doesn’t require it? Well, I theorize that unlike men the female mind never truly evolved. Environmental pressure is what forces evolution; it’s what forces the human mind to carve a new pattern and new ways of thinking in order to ensure survival. Man’s mind isn’t new to such changing unpredictability of a harsh environment since they are the ones to go out and exist in it and harness it to ensure their survival. Comparatively, women are afforded the costly luxury of bypassing these environmental pressures. Since they are the weak gender nature dictates they should be catered for, by fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, and because of this, they remain perpetual children in mind. Regression or stagnation of their mental faculty is mostly due to the absence of these environmental pressures. Evidence of this could be glimpsed from all major creation and inventions throughout history. It all happened out of the beauty of man’s mind. Men create and build civilization, women simply exist in it.

Since their primitive minds abound it is not hard to understand their infatuation with the primitive male, and the best deciding factor in selecting this trait is the male propensity for violence. To test it out, if she’s unable to accurately measure it in him any other way, she’d be willing to use herself as the subject of his provocation. She’d shit-test him to see how far she could push before he puts her in her place. If he strikes her, shows uncaring attitude towards her, give her the blue eye, stiff-arm her, beat the shit out of her, she’d love him more and more. How many times have you heard stories of domestic abuse where no matter how violent the man is with the woman, she returns to him? The more violent he is, the more primitive he is, the more she loves him. Serial killer, rapist, kidnapper Ted Bundy whose targeted group are mostly women had numerous letters in prison penned and sent by women professing their undying love for him. Imagine that – the crime of one of the most violent offenders in history not only became nothing in women’s minds at the immediate thought of this man’s propensity for violence, it became the source of their guilty pleasure. Hence the popular saying, the female knows no justice.

To get an accurate understanding of how pervasive this phenomenon of female attraction to violence is, one study that came out earlier this month done by gathering data from google search engine concludes that porn featuring violence against women is more popular among women than among men.

The popular feminist narrative would have you believe that porn is largely consumed by men, and that depictions of violent — or at least rough — sex would be a primarily male-dominated interest.

This is untrue, states researcher Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, who says that porn featuring violence against women is significantly more popular among women compared to men.

His findings might explain the popularity of the BDSM-heavy “Fifty Shades of Grey” series of novels among female readers.

Speaking to Vox in an interview about how Google data proves that most Americans lie about their sexual preferences, the researcher and author of “Everybody Lies” asserts that more women enjoy the genre compared to male porn watchers — despite common sense and politically correct claims to the contrary.

“Porn featuring violence against women is also extremely popular among women,” said the author. “It is far more popular among women than men.”

Increíble. The gender that cries and decries violence against their own watches more porn with violence against their gender than the gender they demonize as the perpetrator of violence against them. The reason the above data is more reliable than any other existing data is that Google’s data is aggregated from the search terms people uses versus self-reporting which eradicates the question of ingenuity that comes with gathering such data through surveys or random questioning. Each week, millions of users around the world search for porn featuring violence against women and most of these users are reported to be women. It’s like watching women in their natural state. You can’t get any more reliable than this and it lends credence to years of observational data on the subject. Welcome to female hybristophilia.


From what the “sad, bitter, losers, who can’t get laid” have already known long before the publicized article, Search for a recording: Hybristophilia The Female Attraction to Violence by bar bar

Google Researcher: Porn Featuring Violence Against Women Is More Popular Among Women Than Men by Ian Miles Cheon – daily-caller-dot-com

Original article: mgtowundergroundrailroad-dot-com


The Mental Rape Culture By Women | by Jessie Nagy

loser vs winner

What I find hypocritical about the far-right (I’m of the “far-up”) is that they’re always complaining about greedy corporations, yet they make no mention of their own women that are destroying their own civilization due to the similar thing, bending masculinity & pausing generative assembly negatively.

Don’t get perplexed by the imagery. This is relevant to save civilization.

Most so called beta males have no real significant/long-term contact with females, so what is the purpose of chastising them? The way to define most “alpha” male is if he’s been either married or had some period(s) with them. From the realms of health, there are MANY different types of alpha males. It’s just that women have a whore nature that constantly keeps dissecting alpha males into submerged levels. (as for myself, I’m beyond beyond being an “alpha male” because I already noticed the majority of the process.) Greater social acuity of women results with increased dissatisfaction or willingness to try more & more. That they are constantly comparing, even when they have already made it, males who are potential mates even with fictional characters is a moral failing that women have.
It’s the males I’m obviously trying to help.
You get a lot of assumptions in such spaces about how the male was just not enough of an “alpha” male, yet notice how they all allow themselves to be controlled by these continuously, ever changing levels of what would already be considered alpha males to be changed to “beta” males because of her. Here’s an idea: Concentrate on exposing women instead. (even if some males are sometimes losers.)
The “superstitious” cultures, etc., are not causing disproportion specifically because of integration, they’re creating disproportion (which wouldn’t even be considered variegation if there’s more of them) because they have a direct way, unlike your methods, of dealing with their women.
Further, if you’re busy trying to be an “alpha male,” there’s no way you know that much.
Of course, there’s the obvious guys on welfare, drug dealers, etc., that would be considered “beta males,” but aside from that, you’re either exposing or you’re reinforcing of them. Reinforcing only masks the bad tendencies of females, which triggers more future disasters. It’s only a quick-fix that doesn’t address causes.

I don’t care about zoological reports of wolf packs that have very little resemblance to men. It is a cop-out veiled by sophistication, much like the reinforcement.

Democracy is for the will of the majority. Since women have been monopolizing their desires based on constant comparisons with subjective fantasies, their dreams are forced.

Of other cultures not of the West, what is called rape-culture because they have more control of their women is not actually considered rape-culture by most of their own women because women are flexible. Women are malleable. It’s only because women are allowed access to things like social media that they are exposed to & inflate their opinions. If you were to give those same women of those opinions that “rape culture,” those women would be mostly fine with it. This is why I defend the so called “rape culture” to be implemented further: it saves males from the much worse mental rape culture done to them by women, & since males are creatures much more of the mind to bring vision to society, they need to guard themselves from being mentally raped by women. They might call it rape-culture. I call it education.

The reason this same pattern persists is because males are busy making themselves “alpha males.” They could save themselves if they gained knowledge/real power first, then monopolize themselves.

70% of divorces are started by women, though some are estimated to be 90% when including force by women.
Aftermath: women are entitled with the help of the state – the impulsive alpha males lacking wisdom & consciousness that women want – to steal prizes & mass quantities of money from mostly oblivious victims. This is why female sexuality needs to be illegal – “alpha males” create a very negative atmosphere, but, since females basically own the legal collective, legal ramifications are not going to happen any time soon, so males need to start dehumanizing female sexuality on a personal level.
There’s a real mental-rape culture. There’s no exaggeration: There was a process of some amount of pleasure, being taken advantage of, then confusion & a state of being broken.
Women are subtracting, but I don’t mean that of the obvious way. After the state of realism by learning from experience, although some of them are too stupid to even learn with experience – the apathetic, (mentally) experienced, mature men who don’t look fun, or whatever, are called “beta” males.
Newton was a “beta” male. Being one is actually a good thing. That’s right; you read correctly. You’re supposed to be a “beta” male, but concepts of alpha & beta need to be revamped.

I already knew this even when I was a kid, so why would I want to be an “alpha male.” Any man who wants to aspire to be an “alpha male” is a desperate fool with little self-respect or is just stupid. The hatred, not “alpha male” aspiration, of women will help start the true power of masculinity. “Oh, no, he applied some kind of sane mentality derived from objective reasoning – how awful.”

Not only do whores have the mentality that “she’s getting someone other’s trash” if a whore ruins a male, females have also been reported to be much more likely to do the same trends of divorce, etc., if other female associates do it because of female collectivism. The exact statistic is 75%, 33% if it’s a distant female associate. This is exactly what I’ve typed about before: that if one female peer doesn’t like the way you scratch your ear, or something like that, they all suddenly don’t like you because that one whore thought it was ‘creepy.” It really is that low. How can you not be a misogynist?
Most of those men like Neuton – beta males – would be considered “creepy”, or a related description, to women. They say “square” science types like it’s a bad thing.
If this female collectivism has been proven scientifically, as I just did, which is also why it frees us from having to rely on citations regarding female actions – easier to know what they’re prone to doing just by self referencing observation, how can you state that women & Feminists are that much different?
They like to casually dismiss the intelligent, aware (“beta”) males as “just like the Feminists,” but we actually have a capability of understanding a real mentally raped experience, while women’s victim-states are mostly contrived & lacking logic.
One of the most extreme cases: Female greed & mental disorders was disclosed by feminist Wendy Davis who, after convincing her older “daddy,” as they say, to have his retirement money used for her expensive Harvard degrees, she abandoned her, with children that weren’t even his, parental obligation to him after divorcing him & started her career as “victim”/feminist politics, when she just stabbed-him-in-the-back.
It might not be that extreme when dealing with general cases, but most women are prone to doing some variation of that.



Smart & Sexy by Roderick Kaine, pg.: 214, 215

Brinig, Margaret F. and Allen, Douglas W., ‘These Boots Are Made for Walking’: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women (2000). American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 2, pp. 126-169, 2000

Bond, R., Smith P.B.(1996) line Judgement Task. Psychological Bulletin. 1996. Vol. 119 No. 1, 111-137.

McDermott, R., Fowler, J.H., Christakis, N.A.. (2009) Breaking Up Is Hard To Do, Unless Everyone Else Is Doing It Too: Social Network Effects on Divorce in a longitudinal Sample (October 18, 2009).

Grall, T.S. (2011) Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their and their Child support: 2009. United States Census Bureau.

Females Hate Intellectual Males (Or Are Indifferent) | by Jessie Nagy


NOTICE! Citations, as usual, on end to stop “pseudo science” slander.

These fucking aesthetes – they can’t create anything meaningful.

Intelligent males develop preferences for hyper-systematized tinkering, which is not seriously feasible to social dynamics owned by females, other than outwardly. As a result of that, As females have a scattered psychology lacking depth with diffusive, alternating interests to the point of consuming & discarding, while males have much more focused, even repetitive, interests, with focused interests meaning increase of detail & strong, firm, substantial structures, females are prone to, as they hate the different, slandering intelligent males.
You learn most of those compulsive aspects from the maternal: “Smile for the camera so you don’t embarrass me, instead of actually looking respectable by looking serious,” etc..

We keep getting robbed & mentally raped by women.

Women, themselves, love con-artists because they love to have a mirror in front of them.

Real-men are neither dominant nor passive; they’re “robotic.”
Females constantly misdiagnose intelligent males as “disordered,” etc..
Due to the inherent inconsistent nature of female psychology & the social settings to that, it is virtually impossible (except with the advent of mass information.) to apply systematizing reasoning to female centrism. Female psychology is frequently unlawful or it is of such bad integrity that it is incapable for systematic minds to align to.
There is no set formula of female psychology, except as a function to maintain the species, which females often don’t even abide by very well, other than that it is an equation that defines the internal female psychology as inconsistent.
This makes the large bulk of popular psychology, the social “sciences,” etc. as not real science for failing to admit the amoral female psychology.
Autists are popularly thought of as having low intelligence & other incompetent traits. As a result of ascertainment bias – having low IQ as being the main trigger for being tested by specialists, it is often how the autism is defined as incompetent levels.
As intelligent males with standards of their own have been casually deflected, often by females, as having something “wrong” with them, this is the real science: Autism spectrum conditions are a result of extremely high concentrations of testosterone during fetal development, also known as: “the extreme male brain.” The correlation to that is that females can’t be equal to EVEN MALES WITH MODERATE testosterone levels, so to even take female narratives seriously, not just as Feminism, but most female narratives, leads to disaster.
The reason that the humanities department of professional academia is littered with weak & fake science is because social interactions have been normalized by the adjunct of EQ & related.

Women want to seem better than they really are, won’t admit to their amorality, which is how they’ve used “alpha or beta” to deflect what they’ve done: “You got betrayed or had your time wasted by a women. Oh, you’re a “beta” male.”

“Turning the other cheek” can be a good principle because it gives you more time to consider your next choice.

Most of the time when it’s stated: “You have to learn from experience,” they’re not really learning; they’re mostly adapting to inconsistency.

Christopher Walker – nutrition expert of Anabolic-Men – is by definition “nerdy:” He’s an expert & he’s very systematic. But does he look like a “nerd”? No, he doesn’t. That’s the point: there is no “nerdy” look.
Since these definitions of “nerds” are completely archetypal, the whole concept of a “nerd’ from the casual culture means basically nothing.
Don’t even take the concept of a “nerd” seriously because it’s going to bring all this comedy/distractions, when, set by the feminine, the reality is is that women hate intellectual males.
“But Sartre was fucking Simone De Beauvoir.” Firstly, S.D.B. was fucking disgusting, secondly, Sartre was not a true intellectual: He had immature optimist/nihilistic/”Machiavellian” tendencies, so, of course, that would garner him a whore.

Sexual retards, female sexuality, with all the amorality, is hailed to be “fine.” opponents of it are decried as “prudish.”
Even the conforming of sex education to patterns of behavior divorced from morality is one of the things that encourages naive sexual habits.
Since sex/flirting, thanks to the delusional Feminine, is mostly amoral/”impulsive,” the application to it is also mostly amoral/”impulsive,” evident with broken families, popular psychology, discharged males, facades, etc.
The notion that sex to the female is about a larger relational & moral context is an obvious scam. Female sexuality is pursued as recreation with, what they describe as, pan-sexuality, & perennial comparisons.
Males don’t have that pan-sexuality: It’s directly her, evidenced by the description of males having a “one track mind” – muse stimulation.

Pornography didn’t ruin the family unit. As women are avaricious for delusional fantasies, men went to pornography because of women. Women ruined the family unit, so men have pornography.
I don’t need to answer to a plea for citations on those statistics. That female psychology: They think: if they can’t see it in front of them, it “doesn’t” exist. It only proves the materialism, hence how women ruin relationships: It’s because they’re superficial.
Even a study by Scott Robbins: ‘Our Sexual Future With Robots,’ claimed that, even with the human prostitute industry, a significant number of male clients, even though the relationship was a financial one, many of the clients still want the pretense of a genuine relationship.
What do females call that? They call it “needy,” “desperate,” etc.

“Nerds” don’t really exist. It’s just a cheapening, humoring caricature for intellectual males (or what can be called the “nice-guy”). They might not say it explicitly, but it’s a way for them to insist that we’re “creepy,” “losers,” etc..
When males have the time, money, etc. to consume lame trends, wouldn’t you think there’s something missing in their life? The price for monumental intellectualism is a loss of being appealing.
“Nerds” don’t care about trends, other than an analytical one, & because they’re not apart of feminine trends, that’s how you even get the small trend – I’m not sure if it still is – of young women even wearing fake glasses with plastic lenses – a projection of their mentality – due to social media presenting some amount of intellectual males that females haven’t experienced. I will admit that females who wear glasses look pretty sexy because os some glossy look & my face fetish, but do you think that’s going to make you look like you’re on my level, or something like that, as they parrot something they heard that the president did on the news? The only way to identify an intellectual male is in the abstractions.
Whenever I’ve told females that I, relaxed, like to tongue kiss her when she’s sitting right in front of me – reversed on a “chair” position, they almost always assume that I like her to be, what they call as her, “being on top,” which has a different meaning to them than a meaning of placement. No. the reason is because I like the sensation of having handfuls of her juicy thighs & buttocks right in front of me while enjoying her face, almost like riding a motor-bike with her buttocks as “handlebars.” This is exactly what I mean: their interpretations are slanderous.

Intelligent males are often already bored with their “bullshit,” as they would say, when the popular can’t even realize how lame they are.
If females, & gynocentrism as an adjunct to females, constantly misdiagnose intelligent males, as females also masturbate to mythical mutants, what makes you think the inaccurate definitions stop only when directly dealing with them?
Even in pro-male spaces we get a very wrong definition: hypergamy. The way it’s used has little relevance to an American context. The origins of that was assignment of females to successful males in India. The original hypergamy kept those aspects of female nature latent. It’s transient in America though.
The men who originally invented hypergamy did not do it by a result of “domination,” like the mythical mutants that females masturbate to, or intensity, or whatever females call it now, as their inconsistency fluctuates. It was a result of calculation.

Growing with Asperger’s, or something mild like that, you’re criticized badly that you’re rigid for being observational with a linear honesty/ try to become “alpha”, etc., then they give you some little bumper-sticker quote just to hear themselves talk “Honesty is the best policy,” “Stay true to yourself.” – feminine inconsistency.



Smart & SeXy by Roderick Kaine, pgs.: 88 ,89, 93, 95.

Our Sexual Future With Robots by Noel Sharkey, Aimee van Wynsberghe, Scott Robbins, Eleanor Hancock, pg 17

What Comes After Postmodernism? | by Jessie Nagy

better one for postmodern article



NOTICE: My articles contain an authenticity without emphasis on perfect syntax, specifically for the purpose of others not slandering me with one of the most common ones – that “I copy-&-paste,” among other slanderous claims. Aside from the occasional syntax error, it’s always fact checked multiple times with references. (except for the more metaphysical ones.)

Whenever you have females/Feminists, especially the redundant artistic kind, try to portray “masculinist” males as the “bad” ones, especially when they do it with slanderous presumptions that have little to do with it, it’s because they actually have a fascination with fashionable brutes, the pointless, delinquents, swindlers, etc.

They have an impulsive nature that’s extremely disrespectful of masculinity. That’s how we even got various forms of postmodernism & related.
Women will even ruin what a male has built, wasting time, if just one of her friend’s impulsively cheapens the value of him based on some superficial opinions, &, yet, according to the dominant culture, misogyny is “wrong.”

1-or-0/yes-or-no – binary logic is something you depend on. Without it, you can’t have a so much as a single means of learning.

Women are short-sighted. With the info-age, the non-casual males have influence. A lot of women are noticing, thinking: “Oh, my god, there’s all of these males out here that we never knew existed.” Their short-sight was fixated on the postmodern/spontaneous/resigned/emulative/aggressive. Rather than accepting that they’re short-sighted though, they use the easy deflection of: “You can’t find these losers much elsewhere, other than libraries, etc..”
The compiled info. has been disseminated because men, like myself, were not swayed by whims of women, as females were implying over the years: “C’mon, give in to the amorality.” I’ll never join the feminine. I’ll have & use them, but never change drastically for them. Because other men don’t understand how you could be better than her, they say it’s “gay,” or something.

I just recently saw a short lecture of Camille Paglia , &, no, I’m not going to refer a source of it because there’s already enough of these “bipolar’ female m.r.a. types, or whatever they call themselves, infecting the spaces. She was talking about how there’s a lack of Testosterone in music today. This cunt didn’t get it: That commentary is just anti-male: She shuns many facets of male experience. There’s more to masculinity than just a “T factory.” It’s just like when Feminists & the related say that men’s rights activists are just “complainers.” Don’t take any of these female m.r.a. types seriously.
With that female tendency of not realizing masculine multi-personalities, it’s obvious women are the ones who do the severe objectifying.
&, anyway, rock-n-roll, whatever supposed music with “Testosterone,” comes from degenerate culture. It’s no wonder you have that woman trying to interject something so stupid.
When children are in that record phase, they’re not seriously interpreting those words. It’s more absorbing.
With that kind of mentality that males are “not” supposed to be complex by the feminine, it leads to disastrous relationships later.

Time & time again women not doing their proper function proves to be a disruptive influence. It’s no surprise why many try celibacy.

Paul Elam discussed with a popular news source, which they never produced fully on television because it was “too ideological,” or whatever, so I watched a shortened boot-legged version of it. I’m not providing citations because there’s already more than enough moderate/mediocre m.r.a. spaces, with most claiming that “extremists” are “too disgruntled” to investigate the actual quality content, that it discloses itself to be much too contaminated by female m.r.a.s. Get your own citations. He defends himself with logic, & you can understand that the female interviewer obviously despises him. Why is that? It’s because his facial expression/body language is in a defensive mode, he’s showing his realistic/multiple side, rather than just “T. factory” for women’s one-track mind, so by that, there’s the pattern of women’s delusions already dismissing him as “pathetic”/”too nice”/creepy, etc.. They portrayed his logic as “the bad guy.”
She actually had another interview with EL James to discuss “slaughterhouse porn”/female literature – the hypocrisy of female nature.

Even male amorality is different. Some male amorality is due to desperation – desperate for beer, or whatever. Female amorality is completely different. They find bad situations exciting or they can’t make serious moral judgements.

Metaphysical lore, with no citations needed because it’s metaphysical, obvious symbols, regards shiva as the pure masculine force culminating in cosmic consciousness – male awareness, & Shakti as the feminine principle embodying pure creative energy – pollution by “impulse.”
With the original calm composure of masculinity being awareness, it’s no wonder how women degrade masculinity.

Aside from the fake “sophisticated women,” most women I’ve met don’t even have a shred of that supposed elegant femininity that male enablers talk about to put blame back on other males when those male enablers sense a problem that women chose. Most of female collectivism is like masculine nasty “pieces of fecal matter”: They talk like casual idiots who “don’t wipe themselves properly” & tattooed losers, or something like that.
Nature doesn’t care about justice. To maintain, because women are much more in tuned & less capable of controlling nature – controlled by primal nature, that they are “elegant” creatures is a pretense.
Women do not love men the same way men love women. It’s why women disregard a long term relationship so much easier than men – because they were never that psychologically invested firstly.
As I typed with my previous article, egalitarianism doesn’t work. Women start taking advantage: As the system increases feminizing, with female egos expressed, they start to think that Dave at accounting is “nothing.”

“Discrimination against women is wrong. Discrimination against men is equal opportunity.”

Postmodernity, etc. does not regard authority as teachers, but to be defied. “Solipsistic” thinking is a trait of unintelligent, naive, males of the initial interest of females, when they impose their lack of wisdom & can’t take instructions.
Because they’re all related, the greedy normal people, postmodernists, the p.c., female defenders are just as much your enemy as Feminists.

I will admit that female sexual capacity is stronger than male. Of course, it’s probably because they’re wired to give birth. But that sexual strength combined with their delusion & a willingness to denounce male logic leads to disaster because that delusional subjectivity also wants & expects males to come to that level, which only causes the male to become sloppy, & I don’t really mean that as sweaty/sloppy/really good swampy sex. Concepts, especially Western, of the “battle of the sexes” conveys the morbidity & frustration of the ponderously serious sexual dramas which dominate so much of the thinking of relationships, or the other unhealthy alternative to that is female collectivism. It has little to do with transforming aspects of relationships.
Women prioritize the physical over the mental. They over-emphasize physical sex, get stuck on that kind of pleasure without experiencing higher subtle energies.
Most women have “sex.” However, I have S.E.X. – Subtle Energetic eXchange, which requires that the female “shuts the fuck up,” of course, metaphorically because I love verbal eroticism, & engages my exploration of her as a muse. Most girls I’ve been with are not that impressive with sex, yet the majority of them like to congratulate themselves as “(s)experts.” They profess to know so much with major egos, yet they can’t even realize that when a male is tellingly expressing himself to her, it’s not “too nice,” or whatever else they’ll claim/imply it is, it’s individuation – he’s aligned with what he is.
Males that don’t have an intellectual cooperation, even the most simple principles, should not be allowed a female. Yes, I used the word cooperation. that doesn’t make me a “leftist.” Did you know that such factions have, both, a dualistic atheistic, predatory manipulation, as well as a blending, mediocre, mystical notions of democracy?

What they call “asserting” oneself for women has made the male to have cheapened his personality. Without the real personality assertion, spontaneity, political gain, “stamina” has been sought. The mentality has even made sex, especially in America, into a disposable commodity, making it harder in our private lives to experience sex as a cultivation over time. Today sex is often consumed & discarded as soon as he becomes old or an inconvenience.

The reason I don’t believe in things like legalizing prostitution the way it’s usually debated about is that if there was an understanding of the oxytocin exchange on the male’s terms, you wouldn’t have things as the city of Amsterdam’s vices. The interesting thing about it is also that, since living there causes the exotic to collapse under the weight of ordinariness – making them apathetic/jaded, it actually cheapens the fact that males could monopolize themselves beyond torpidity & female/incoherent usury.
My father works in Travel. He told me the city is literally filthy. ( When I type things like this, it’s usually interpreted from the projections that I’m sensitive. They’re the ones obsessed with naive sensations because they can’t take realism. I type about it by the point of: How can I even take it seriously?) When men don’t monopolize their cravings on their own set terms, it leads to feminine novelty & vices of pollution.
Seeking freedom in Amsterdam, with the cannabis-cafes, etc., leads to experiences that aren’t seriously effective.
This is the psychology of the typical postmodernist & normal person. They think that sensory experiences entailing naive freedom means having more “wisdom.”
You have to get back to the organic & discipline.
It must be nice to not have to even try to make real points, just rely on: “I’ve been to that attraction.”
The individuation of Amsterdam is not real.
It’s paradoxical that all these casual idiots, as they revolve the majority of their time with entertainment, etc., which doesn’t require or make serious thinking, with their stupid opinions that aren’t even based on reality, tend to, & you can notice this now, all of a sudden, as every fucking idiot with a smart-phone has, etc., think they know more than serious philosophers who actually employed much more mental effort.

Baruch Spinoza is looked to as a guide by people who grapple on the basis of the subjective. I’m not going to have an issue of semantics of what objective & subjective is. By what is given with the other points of this article, you know what I mean by subjective.
If it seems too sophisticated, think: anarchists, “beatniks”, “jail-birds,” charlatans, & “hustlers” – very accurately, life-styles: they’re only styles, not different.

Don’t think of me as politically right-wing either though. As I’ve typed, I’m not of the (alt) right nor left. I’m “going up.” Both left & right are religiously habituated with routines.

For a society favoring what they envision as being tough for adventure to get things done, all that gets done is indulgence, They don’t have the real creative means of science, which allows for something essential to be produced: our understanding of reality is more coherent, & society is furthered because of science.

Greed has little concept of right & wrong. It mostly recognizes what is profitable & what you can get away with. When you have government, the Media, the military, & police on your payroll, you can do pretty much whatever.
A lot of anxiety & depression is used to discredit those experiencing reality, & it enables pharma to get more money.
Professional medicine often causes more chaos & more illness than total cure: It has paused knowledge about keeping themselves healthy firstly, a knowledge that would decrease the production of the chemical & drug industry, which has a stake in disrupting natural healing methods. How else could they sell so many chemicals?
When a derivative of female-hood – Princess-Worthless – was “chillin it & killin it,” waiting for her “knight in shining armor,” as she was spending daddy’s lunch-money on “poppers”, she got psychiatric problems, & now daddy is spending even more on her, when, if she didn’t have a monopoly on postmodernism, etc., firstly, there would’ve been enough masculine foundations to stop her craving.

In a city like Amsterdam, where the theology is of herd-entertainment with vigorous greed, making money on fake “differentness,” the result is a culture of immaturity. The culture reeks of preadolescents, like sexual retards, when first turning 21, rushing to the liquor store because of the over-hype. Rational intellectuals have already had the conclusion or mental experiences, so they don’t need to try it.

Women manufacture “creeps” because they hate the truly different. Barely conscious of their own actions, they call males that they’ve damaged to be “creepy.” That callous, immature treatment of the different, with the occasional use of the different because women operate by what benefits them on a given period – as soon as they find another situation that benefits them, they switch their act, has ordained society to interpret logic from an surface/image-bank.
Moral depravity, parasitism, predatory nature – it’s understood that these are often degrees of female psychology, especially towards the latter years as traps, yet, why stop there?
The religion that consists of a materialist commercialism & survival/libido mechanism, like snakes eating their own progeny, feature the same manipulation, moral depravity, parasitism & predation.
Yeah, women can write “morality” on paper with some attractive language. It doesn’t mean it’s true, or that I’ll be tricked by that “bipolar” tendency.
Bad psychiatry is just like women calling a man collecting very stern classical records “creepy” after he got mentally raped by a whore. It’s not only deflective, it’s also disrespectful. It keeps women’s nature to not be addressed. How “creepy” it is for a man to show multi layers of his personality.

Disgusting how these whores become pseudo intellectuals when some of these aspects about them is disclosed to the public. They want to give “advice” about how to be on her level.
Don’t even take her bad advice seriously. By being proper, honest, etc. – by not being like them, we can show women’s true sides to the masses.
By her own barely conscious confession of the following two quotes of female collectivism, women seek unstable men. The main reason women usually pick a stable man is because of his resources, not because of “love.”
seconf part of proof of female personality disorders

more proof by whore

Women are obsessed with socializing, actually, collectivism – they’re very socially incompetent, not because “they’re friendly.” Their obsession with it is because of the apposite of friendliness. It’s due to an aspect of their hybristophilia. It’s because they like being reassured that they can maintain perennial comparisons.: “Oh, that guys louder than the last guy. I’ll go with him until the next.”more proof of female evil

Based on binary, simple logic, you know that women are prone to collectivism. Therefore, those tendencies, as screen-captured, is evident of most of female nature.

What’s interesting is that evolution is defined less of terms of abstractions by the male intellect/male patience than survival mechanisms determined by the feminine. The newer, interesting ideas & plans are considered less relevant than appetite & its source – an idiotic & dangerous error shielded from exposure only by the past drives, assumptions based on that, & the confinement of alienating social “networks”/collectivism.


Not Of The Alt-Right. I’m Of The “Alt-Up” | by Jessie Nagy


The reason I don’t care about women’s side of the story is that women have been the ones basically apathetic & even laughing to male experience & trial & error, yet all of a sudden, when memetics is gaining some amount of a.d.d. induced popularity, you have whores who magically concern themselves on some diluted level.

With the question often by the political of whether we’ve become Machiavellian with the materialism & carelessness/nihilism of the dominant culture, similarly, my question is from the psychological point: Has the society become feminine? The answer is yes.
The fact that the casual is ignorant & uncaring about these enormous feminine tendencies is proof they’re ordained by the feminine.
The amorality that is required to be glamorized is portrayed as developed by “tough-minded” people.

When you could ask “sally to get a shake,” there was a little bit more option for the male to actually discern what he was investing his time with.
The excess now given to female-centrism of speed-dating culture makes them bored, agitated, etc., when they see the slightest little thing. Women’s ideals of courtship are false, & their inconsistency is increasingly being disclosed.
We don’t really have the experience of friendship. Girl-friend & boy-friend is false terminology because women view men the way as consumerism products: “So I met this super-popular guy on a dating site that I was using to advertise my cam-whore profile. He told me that his ex-girlfriend dumped him. I’m not getting another’s “trash,” so I blocked him on Twatter.”
Patience is gone. Development is gone. Building a “visualization” for the male to have it become real is devalued.
The generations of texting retards has it that if someone makes one little mistake, it’s next swipe. That’s the way female psychology is. Masculine technology has given us evidence of female psychology that is the most blatant.

As female greed is starting to show their delusions & agitation, angry women make men have torpor. Male torpor makes women angry. You know what you get in return, as a male, for your efforts? Practically nothing.
There’s nothing wrong with you as a male for being calculating. They’re basically eliminating masculinity.

Of course, believing that Feminism is wrong, one of the things that I’ve gained is that I can understand the world by the objective/masculine point, women have the other view, & when I say view, I really do define it by seeing & judging by limiting surfaces, such as when a baby sees a dark shadow, or something like that, it gets scared, but when you get older, you realize that it’s silly to get scared about things like that, yet female psychology is not that much different from that, & now with what was typed with the previous paragraph, it’s extremely obvious of how they interpret reality with total inconsistency & subjectivity.

People don’t comprehend & I’ve been taken out of context, so I need to reiterate:
Now “Mama Gyps Tatwa,” or some rediculous nick-name, has 10 kids with 5 mystery fathers. While she’s looking for another partner-in-crime to help her “indie” business of selling marijuana, while collecting welfare, Goldie-locks is looking for “Mr. Unreal” – owns three fancy buffets, walks with a peg-leg, like a pirate, has a scar on his left eye-area, & also owns a dungeon.
Since they will not give you serious answers, & good communication is seen as “weakness,” etc., to women, ordaining you to postmodernism, this is the answer of what they want: “I love a man who’s been hardened by a hard life” – abused masculinity: that’s what women are attracted to, or the other one is: “I love a man that can entertain me.” – not firm or independent.
If women had also never incentivized so much novelty, northern/western society, which featured much more chivalry, which turns into female greed, they could’ve concentrated their own throughout history to the mass that abundance of eastern societies have.

Getting sex isn’t a serious mark of being true.
It’s going to take a lot of excessive effort because it’s against the level of savage thinking & ad hominems.
They’re the ones consuming escapism. Cognitive dissonance/delusion (such as asking for citations, which there are many on end) is a major factor of various personality disorders. It’s obvious of the casual nature of some who would defend various histrionic personality disorders just because of excitement or a desire for social bonding. The inability to even realize the obviousness of the cruelty of that thought process by denouncing another as “normal”/boring, etc. (possibly useful), just proves how feminine you are, even if you are a man. Real men have extreme,dogmatic, fanatical, fundamentalist morals.
Viruses are spread by contamination. Gynocentrism is a mental disease, especially becoming an “alpha” male, which puts one in a state of perpetual naivety.

Purist male Buddhist priests – hard-line moralists, preaching mindfulness/subdued instincts, no emphasis on fashionable popularity contests for the male, compassion – have realized that women, who are deeply sinful, cannot, unless they are reborn as male, attain Buddhahood, which is the realization that much of prior sensory experience is similar to hogs rolling in dung.

Being amoral, dramatic, etc. – all easy. Being moral – that’s the hard thing.

With identity & name removed so that I don’t have to deal with whores claiming I do “internet bullying”, etc., look at that disgusting title-picture, which is actually bullying, of proof of female psychology I found. It was from a Lesbian pick-up-artist group that I have spied on.
I know, there’s immature women out there, but the “sophisticated” women are just doing a different rendition.
The key to experiments is it needs to be repeated: If you’ve experienced female behavioral universals multiple times, you can discern there are patterns: Scientific controls work that way as well: With female collectivism – most women are extremely similar, which is why you don’t need pretentious degrees to make axioms about their actions, you have “diplomatic” women with lesbians.
Females have the idea that in order for something to be good, it “needs” to be identical. The mature realization is that you can have quality, but quality because the differences compliment each other. Female collectivism doesn’t work. It’s a tried & primitive thing. Women can’t even maintain that ideal of identical society anyway. That mentality leads to social incompetence, as they can’t take reality, they go to gossip about all the differences of others when those others are not there.
I remember my last girlfriend had her collective hating me because I was truely different – not different “trademark harcuts,” but REAL difference. They all didn’t like that she was betraying the feminine collective.
With the effeminate “Mtv.” generation, they have ownership of really stupid routines.I guarantee you, that the guy she abuses like that probably got anxiety from experimenting with marijuana. While people think it’s a great drug, marijuana increasingly makes it difficult for one to be capable of dealing with even basic situations.
According to a study of the open access journal PLOS ONE by Shashwatch Meda, college students who consume medium-to-high levels of marijuana & alcohol have a consistently lower GPA, but, hey, you know, it’s alright when you’re given courses that aren’t even a real sign of intelligence, like art-school. (Sarcasm.) If you haven’t noticed, I absolutely despise MOST art-students.
As the artistic influences are introducing marijuana, claiming ownership of lamer forms of entertainment anyway, which makes them not even smart enough to know how to experiment, it actually is associated with an increase of physical violence in relationships & general problems among young people, according to a study published in Drug and Alcohol Dependence. Studies resulted with associations strongest by females.
If I were that guy, I would’ve schooled that whore & had her running to another guy to try to beat me, to which I would traumatize intellectually. I don’t need to physically attack anyone, I can scold them & have them “crying to mommy.” I’m not necessarily defending that guy who is a part of stupidity, but knowing the wrong communication & tactics of women, he’s probably been subdued by some kind of feminine forces.
There’s even a reversed meme that realistically “calling out”, as they would say, constitutes as being p.c.. But p.c. is actually when you don’t judge realistically.

Male enemies of women can still be desired because of women’s instinct to try to hoard as much power as possible with almost all costs.

I’ve been slandered so many times: From “low-status degenerate who takes the pogo-stick to welfare,” to “liar,” & much more. I remember this fucking bitch slandered me as “trashy,” without even knowing me, because I was gaining some amount of focus from others, while she was with a sleazy drug-dealer. It’s because of that perennial comparison that women do with the female herd, as they get together to gossip, etc.. Last whore I was with ended it abruptly because her female associates, without even knowing me, claimed that I was “creepy.” They say that conspiracies are just “paranoid theories by losers,” but conspiring is just a trait of mammalian societies, from micro to macro. What they do isn’t bullying of the way it is commonly thought, but they do get together & use some kind of force against others.

I remember when I started meditating. It’s just a technique – a mental exercise. When I became a lot more mellow when doing this, I noticed all the women around me got so agitated by me really easily.

There is that general pattern happening when a self respecting male can’t take something stupid seriously to be slandered by women as a “loser.”

Simplicity & exaggeration of sentiments of crowds result with women’s extremes. A suspicion transforms itself as soon as announced into incontrovertible evidence.

They don’t realize that alphas get ruined also. What’s even the point of distinguishing male levels? The divorce industry indicates an analysis of men who were, by definition, successful. Why is there a 75% divorce rate by women? Personality disorders & delusions is just in a woman’s nature.

Men generally have a basic instinct to defend women. I don’t really have that because I’m in total control of my biology. I have absolutely no hypocritical tendencies because I abide by being hard-line. The reason that is is that men have the capability of being moral, which women lack.
To maintain such contradictions in one’s mind, most common of the feminine, is pathological. It is a pathological response of a crowd.

The feminine champions women’s rights & gay rights, but ignores the mistreatment of women & gays of policies of the exotic for some fake gesture. They glorify negative complications for good-person badges, yet they oppose different, complex thoughts.

There’s a theory that angry foreigners are so because they “can’t get laid.” The fanatics of those other cultures have very, very strict rules of sex: celibacy, as well as total ownership of women. I think the anger is due to completely different politics.

Androcentrism is not “reversed sex roles.” It’s reversed worship, for a lack of a better description.
Choosing gynocentrism over heterosexual androcentrism makes you reject order & the moral terms over her.

Allowing females to exercise their collectivism weakens masculinity, as they are greedy for novelty, etc., they will get together for perennial comparisons & political gossip. By disrupting the social collective of femininity, real power is given to males. The first target is popular entertainment.
The so called home-maker evolves to homewrecker for scheming to upgrade incessantly.

Get rid of the old system & rebuild something new. We know right & wrong for the most part. Morality is subjected to the passions though, & that’s why you need education. Androcentrism is the juncture of both order & passions.

The “mother’s intuition” – a silly statement. What it translates to is that “truth” is the opinion of the popular. There are many fronts for appetite with fake order.
A study published in Human Ethology Bulletin found that men concluded sexual flirtations by women as the most effective. Women thought flirtations that represented commitment & exclusivity as most effective. Men already have their minds made of the beginning that women create major traps, hence why they prefer non-committed flirting. So much for the idea of female intuition having “more wisdom” with their level of baby reading.
The Journal of Sex Research gathered that it is common for young women to persuade their partners to have sex without a condom. Sarcasm: Yeah, really good intuition. They used, obviously, seduction & risk reassurance.
Women have a tendency to gather information about a male to report & gossip back with their female consensus, while convincing males that he is “significant” to her.
Males have much more wisdom & better facts than females.

The one who gave theory of relativity also was “infected” by politics, as he was associated with political factions,the Atom Bomb was created.
Politics is not science. Politics should have no business in science. Politics is feminine. It’s done numerously by males, but mostly for showing themselves as “alpha” males. That’s right; I typed it.
The men who didn’t care about the game aren’t even safe from the “scorched earth” tendencies of women. To get to the ranks of the small percentage of masculinity that women see, you have to basically lose some levels of sanity.
There isn’t a balance. Women are often complaining about “dating down” & don’t even realize what’s happening. This is how it happens: As the ranks of the greedy gets increasingly smaller & smaller, women become even more unrealistic. Women’s further liberation, especially with pretentious degrees inflating their egos, has made them have smaller chance of getting a man who cares about her delusional ego as much as she does. Of other words. If you put a woman in a position of a president of a company, she’s not going to seriously get a man because she’s now looking for something with less probability. As more & more women are liberated, the value of masculinity is cheapened. Yes, that means: when you allow a woman to be directer of fashion-blogging, or something, she’s going to think that the automobile dealer is “nothing.”
Further, by the time males get to the increasingly narrowing top, as they lose more sanity, they’re not likely going to want to dedicate it to one. All that hard work, they’ll want to enjoy their fruits.

I actually got saved. If I would’ve gotten married, etc., although not necessarily the exact same thing, I would’ve been relegated to the similar situation I noticed my father did: he was an alpha male who was the leader of the operation. His wife got annoyed by him, called him a “wuss,” then got a large some of his assets in the divorce industry, which is enhanced by the feminine. Now, I have a new thing I have to save myself from, & it’s YOUR JOB to help other males from the very real traps of women:
You’re punishment from women for not even caring about the game & just wanting to be a waiter at a food-place will eventually be replaced by a similar process of a new invention used by greedy corporations of an automated type of waiter because the narrowed top enhanced by femininity turns you into a psychopath, or docile idiot. How can you not understand that women are the enemy?
It’s a mental illness due to the feminine because jealousy/popularity is intrinsic of the feminine: to be a partner in crime with another is her fantasy. Women are actually MORE competitive than men are, but their competition is not set by the mental intricacies. It’s like a football player pushing away all the others coming near. But the “pushing” by whores is it’s all those other men she’s with to have as a means to an end. What’s the end? Well there is no real end to a woman because that would require some amount of moralistic thought/consistency.
Thanks, women, for exercising your belief in some unrealistic masculinity, which has caused society to miss the men who are already perfectly healthy, & has caused dysfunction posed as “discipline.”

It’s largely a money racket.
A vast majority are actually too stupid to even be indoctrinated, so what’s the next level?
The education system indoctrinates youth for relative nonsense consisting of occasional truths.
The vast majority of the professoriate are a-scientific, anti-science, or incompletely scientific – repressive. It is a fact.

I’m tired of the infantile sexuality of the culture advising me. The true methods of sexuality is a “painfully,” literal “mechanical” one, which would make the normal culture thinking: “who the fuck talks like that?” Being a “dork,” as they would say, is a good thing. It’s what you’re supposed to try to become.

There are major professionals teaching to generations that there is no Truth. (You got to be joking me.) They claim that there is no good & evil, right & wrong. It’s such an easy fad for even aging guys keeping themselves as non mechanical as possible to not be seen as “awkward.”

Narratives are maintained by idiots who have, with their fake virtues, a wrong understanding of reality by the “experience” of liking things & products, & they have complexes that sharing opinions with others makes them qualified – barely any mental experiences & barely experiential learning, mostly sensation fixation.

Females “evolved,” to have personality disorders. The most commonly obvious ones are narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, & delusion is also a major one, among others. Why is it that when society regards evolution, they always make the assumption that both sexes shared evolution? They didn’t. Men evolved. Women barely did.
Just my personal observation, I have noticed that, for analytical reasons of mine, whenever I witness BDSM sites, there is much more emphasis by women. I’ve seen a lot more lesbian, or lesbian experimenters, managing & interested. The men involved have a lot less energy with it than they do. Men might have the organizational skills to front such communities, but women are much more insistent with it.
This calls for an extremely ethical mass reporting & testing by males to select traits males want.
Bluntly & simplistically because I don’t have time for semantics: women selectively breed & encourage males to have personality disorders like women do, keeping men in the past, or maybe a better way of putting it is no real personality, you’re just simply a “propulsion” grunting retardation to the whore, which is why no men should even take women’s tests seriously. (Which reminds me that being intellectual with women can work because, even though some males don’t like that method because they don’t want to have her as a combative peer, a lot of times they actually just parrot you like a little kid if it’s done a certain way.)
You don’t actually need to stabilize her if she is already committed, i.e., is prone to truly love you, which is why BDSM is really kind of a joke. Whenever I interact with whores, as they try to see if they can switch to me to get more accommodations for their privileges, without telling me they already have another initially, they have a tendency afterwards of saying “my boyfriend doesn’t let me hang out with other guys.” They say this of a way that discloses no real integrity – no real personal, serious consciousness.

The culture threatened by REAL male-centrism casts male exploration & experimentation as “peter-pan syndrome,” yet suffering & struggling is worshiped by gynocentrism. Masculinity is celebrated as almost mindless toil because females have the exclusive ownership of creation. Men are actually the ones who have assisted birth with female literal self destruction.

In a gynocentric culture, the masculine birthright of peace, for a lack of a better word is ruined: The boy lives in a world where struggling of the collective unconscious of the past is encouraged by gynocentrism. The child then bonds to struggling. This bonding then becomes an addiction to struggling. The male then creates situations of struggling to stir the main feelings of satisfaction.

Besides defending destructive trendy culture, which inculcates that individuated/mental males are “embarrassing,” females will even defend convicted criminals – as long as they’re exciting/”non-awkward.” The “assault” on mentally self-controlled males – calling them all these irrelevant” things as “awkward” – is the basis for every impulsive agenda of the whore. It bestows them leeway to indulge with thugs/immature, lame men & murderers.
While women strive for various styles, they actively appose real variation.

Erin Pizzey, writer on issues of domestic violence, which was even suppressed in England, addressed groups of workers described as having staff burnout. It occured when all provisions were made, yet women would still return to violent situations.
Just take the violent situations out of the equation. What do you get? Other types of burnout due to women.
Also, consider that emotional violence, which is more feminine, can be extremely cruel.
Anyway, all forms of violence occurs with both sexes, the most common for of female physical violence is proxy. So much for the theory that only men are aggressors.
Some claim that women who are attracted to violent/unhealthy relationships have daddy-issues, but there is not enough evidence for me to believe that’s mostly true, & there are mass demographics of females, of many consumers, to have amoral, bad tendencies. Knowing the “bipolar” nature of female men’s rights activists, I question Erin Pizzey’s potential level of cognitive dissonance.
The communities who have failed to build a structure necessary to provide an anti-naive way are the ones who are habituated to feel the ebb & flow of excitement & uncaring attitudes.

Warped masculinity is by the fact that women like men for a period, then deject/forget – literal anti-masculinity. It requires an excess for female inconsistency to be lessened.

In a foul, ineffectual nation, masculinity copes too well to not even realize it: the adjustment results with an addiction to instincts & struggle.

Erin Pizzey makes no serious mention that males who have degrees of immoral behavior have had major influence from the maternal. E.P. only makes the isolated argument that women who are attracted to the drama & excitement of a violent/immoral man just have daddy-issues.
Family counselor, Jesse Lee Peterson, with other studies, has stated that most violent male offenders come from single female-headed household.
It’s true: both from experiential learning of female collectivism, as well as empirical data, most males I’ve known who were raised by single mothers, or had too much influence from the maternal, had some serious personality disorders, or were impolite.
By first impression, you can’t discern the exact influence that would make mothers poor candidates, but drama tends to be more intimate/inclusive.
There’s an aspect about female nature that’s very destructive, as they feed on negative energy.
Stating “correlation does not imply causation” is a very fashionable thing. The relationship between women & immoral behavior is very real ( you can investigate the citations on end), as women have a tendency to, not only set conditions by their abuse, most often hypocritical, immature, emotionally-charged, also have limitation of understanding, & fueling more of it, on some kind of force, tainting decision making on the age-range when consciousness hasn’t even seriously developed.
Suicide rate of youth from fatherless homes is much more frequent, behavioral disorders are more frequent, high-school quitting, etc.. Without the male having proper diagnostics & help, the mother assigns emotionally damaging pills.
Women need to be noticed by mass culture to not be allowed to have any control of what is critical.
When Ann Coulter, which I don’t promote extremely – she’s not that impressive, explained some of these points on the Father Albert show, most of the women in the audience just proved her points by exhibiting primal responses.
Sure, not all males who have a major maternal schooling will become criminals, but the point is is that it can happen, & they usually adopt some level of immorality.

When pain & pleasure become mixed of early childhood, the result is further abuse.
Erin Pizzey records a case of, & it is an integral one, When 5 years of age, a girl named Olga was smacked by hand. As she felt a sense of fear & anxiety, she suddenly got a warm, tingling pleasure within her whole body.
She began to seek more.
Sexual intercourse was meaningless years later. It was extreme beatings she wanted.

What Paul Julius Moebius concluded – that the woman is an imbecile due to her physiology – has given me two conclusions:
According to researchers at Rutgers University, pain tolerance, which I’m not arguing for, happens during female orgasm, which is noticeable of how different it is than that of males, as well as that brain regions became more engaging during stimulation & orgasm.
Because of that, it gives masculinity, 1, more reason to have women sexually androcentric for the most part, to give females analgesics & stress relief, &, 2, to keep them with something busy, not tainting masculine studies.

I don’t think Erin Pizzey is intellectually honest (or gets it): Even though she makes a distinction of violence prone women, who will cling to such situations, & the other type, who can get with a violent relationship, will love the man but hate his violence, there is an unwillingness to address female amorality, which has it’s very basis of females being sensation creatures of various flexibility. They’re not intellectual creatures.
Women use words, & I define use as exploit, to further their drives of sensations.

Professionals are inhibited by policies. Policies are due to survival mechanisms. Survival mechanisms are due to female collectivism: “I can’t say that to my peers because I could lose my job, etc.. If I lose that, I could lose chance with a whore.”

It is further axioms that women are delusional on many levels: The adrenaline rush women want of some ways are burdening society with, which gives them more false beliefs, suddenly they feel like they are super-human, or something.
It’s partly why whores have the delusional fetish of an “invincible” masculinity, or something like that, that they think they’re going to get, & then when women interpret that he’s not, she then ruins him. It’s no wonder that women just run out of men, as they sift them out periodically before & after being with them for an indefinite amount of time. It’s almost as if they run out of them to keep themselves from ever realizing how delusional they are & that what they fantasize about doesn’t really exist (other than some sloppier versions).

People who are aggressive have inferiority complexes anyway, or are not intelligent. The wrinkles on ones skin are earned by age. A more reserved personality is earned by having more intelligence.

I’ve typed about what a spectrum is, but consider this: the color red can have other associations: The hybrid color: metallic pink-orange is not red, but it is associated with red.
Daddy-issues or not, there is a wealth of information – anecdotal, i.e., alert to female collectivism, as well as empirical – of how immature the spectrum, without using the word immature, of female sexuality actually is.
I think Erin Pizzey has a sort of “Tom Boy” condition of accumulating some information because she didn’t make it as really attractive, & I don’t mean that from a subjective way: Most men would not have the strong urge to have sex with her, so, because of her practical approach, she likely doesn’t even realize aspects about her own collective (or she denies it).
Yeah, beauty can be subjective on occasion, but you don’t need citations to make the general axiom that most men have a universal preference of a body figure.
There is a general trend of female psychology that “to punish is to improve,” or “the different is creepy,” etc.. They love facades of alternative lifestyles, but they hate alternative strategies.

There is a compulsory aspect about males who are burdened with female collectivism.

So I saw this group of teenage kids, wasting time, smoking, drinking at a park. There was one girl. I approached to school them. Talked to them a little, then ended it with: “you guys are wasting your time with her: when she finds another guy with better cigarettes, she’s going to “stab you in the back.”” Then I mocked them: “Yo, yo, dog, smoke weed.” I fled because they were preparing 4 vs. 1. Both sexes of that instance devalued me – “pussy” – because I didn’t give them entertainment. Get some potential brain damage, etc. – what kind of logic is that?

Bad guys are first for whores. They’ll introduce you to drugs, clumsy, feminine sex, & rock-n-roll. Good guys are for paying the bills.

Let me deconstruct a quote by Erin Pizzey:

“If society follows this pattern of moral decline, the future for children in this country looks even bleaker than the present.
………… a deep greedy need of self-service. They got where they are by a ruthless driving ambition. ( E.P. also makes distinctions of different types of violence. She notes of “intellectual” violence of middle-class, of which some ‘go mad’) ….contended human beings seldom seek high office.”

That’s the essential samples of a couple of her paragraphs.
My question is: What are the events & actions that serves as a stimulus & initiate or precipitates those series of reactions? The appetition of women does. Because female collectivism is the opposite of “spiritual” nature, it produces more primal instincts of man, unnoticed by mechanization.

When I was reading some of Erin Pizzey’s work, even though she associates with men’s rights activists, she seems more like a feminist.
She even gives her feminine tendecies of stating: “I have never met a monster, only vulnerable, confused, grief-stricken people expressing their pain in rage and despair.” – female lame morality. She probably masturbated to violent beastiality porn afterwards.
The “monstars”, implied by women, are harmless males. You get the point. I’m being provocative It’s not an issue of semantics.

Your decisions are much better by your information, & the really extraordinary information is, whether intentionally or not, stopped by female nature.
If all you’ve known your entire life is a poor way of living, then you think it’s “great.”
America is a culture of the archetype of “Thanatose” – death. The entertainment is a large portion of the information that we get.
This is not “social constructs” or “social engineering” of its core. It’s that women have men operating as “compulsory”, for a lack of a better word. Women also like their surroundings to be familiar: they want you, like them, to have have various forms of histrionic personality disorders: they weed out the masculine men from the effeminate men.
I hate anything that involves violence. It’s not even necessarily a “sensitive” thing. It’s just: How can I even take that seriously?
Why would you want to make obscurantist what shouldn’t be. Women are the ones who are obsessed with making it that way.
As female’s less evolved selection is contaminating the social pool, Female romance/sexuality is infested with fickleness, immaturity, additionally to women being clumsy & not even knowing how affection of quality works, drama & horror/suspense themes.
The reason this is is the same phenomenal parallel of the majority of artists who don’t actually have real talent. Most people don’t have real creativity. When you go to even the most extreme concerts, you see people doing the same thing, & there is trends of making their presentations dramatic because they don’t actually have any real creativity. There’s no need for the artificial like that.
This is the way that female sexuality is as well: Female sexuality is a soap-opera because they feel the need to over-hype & dramatize to maintain the female ego.

The only point that Erin Pizzey makes that I fundamentally agree with is that she states that experiences can cause addictions.
There are many men now who are defeatist, which is understandable, because they learned from experience, while naive little-boys keep persuading to apply male versions of cosmetics for women.



Nichiren’s View of Women by Mori Ichiu – Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3/4, Feminism & religion in Contemporary Japan (Fall, 2003), pg. 279

fMRI scans reveal why pain tolerance goes up during female orgasm and shows brain does not turn off by Bob Yirka – medicalxpress-dot-com

Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network (author(s) not specified.) – fathermag-dot-com

Single Moms Raising More Violent Men by Jesse Lee Peterson – wnd-dot-com

The Emotional Terrorist & The Violence-Prone by Erin Pizzey, pg. 15, 38, 53, 59, 60, 105, 135

How I Learnt Not To Be Afraid And Love Bukkake by Max Hydrogen – Sheddingoftheego-dot-com

Study finds marijuana use is associated with dating violence by Roberta Jenkins, August 13, 2017 – psypost-dot-org

Consumption of alcohol and marijuana associated with lower GPA in college – PLOS, March 8, 2017

BrainWashed by Ben Shapiro pg.: XV, 1

Chain Reaction: Einstein to The Atomic Bomb by Walter Isaacson, March 2008 issue – Discover Magazine

Men and women have different views on the most effective way to flirt by Eric W. Dolan, October 24, 2017 – psypost-dot-org

How young women convince men who want to use a condom to have unproted sex instead by Eric W. Dolan, October 29, 2017 – psypost-dot-org

Millennial Women Are Starting To Hit THe Wall by Vincent Law, July 27, 2017

To Accelerate Evolution| by Jessie Nagy


Living for the moment is dangerous of terms of evolution: If circumstances change more rapidly than adaptations can happen, faster than the fittest can be made, populations & species are vulnerable to risk.

It is important to appreciate that long-term studies necessary to study natural selection require certain things. For one, it needs continued aid. Biology itself selects for human researchers with characteristics harder to find. It just proves further that women don’t actually select for ultimate evolution when the sciences are impeded by feminine kitsch & their tendencies to ruin foundations.

Of North America, oceanic stickleback fish have adapted to new conditions by reducing size & number of armor plates.

Human species are much more mental than wild animals. We don’t have to adapt the same way that fish do. Human evolution is largely determined by how our minds interact. Yes, you do need defense mechanisms to women: When men adapt to the realization, brought by our own doing of modern technology & information, that women are not your – the male’s – benefactors, there will be change for the better of having the capability of total distinction. They are the enemy. Implicitly or otherwise, they’ve been using the concept of “love”, when it’s really just mostly a contract, of which you – the male – will usually be subject to disposability, especially when, as my favorite metaphor to use, you get a “scratch on your knee.” It really is that low. How does that make her NOT the enemy?

Of the wild, there are mating calls.
Art is preoccupations that are not evolved. Real domination is by systematic control. The latter has little appeal/confidence because the former is occluding.

Don’t allow them any chances to appeal to sophistication. Don’t call it sexual liberation or experimentation. It’s just disloyalty, immature sexuality, nihilism. Don’t call it emotional strength. It’s just personality disorders. Don’t call it the “school of leftist reptialiens,” or whatever. It’s just female psychology. Don’t call it divorce. It’s just female inconsistency. Don’t call it women’s studies. It’s just female psychology funded. Don’t call it women testing you. It’s just a waste of time. Don’t call it hypergamy. It’s just greed. Don’t call it opportunistic. It’s just looting, etc., etc..

Of the “apex,” women select for the political & the daddy-state. The process is, which I will type with a conversation I was having with a young woman: She told me that the reason why women are with the more aggressive men (“political”) is that those females are still in the stage of trying to find & learn. Translation: It’s the Feminist slogan: “my body, my BAD choice.” Then ,when older, it’s “YOUR MONEY, time, etc., my choice.” Meanwhile, permutations are reduced.


Irrational, & often Child-like, adrenaline-pumping, mobs are attributed to such types. Women don’t select for science. Science is the most “right wing” anyway, &, yet, we have poser/pseudo intellectual “masculinists” trying to insist that women must be guarded from the left, but the left-wing is actually a part of female psychology, & the concerned political groups are hindered/distracted by that process. No. you have to guard yourself from the feebleness of women.


After a verdict, the 1992 Los Angeles riots had fifty dead, others beaten, & did $1 billion dollars of damage to a society that had nothing to do with that verdict.


The democratic party & left-wing crowds are about using “emotional terrorism” of many kinds, especially to those who represent reality, with sloppy communication. The more dramatic & devoid of logic a mob’s chant is, the better it works to rile a mob: a crowd is only impressed by sentiments. An orator makes affirmations for female collectivism. The way science works is by individuation. There’s sectors who study the intricacies of one field to make connections, & they mostly respect & try to learn from a different field their not with. With the orators for female collectivism, it’s not really like that. Crowds can’t take logic. They take appearances.

Communication guided by masculinity is how women will have their egos checked. They will find how easy it is, & how easier it would’ve been, to be organic. When they get on the phone with their mothers, they’ll be able to say what they’ve had trouble with for like 15 years. They can attribute that to male directness.

To free masculinity of stagnation, & even instincts of lower animals, of the feminine, reformation of the character of dealings is needed. Gambling, business rush, & excitement, etc., are reductions of masculine vitality. Avoid most energy wasting habits & unhealthy addictions that only serves to your ego.

The forces retarding man is partly frictional & partly negative. Ignorance, stupidity are some frictional forces, or resistances devoid of directive tendency. Negative forces have a more definite direction: might-is-right mentality, self-destructive tendencies, small political beliefs, etc..

The negative “law of the strongest” happened when less violent men were confronted with violent men. However, the less violent men developed intelligence due to their energy efficiency, & developed ways to use tools. Positive warfare is intellectual, & the future is conclusive with intellectual warfare.

Previous forces retarding man is still prolonged with the female instincts in a modern context: Of course, we’re not living in caves anymore, but the “political”/casual men are of the mob of female collectivism of natural residuals: It’s actually very common for women to have the mentality that, if a male would rather resolve with real intellectual rivalry, then he, according to her, “doesn’t have much self respect.” It’s extremely common actually. Most women can’t even begin to understand what arguing even is because women are naturally much more vain, so the objective factor isn’t even with women.

The left-wing’s rejecting attitude to technological development is another mob attribute. While mobs demand radical changes, when it comes to scientific progress, they don’t want change.
Democrats don’t only want to block scientific progress, they want to revert it.

What – were you really surprised that female psychology is of it’s core left-wing? The traditions the left-wing are eager to negate are moral & sexual ones: First: “My body, my less thinking choice.” ~10-~17 years later: “Your money, my decision.” With women destroying, with assistance of the mob, the family unit because of unreal commitment, they don’t care for the havoc to others except for themselves. Confident that they can be drones to the automatic men of the feminine mob later, the rest are forced to live with their lawlessness, fake discipline, & bad energy. Crowds are too impulsive to be moral. With sexual anarchism of the beginning, they can then opt for relational welfare later, & then resort even more to the divorce industry.


When I originally quit the punk-rock/avant-garde scene, my past associates, which I didn’t really like that much anyway, used what is probably the worst insult in the metal, goth, punk-rock, industrial demographics – normal.
This deflection was not only superficial, but also not even true. I didn’t become a normal person. I became even more of an intellectual. Some normal people dabble a little bit with bad books, but they don’t seriously read science fanatically.
Some might think: that’s just a “zeta” demographic with loser-chicks. Not at all actually. The clubbing has some of the sexiest “weirdo” girls you could imagine. Even though getting some of those females is really easy because it’s mostly just about striking the coolest poses, I still had better integrity, & decided to convert to science & philosophy because that whole former lack of foundation is so “full of shit,” as they would say.
Anyway, those idiots have nothing to do with the original goth spirit. The root of it is good, & most of them come from degenerate hippy associations. Anyone who tries to be good now will be seen as a “pathetic loser.” Try being direct, & even worse.

The mob mentality of females bullying another girl for “getting out of line” having her suicidal has a corresponding mob of the “intellect”, relying on praise & ridicule – no logic.
The mob mentality is full of people with a desperate desire to be popular. This is why realists, scientific, seriously rational can not be a mob.
“If I’m not aggressive or entertaining, how will others like me?” “How will I have sex-appeal?” “My desire to be liked by the popular has no time for the long-winded discourses of unpopular losers.” “That’s why I need to do EASY acts of starting a band & other stupid stuff.”
Recent studies on young bullying found that much of it is driven by status anxiety.
This is why female psychology, almost always trying to be with the popular, is very dangerous, as it makes masculinity vulnerable, when whores, young & old, say it’s “creepy,” etc., for a guy to be different, doing his own thing with his own way.
Bullying behavior is correlated with how much the student cares about being popular.
People who pretend to be “sophisticated” by never castigating whores to not be labeled “sexist”, or whatever, are driven by the same desperate desire for social opinion, just appealing to a different in-group. With the guise of a “nobly dedication,” they’re not noble.


Poser intellectuals – virtually all residents of New York City – appeal to fashionable opinions; lawyers take positions that will make them super-looking; actors strike poses that they think will make them seem intelligent, etc.. Comedians try to look radical with commentary, yet still desperate – “bipolar.”


Results by Robert Faris, associate professor of sociology at the University of California Davis, indicated that bullying happens not only when eccentric or different, but also when avoiding being victims when trying to get to the popular ranks. Studies indicated that the rarer elite of 5-2% were not necessarily aggressive but, specifically, those who CARED to be popular, & it’s females who care the most for it. It’s understandable why good guys are used, but not specifically passionately desired.
This is partly why I say that ’50 Shades Of Greed’ promotes abuse of masculinity: She does not care about your struggle, & when you get whatever it is she might want, she’s just going to try to take credit for it, or leech.
Women may not be conscious that they contribute to this, but it is obvious that they call what is unpopular “creepy,” etc..


It’s only that some years later that having blue hair being popular gives women a new mask.


That is why I have never trusted fashionable philosophers, like Rand, or even female MRAs.




Tara Parker-Pope, Web Of Popularity, Achieved by Bullying, New York Times, Februrary 14, 2011

When Popularity Backfires: Climbing The Social Ladder Can Lead to Bullying by Alice Park, Mar 31, 2014 – time-dot-com

Popular Kids – But Not The Most Popular – More Likely To Torment Peers; Popularity Increases Aggression Except for Those at Top od social Hierarchy – The American Sociological Review, February 8, 20011.

The Making Of The Fittest – Sean B. Carroll, pg.: 38, 39, 53, 56.

Demonic – Ann Coulter, pg.: 4

As Popularity Rises, So Does Risk Of Being Bullied by Michelle Healy, April 1, 2014 – USA Today

Social Combat: Study Says Bullying Risk Increases With Popularity by Allie Bidwell, April, 2014 – usnews-dot-com

What Is Popular? Distinguishing Bullying & Aggression As Status Correlates Within Specific Peer Normative Contexts by Diego Palacios & Christain Berger scielo-dot-br

Fem. Would Rather Suck Dogs Than Respect Intellectually Evolved M. | by Jessie Nagy


It’s time to stop these false notions that women have some kind of virtuous power because they bleed out of their vaginas, etc..

What has been previously relegated to osbcurantism has resulted with surprising data confirmation. For one, Scientific American published an article that men & women were equally likely to experience non-consensual sex, & most male victims reported female perpetrators. We all know about the obvious stigma males have when reporting on anything that women do when they ruin masculinity. They also discovered that the rate of female sexual victimization by other women inmates is actually higher than what they previously assumed, & that women inmates are actually more likely to experience abuse as well, proving the assumption that sexual violence in prison is “mainly about men assaulting other men” to be wrong. Female staff are also a greater threat.
It gets even “heavier” than that.

If they taught me this kind of stuff in primary schools, I’d be a lot more motivated.

Another bad study: Taboo of prison workers falling for inmates more common than thought from DailyMail.CO.UK types why women really DO love bad boys: Females are more likely to lust after people with criminal records than males, study finds. It tries to state these women “need help.” They are not manipulated. They CHOOSE it. The article tries to blame it on other factors: “Should Provide more training for the women.” The psychiatry institutes are obliged to treat these fucking whores of a way to help them, but the reality is is that these women should not be helped. It’s taboo, & with all the sensations derived, they can explore their mentality of “I love a spontaneous man”, which translates to: I love immature surprises.
With these women disguising themselves with sophistication, ranging as doctors, psychologists, etc., it’s the exact same thing with the sophisticated looking “loyalty” to other contracts with men as she waits for him to be replaced.
A study found more than 70% of cases involving women.

Any man who gives pragmatic excuses, such as “women are submissive,” etc., is a fucking a traitor.

The way I school people is by setting my own lectures on my own terms. I don’t need to rent a venue. I go to restaraunts with outside sections, usually with a small wall of some sort. I come over, playing the ignorant extrovert, addicted to entertainment. With jolly, good times, to a large sitting group: “Have you guys heard about the breaking news?” Spanning it a little, maintaining their ignorant attention” to cause a scene. “It was all over the news. recently……. You know how Data Researchers can quantify things – statistics?……….They discovered that women look for violent porn much more than men do, while men usually look for body parts.” Then I end it with to one of the guys who has been inundated with the feminine, unhealthy idea that men are either failures or “invincible”, or something like that – that’s what whores want to see, especially with male perpetrators: “So next time you show your realistic side & you get a little, tiny scratch on your knee, she’s going to try to replace you with an ex-convict.” Then to one of the whores, “you fucking disgusting animal.” The aftermath is a crowd of ~9-~17 people just completely alarmed & questioning, which is exactly the way I plan on orchestrating it because that questioning causes more talking among themselves, more talking among themselves causes them to accidentally advertise my message of many different ways. These “yuppies” that I target are not going to “stand up.” If any of their whores try to “resolve”, usually they try to reverse it, some have even called me a “pervert”, they try to stop by saying that’s “inappropriate.” To which I then respond: “How is that inappropriate? They publicized it on the news. What – you don’t like being exposed? Can’t take reality?” I make sure to always be ready to leave with no contact from security, especially in a setting of just her power, she’ll claim that I “touched her ass”, or something. It’s done very carefully.

There’s multiple reasons for female rape-fantasy, but the most prominent one is due to a correlation of very controlling women who don’t know how to live in reality. You encounter these whores on a regular basis who get agitated by things that aren’t even an issue. These women who get easily bothered are the ones who have some serious “slaughterhouses” in their minds. WEED THESE FUCKING WHORES OUT OF YOUR LIFE. They want to control every little detail & tone-police everything for her comfort level, so that when another guy comes with factual honesty & no acting, etc., she can seek force, exemplified as rape-fantasy, against what she deems as evasive. Reality is evasive to a whore.

One of the most alarming findings is that lesbian & bisexual women are much more likely to be incarcerated firstly.
I’ve always been much more interested in hyper-feminine women.

It gets even worse than that though.

Studies analyzing hundreds of years of rule by queens disclosed they were more engaging as aggressors than kings.

When analyzing the latter years of these studies, it is claimed that these were sexist times, & that queens were more likely to be attacked, which could mislead one to thinking that’s why queens were more feisty, but the truth is is that, because it’s of the latter years – learning by experience, they derived that “No women should ever govern anything.”

This reminded me of a study I heard about in a lecture given a long time ago regarding geneticist Louann Brizendine’s findings that during Medieval times, male authority would use head-cases, like a chastity-belt type of thing, to keep women quiet. By first introduction, this seems so wrong, but I think what was the case was that, when ancients had a better understanding of female nature because they weren’t bombarded with all the entertainment & stupid memes, is that they knew the destructive nature of female gossiping & the politics & manipulation.

The thing is with women is that you can’t readily discern their violence because they don’t have the same planning methods. In fact, they’re very anti-planning. But if they could gain enough planning-power, you could see WW4, 5, etc..

The strange thing is though is that women are less likely to vote for wars. REMEMBER: Never take what a woman claims seriously. Always pay attention to their actions & not what they write on paper.

Superstitious & related cultures already know the vile nature of their women, which much of higher class has very little understanding of. They know of their violence & impulse of such women much more, which is why they resort to sloppy extremes. In some superstitious cultures, their alive wives have to go with their deceased husbands. Yeah, it’s stupid. I’m not justifying it. I’m just typing that they know, with entertaiment reduced, stupid memes reduced, by direct experiences as bluntly as possible, what female nature is, & it results with stupid extremes that. It’s kind of like the concept of stupid actions yields stupid reactions, something like that.

A “clock can be right twice a day.” Fanatical goat dealers & sand dwellers are very excessively angry ( I think it has something to do with their “baked” history.), but at least they try to maintain their women checked. Wrongly done, but at least they try.

The upper regions did not realize chivalry gave women too much destructive , stalling power, as they were preoccupied with exploring, creating entertainment, distractions, & not enjoying some alone-time together in between hard work.

The early Buddhist purists realized how disgusting female nature is, but they did nothing. Don’t be defeatist. Real healing is by hatred anyway. We’re going to expose whores for what they are, which will then give us the power to literally expose them as mainly sex objects.

Chivalry has given women the option of expressing their pretense to be more valid than just mostly that, which has caused them to span & inhibit the real productivity of civilization.
For example, women of the east come second, & their problems with women is minimized to some degrees.

Not only are women less evolved because they can’t distinguish between being forced to be in aggressive mode due to having to deal with the harsh environmental beginnings & wanting to be that, which women often desire now thousands of years later, they’re also less evolved because they can’t make well the distinction between men being dominant for good reasons & men being dominant for bad reasons. The men who have no part in any of this lunacy – intellectually evolved – are seen as nothing.
Female selection doesn’t push evolution. We are selected by women for reaction & servitude. Don’t make excuses for women’s less evolved nature: “They want protection.” THE MEN WOMEN ARE ATTRACTED TO ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE THE WORLD WORSE.

Of course, Oprah is stupid, & I don’t want to give it credit, but this is valid. In the earlier days of her show, she had a presentation on the most pervasive, deceptive, greedy gold-diggers of them all. With some of the biggest woman worshipers of them all, like they’re a “divine fem.” Some worship criminals/whores more than others, like fast-food is as much a part of U.S. culture as Sushi is a part of J.-culture.

Don’t think that the guy speaking-out is “commendable”, or something. They’re some of the most anti-masculine people out there.

He was complaining that all they look for is a huge wallet, & as soon as your boss switches your work schedule to just 5 hrs. less, or something, they “stab men in the back.” As histrionically as you place female importance above males, such as boys being just casually snipped, what do you expect? It is what happens when you reward criminals.

Men who give chivalry, etc., are not good-guys. They are using excuses. “Karma” is severe. You see what happens when you turn yourself into an “alpha” male, you fucking idiots.

I have also heard of this presentation that Vice did on a supposed Rape-venue in Eastern culture. Firstly, the name entails all of it: VICE. They don’t have integrity. They make videos for the purpose of ratings with the pretense of  “fair & open minded”, sensationalized for the views of the Mtv. generation, who aren’t even capable of serious, critical analysis. Even if it is completely true, which I doubt it is, that doesn’t constitute as a rape-culture. That’s only a rape-SUBculture.

There’s a short documentary (Well, it might get deleted. Users come & go.) on xvideos-dot-com: Fucked Up Fantasies by a user named Ashky010. There’s a clip, of others, of the typical bitch glorifying a fantasy of hers of how she’d like to be “beaten the shit out of”. With editing by distorted breasts & face, use it for infamy. I have noticed the stats of views are of the many thousands when this type of content is used.



Sexual Victimization by Women Is More Common Than Previously Known by Lara Stemple, IIan H. Meyer – Scientific American-dot-com, Oct. 10, 2017

Taboo of prison workers falling for inmates more common than thought by Ryan O’Hare – Dailymail-dot-CO-dot-UK

Queens More Warlike Than Kings by Adam Creighton – theaustralian-dot-com-au

European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings by Tanya Basu nymag-dot-com-slash-scienceforus

Women Won’t Save Us From Violence by Robert Gebelhoff – TheWashingtonPost-dot-com

How Science Can Be Slow Sometimes | by Pen Etrator

As a man, if you don’t have women’s unrealistic & inconsistent set of cravings, you’re just setting yourself for a trap.
Don’t let you’re guard down, don’t relax. Scold them first before she does it, because she will be relentless & use all this stupid points. I see a lot of guys promoting excuses to perform for women’s “cosmetic” preferences – “they love a spontaneous (bad spelling) man/immature surprises, but notice how not many men make the same points for taking risks to expose & scold women.

Using this kind of language is perfectly valid, which I will pontificate further towards end with the question of “Junkian” archetypes.:

So this fucking cunt claimed that I was “stalking” her because I was replying to her comment on the internet. Women take offense & get angry more easily than men, but their anger is often inhibited by fear, etc., & that’s why they will more often resort to slander & deflection: Slander with certain tactics will cause more problems to a person’s life than a blow.  That’s what the commenting sections are for. This lady had some pretentious college degrees, which just proves further that you can use sophisticated language & be completely stupid, & you can use crude, gross metaphors & still be extremely smarter. If she was in a live setting, & not on by the medium she was using, invented by guys she barely has any real respect for, she probably would’ve gone to an authority & claimed that I “touched her tit”, or something like that.

This is the most prominent point of female rape fantasy: There’s more than one reason. However, the most common reason is due to the exact same correlation of many women being controlling & manipulating: it’s a way to test a male for how reactionary he is, so that next time, when a different guy doesn’t have his behavior policed by female collectivism, she can go to an oblivious male to use the force of the male with stopped thinking against the different, because the different dared to not be apart of female collectivism. It’s the same exact principle that if you gave a fact to a woman that she can make some vague statement that you were pulling something out of your pants, because of the tone that she didn’t like.

What scientists have done, of many cases, is they’ve just deconstructed & created more & more experiments while other smarter people already knew.

I was browsing a fetish site, & I distinctly noticed this pattern: this fucking woman – iconographic idiot – commented on a guy’s collection: “You’re afraid to see her flesh.” But the guy’s collection obviously stated that he had a clothing & accessories fetish. She thought she was the center of the universe.

When I refer to art, what is meant is: Don’t give women extra stuff:  Many women retreat to elaborate fantasy worlds. For one, vibrators are very rough on a woman’s body. They tend to numb sensation. This is the ill-planning/accidental nature of gynocentrism. Studies have shown that during orgasm, a woman’s brain has several major zones of it go silent – particularly ones involved with inhibition, while male’s brain’s light up mainly in the pleasure centers. You have to strip it to the barest essentials, pausing extras, which requires the honest/realistic communication of mainly what the male wants.

A news t.v. show called Good Morning Britain did a show with Dr. David Holmes talking about the pattern of hybristophilia. Search: Psychologist Discusses Attraction To Violent Criminals. This is exactly why I stopped wasting money on parties, etc.: I noticed the pattern: When a guy says something real in a situation that whores are involved with, this will be perceived as “talking shit”, then another dominant guy will take that out of context & try to be a “hero.” Women encourage more & more of toxic masculinity. They don’t want strong men “to be protected”. They want those guys so that when a women is confronted with her mortal enemy – reality, she can use Mr. ’50 Shades Of Greed’ to crack the jaw of the guy who spoke to her with the wrong tone.
As I’ve typed before: women without men would be ruthless, or even more socially retarded.

The psychologist on that was so illogical. First he says it’s a paraphilia, then he says it’s “not” a disorder. It’s because he’s been groomed by the feminine, so he can’t even maintain a serious structure. The dictionary states:

noun, Psychiatry.
a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as sadomasochism

Thanks to females, sex isn’t even about pair-bonding. It’s about showing how trendy you are.

Female selection doesn’t push evolution. We are selected by women for reaction & servitude.

Men were violent in the beginnings because they had to deal with the harsh beginnings, not because they wanted to. Male cognition was also challenged because of that. However, women didn’t evolve as much because they didn’t have the same mental challenges, & that’s how they’ve gotten to their delusional state now. With babbling, that’s why the female attraction to impulsiveness still commonly remains while men have far transcended that.

I think that the mainstream culture is a reflection of demographics in general, so my message to all of you, as more reports like this are sprouting, there’s a little bit of entry in the popular culture as well, so all that there needs to be is more & more reports on female psychology. Think in terms of causing stronger impact by using excessive delivery, unlike the polite faggot (no, not homosexual. Originally, it meant bundle of sticks anyway, so I’m obviously using “Junkian” expressions) giving a mediocre rendition of it. D-news (Discovery) also did a piece on it: Why Psychopaths Turn Women On

Archetypal patterns/metaphors are biologically-based – yes, true, &, yet, women still stop direct metaphors, even when they’re acclaimed to be better with understanding metaphorical expressions.

The eastern philosophies were not extra stuff; they were concentrated meditations, for they were by “solid as rock with total self control,” & that’s why C.G. “Junk” missed this archetype of the demonic Daughters Of Mara: (I don’t have too much against C.G. “JUNK.” I’m just using a metaphor to express myself of his naïve stuff.)

Great truth of eastern thought, & since eastern thought is metaphysical, no citation needed: A bondage & limitation for purusa is kala tattva. Kala tattva creates the impression in purusa that he has some particular creativity, some particular artistic talent. These bondages of purusa are caused by purusa’s ignorance of his own nature. & this ignorance is another tattva, which is known as maya tattva. These tattvas are created by maya – illusion – for purusa. That purusa who is the victim of maya – illusion, therefore, does not know his own real nature & becomes bound & entangled by these kancukas & thus becomes a victim of prakriti.

Completely in accord with the Master, for the followers of Hinayana, the profane & illusionary world (Samsara) was identical with the female & network of Maya. Of all her forms – virgin, mother, prostitute & ugly crone – women stood in the way of the spiritual development

Before perversions & mass feminine adoption, during Buddha’s lifetime, he was blessed with a glorious misogyny: His women-scorning sayings are disrespectful & awakening: “One would sooner chat with demons & murderers with drawn swords, sooner touch poisonous snakes even when their bite is deadly, than chat with a woman alone.” He preached: It were better, simpleton, that your sex enter an oven than that it enter a woman” Enlightenment & intimate contact with a woman were not compatible. “But the danger of the shark, ye monks, is characteristic of woman.” At another point, with clarity he composed the following translated text, displayed with it’s very unhindered prose:

They are not wise. They act like animals, racing toward female forms, like hogs toward mud because of their ignorance. They’re bewildered by women, who, like profit seekers in the marketplace, deceive those who come near.

Another great one:

“The female novice should hate her impure body like a jail in which she is imprisoned, like a cesspool into which she has fallen”, demands an abbess of young nuns. Only in as far as they rendered their body and sexuality despicable, & openly professed their inferiority, could women gain a position within the early Buddhist community at all.

& another:

All women are by nature full of defilement & of weak intelligence.  & not by one who is by nature full of defilement & of weak intelligence, is completely perfected Buddhahood attained.”

I’ve heard of a theory. It seems to have some paralleling truth: It deconstructs to two groups: One group fucks promiscuously, has less interest in categorizing, & has less methods. The other group is more methodical, makes more categories, & is extremely hard working.
The history of the latter group was very interested with other things, which had their women not doing their role of establishing mansions worth of families of 5-10(+) kids, even though they had the power to do it. (Kind of like the movie ‘Idiocracy’) Very good with organizing, but not enough love-making. That preoccupation inevitably caused the chivalry which enhanced their own women to span time. Now it’s extended to delusions I’m not telling those women that they should be sucking every guy, I’m just saying: It’s never going to happen, ladies: You’re never going to get more upon more, ad infinitum.
The early Buddhists realized this inconsistent, using, mindless, nature of women, & early Buddhism is very androcentric.

I never had the opportunity to call this anecdote live: I remember attending a dinner hosted by a bunch of women. The mother’s daughter had a drug-dealer/addict partner. I got scolded there because they didn’t like the way I was dressed: like I was going to a funeral, yet very formal. That’s how I like to dress. As these whores were crowding this criminal boyfriend, because he had authority – the cute girlfriend, etc., I had to inhibit my scolding because he knew martial arts, & he would’ve probably attacked me. What this was was them misplacing their scolding on me, when the criminal boryfirnd was the one who was bad: he got her addicted, & she was violent & caused vandalism numerously.
The pattern is the same when women are shown the “detonation” button by the daddy-state, women press it, “raping” men with the daddy-state. (Of course, I’m using “Junkian” archetypes when I use “rape of that context.) When women do all of this, they make more excuses for women. We find men making excuses constantly for female vanity & ego, yet they don’t make similar excuses for men to take risks to scold women. You should do it before she does. Never relax with a woman. If you don’t do it before she does, she will use lots of trivial & evasive methods.

Tomorrow is just too abstract for women, so, of course, when I use metaphors like this, the crazy culture thinks It’s “crazy”:

You’ve had enough waging against the higher planes. The new waging will be replaced by one against “Shekinah”


(I do not 100% condone all references used.)

Slow Sex by Nicole Daedone, pg.: 47, 43

Healthy Cosmetics Vs. Unhealthy Cosmetics | by Jessie Nagy, a.k.a. Pen-etrator


Make no mistake: for one, the word: violence has a nature of polysemy. Get rid of issues of semantics.

Being a bad-boy was once necessary of the beginning, but now males have surpassed a lot of those instincts, & it’s mostly a cosmetic.

Some of these forms of intelligence – emotional intelligence, social intelligence, spiritual intelligence, etc. – are not actually a part of empirical data, but are only linguistic inventions. Most of everything that you would get from these popular courses of dating are actually very similar to the type of courses you get in theater classes. E.Q. is not real intelligence, even if a Phd with pretentious degrees tries to state it is to be liked. It’s like saying: “Because we can record the rate of a boxer’s punch, that makes the sport of boxing “scientific.” Those dating courses are procedures of how to present types of demeanor of different ways. You can either take dating courses, or you can be faced with the reality of being a productive male met with a general dealing of indifference.

Individuation is a mark of intelligence. The reason men tend to have more of various personalities is because of the environmental pressures they dealt with of the natural history that caused males to have better cognition due to exploring, etc.. Women didn’t have this as much because they mostly babbled with the communities of their natural history, so they evolved to do subjective surface-reading & have collectivism. The result of that was EQ, &, of the context of modernity, they get to impinge their collectivism on society, suppressing variation of personalities.

There’s lots of dismissing by mistaking past models, when psychopathic traits were more necessary, of evo-psyche for the standard now, yet, when I claim that most of that now is ‘artificial masculinity,’ they accuse me of being a believer of “leftist” social constructs, while they’re also willing to share anti-feminist articles that bluntly states that ~75% of male criminals come from single mothers, which is true. ( & female inconsistency & personality disorders is even more rampant with those same situations.)

Whenever you hear, such as the teen & early twenty phases, & after those ages, women are not even really worth it – by that time it’s just a lot of scraps, from other male peers of “being nice to girls puts you in the friend-zone”, etc., It’s usually from the point of basically altering yourself – you have to change for them. Telling males to embrace a past model that females are stuck on doesn’t give males power, it only triggers a loop. But, anyway, male power/”dominance” is really an issue of semantics because education is a form of “dominance.” That toxic masculinity is a “cosmetic.” Men are cornered to behave like that the same way that women are cornered to decorate themselves with tons of fake stuff, which is a good thing because it keeps them preoccupied out of things they don’t belong to, like science, etc., especially because women have a basic nature of taking things out of context. However, the cosmetic to toxic masculinity is much too destructive, therefore, female cosmetic application should be applied much more vigorously. The healthy cosmetic preferences of males is for females to look shiny, shut-the-fuck-up, & have no strong agenda. (Always look for the females who have the most amount of emphasis on those traits.) Female cosmetic preference is unhealthy: They want you to be oblivious for their use, collectivist, incited, hostile to solving by reason, etc. Yes, I know how nature-&-nurture works, & the encouraging by implication that females do is the result of the fact that women evolved to be much more selfish, & what is selfishness other than another branch of delusional, so let me establish basics because even that is lacking, which is the result of the feminine control.  It’s calling-a-spade-a-spade: The dictionary states:

“Psychiatry: maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness”

Of Some cases, when you have too many people around, & some are smart enough to get rid of them, it’s not because of “shyness.” It’s because of a way to minimize some bad influences: “You’re fired.”With women though, they often have a lot of female groups to boost their confidence, & they want other females to validate what they have: “Oh, that guy’s too weird.” This is female collectivism, also how they take it personally if another male has a very pretty girlfriend.
The pick-up-artist courses capitalize on female collectivism & addresses EQ – a totally false thing. Those courses are social constructing applications, just like cosmetics, mostly for guys who come with being branded as “too nice” & just honest , to have males be something they shouldn’t be.

Men who are socially dominant like to do things independently. Men who are socially dominant are “lone wolves,” & this is part of what women don’t understand. The unreal preferences that is never going to happen to women, as they keep fleeing, etc., is because of women’s perverted, mixed expectations based on that selfish inability to be on the level of reality. That’s why they need to do their role of positive hobbies of decorating themselves.

Both psychologies of more complex organisms than wild animals have gained the ability to ordain settings, so, of course, to say that the male sex is a “social construct” is wrong. However, to say that toxic masculinity is largely a social construct is accurate. It’s an issue of biological triggering: Females trigger their unhealthy cosmetic preferences. Males trigger their HEALTHY cosmetic preferences. Nurturing is a product of nature, as much as the word nurture doesn’t sound right when applied to the female side. I understand biology & how important it is to know all of that, but one thing people miss is that female biology is operating what is relative to the stone age. Again, those cosmetic preferences that women have were mostly once necessary. Social constructs are real. It’s just that women & feminists get all the social constructs wrong.

So if this sounds like a bunch of sophistry, I’m going to provide some science.

The lower levels of the brain, such as the limbic system, have more direct control over the body & are less able to alter their own neural networks. The upper levels are the opposite: they have greater neuroplasticity – change by neural/mental activity.

Of many cases: you chose to be aggressive. You chose to be a sex-traitor. You chose to access those centers of the brain wrongly.

“Survival of the species,” right? “Those who combine their genes are the winners.” Generally not necessarily actually. When you analyze it by the cynical point, which is the realistic one, you realize that those men have lost more. What they’ve gained is shuffling more stuff for the rest of their lives, etc., to the probability of being taken advantage of & robbed in the courts, then shuffling more stuff for the rest of their lives, etc.. The true winners have realized ways to change the game.

Females mostly have registration for males heavily operating on the limbic system, which females fuel & continue to feed off of. They tell you: “You can’t have fear.” But, actually, with their nonsense , they fail to realize that aggression & fear are related. They’re not “dominating” fear; they’re mostly masking it. The men who have dominated fear are the romantics, etc., even eccentrics, or what the common vernacular would call “gentlemen.” When females are confronted with such types, they think, due to the point of less female evolution: “Why isn’t he some variation of aggressive?” “Gee, he must be weak.” What is really happening though is those males have truly dominated the fear/aggression response by using much more abstract thought – something that females tend to not even begin to know, so the females do a process of weeding & spanning those males less or unacknowledged.

Using powerful magnets to suppress the emotion-processing of the limbic system changes how moral judgments are made

Strategies for sheer survival are effective, but they also cause destructive limitation.

There’s rational fear, but I’m referring to something else.

The “olympic athletes” of contemplation have trained their minds to control those destructive motivating factors.

The amygdala, like an alarm bell, pulses both a general warning of fight-or-flight mode of neural & hormonal systems.

When much of society is not doing anything of particular, the brain activates a “default network,” when functioning is to track environment & body for possible threats – background feeling of vigilance & impression.

When confronted with the contemplative, which is often called “making excuses” for not being like others, they don’t know how to interpret that, so they make assumptions” (Which can make the aftermath of the contemplative less optimistic.)
This meme of: “You have low self-esteem with self-compassion” is a misunderstanding of the fact that liking to do things independently is socially dominant/ “lone wolves,”

Fear & anger cascades through the body via the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) & the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPAA) of the endocrine (hormonal ) system. While the SNS & HPAA are anatomically distinct, they’re so intertwined that they’re best linked together, as an integrated system.

Emotional & social conditions of fear & aggression draws on many of the same neural networks as threats. The amygdala sets alarms: The thalamus sends a signal to the brain stem, releasing stimulation of norepinephrine. The SNS sends signals to major organs of the body, readying for fight-or-flee. The hypothalamus – the brain’s primary regulator of the endocrine system – prompts the pituitary gland to signal the adrenal glands to release the stress hormones.
Reproduction is paused – no time for sex when operating for fight-or-flight mode.
Emotions intensify, mobilizing the whole brain for action. Yes, that includes “Mr. Dominant” SNS/HPAA arousal stimulates the amygdala. Consequently, feelings of stress sets fear & anger.
As limbic & endocrine activation increases, the relative strength of executive control from the PFC declines. Like being in a car with a runaway accelerator, the driver has less control of vehicle, even with the pretense of “domination.”
Of the harsh physical & social environments of which we evolved in the past, when most died by forty or so, that activation was useful, but the costs of it today, with the chronic low-grade stressors of modern life, are severe.

Many parts of the brain are involved with emotion, but the limbic system is central to emotions & primal survival instincts.

The motivating factor of survival instincts fatigues more abstract thought process. When you have registration that want what is “poisonous” to higher thinking, which is greed, aggression, & delusion – “I need adrenaline rushes,” these poisons are actually going to be, although they were once very effective for survival strategies, weeding & spanning benefits. Sometimes these “poisons” are conspicuous; much of the time, however, they operate barely with any awareness.

The stern is capable of going against ancient currents. virtue restrains reactions that are very, very old, being mindful decreases vigilance & allows calculation & wisdom. Of some ways, virtue, wisdom, & being very mindful (not to connote some new age, hippy thing) are unnatural because they deal with social constructing. However, those lacking such capability to construct in different ways, generally lack the skill to transcend nature.

They tell other males who have dominated their limbic systems with more abstract though to apply the male version of cosmetics.


The structural world of man is inside a system – everything is going well because nothing abnormal is happening & your conscious knowledge suffices. Something tilts & that structure is ruined. So what happens? Your masculinity is hijacked. This is not me “shitting on opportunists.” It’s just the science of probability. That’s what happens when your partner has a long term affair, etc.. You thought you knew how you were. That is female nature, & it is irrelevant of whether you’re a “nerdy” male or a top-dog, or whatever. Anyway, “nerdy” has a farcical connotation because it connotes a readily identifiable appearance, but nerds actually have very little sense of style. You can’t “dress like a nerd.” The point is not how masculine, or whatever, you are. The point is female nature.

Paradoxically, the same fucking gynocentric idiots who want to completely restore the cyclic traditionalism, the same traditionalists who shame other men as “nerdy”, would be operating by “nerdy” means of when people were less influenced by the trendy mainstream culture.


The reason you have seen the influx of “romance must die” garbage – anti-male- is because they’re controlled by women, (& also have had their masculinity hijacked by m.g.m. I refer to ‘Accidents of Gynocentrism’ ) Women only see the ~15-5% of masculinity. The point is not that they want success.  That’s very misleading. She’s going to betray you. THEIR VERY NATURE IS SHE’S GOING TO TAKE YOU, LOOT, EJECT YOU, THEN LOOT SOME MORE – NOTHING MORE THAN ANT-MASCULINITY. EVEN IF THE STATE MADE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS TO ENFORCE MORE TRADITIONALISM, WOMEN WOULD DISTANCE THEMSELVES IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WHEN MEN WOULD BE MORE REALISTIC, SO THAT’S JUST ANOTHER ASPECT OF ANTI-MASCULINITY. When we look to unfashionable figures of history that were contemplative, romantic, eccentric,  & numerous others & artifacts, that is the representation that women are cheapening because their fleeting & looting nature is anti-male. History mostly records the most “flamboyant” figures – it’s not a point of “alpha”, it’s a point of recording isolated approximations, so we get the pseudo science that men are “aggressive,” etc., when there’s an entire other facet of masculinity which was never involved with silly distractions, & that’s why they’re not reported much in the history books. The ideal of masculinity  as more aggressive is way overblown & pretentious ( & it’s also Feminist as well because of the reality that female nature & Feminsim are both directly related, so feminists critique on the ~15-~5%).  I could be wrong with my estimation of that percentage, but they’re still a minority. Those are some pieces of history that women are masturbating to.

“Dominance”/violence/antics is a tactic for the stupid/morally lazy, & women feed off of this of varying degrees.

You should never take women’s labels seriously, especially the inflated jargon of pretentious college degrees because of this process that summarizes female psychology: A real “dominant” male, as much as I hate the word dominant, can see through all of it & women & her flaky ways, & therefore, she shames by reversing it & saying he’s not dominant.

Females encourage anti-intellectual, very, very old behavior
that men had already surpassed. which females have not so much. The problem is trying to find ways to get rid of the obstacles, which is female collectivism, to the advancement of masculine processes. Women’s primordial prone impulses drag everyone else down, & the “manginas” who assist them are no better. They are a burden to the advancement of real progress. We have to lower the definitions that women use as measuring for it is dangerous. So have fun undermining your own masculinity because you’ve already instilled what the female has to be fixated on repetitively. Have fun getting ruined by a woman because you got a scratch on your knee, or something like that.

Women don’t fully understand how male hierarchy works. They see a slap in the face for fucking the neighbor almost the same as a slap in the face for the fun of it. They certainly don’t understand the intricacies involved when males chose to cooperate, which happens more often than not, rather than compete.


When they say that female greed isn’t bad, which a lot of “dominant” men do, those men are undermining their own arguments for their own masculinity. I’m not denying that those who have heritage originated with corruption & bloodshed, but to actually use that as an aesthetic for evolution is actually antithetical to evolution.

Women don’t care if you have ethics, etc.. All they care about is if you have authority. They, themselves, lie, cheat, steal, cause indirect courses, use antics, etc., generally, to try to get “to the top,” so why would they mind being with someone else that does that? They actually prefer it. If you’re not doing similar things, they get bored or put you in the exploited “husband zone.” The reason they have a fascination with this small portion of men called the “bad boy” is because they feel like they have a lot in common & can be themselves with those bad boys – effeminate men.

Men civilized things as they were transitioning to evolution. They created laws, of their best attempts, moral culture, whether they were sloppy formats of religion, or whatever. That’s what allowed social cohesion.

The feral female though is still cheered & worshiped, usually by those “bad boys”, or whatever other version, that is seeped in female collectivism.

The expectations of women that you’re supposed to be giving her a life of the impulsive excitement she wants, for whatever stupid reasons she tries to justify with, is just slavery for men.

Yes, nature is a major factor that determines it all, but nurture is also a determining factor – maybe even about 50% + 50%.

They fantasize about rape because they want a brutal/impulsive male to just have their way with them – a projection of the female ego – with little regards to her feelings or objections. It’s why they hate more rational guys, but, yet, they raise the social structures with the facade of something else. This bipolar/scattered mind should never be allowed to vote, make decisions, etc. – why I argue that women should be confined to “shuffling garbage”, etc., for most of their lives. Their nature needs to be contained. When set loose, it leads to destruction of civilization.

Neither female looting & fleeting nor gynocentrism serve the evolution of this species anymore. They have mostly gone full circle & regressed much of  it. Just consider women’s looting & fleeting nature giving them the position of selecting in terms of the way they shop: they spend 3 hours buying stuff that’s just going to go to storage & they stand there for long times considering things that’s not even legitimate – decision making by the stupid.

We are experiencing that “education” does override nature of many cases. We see it with the destruction from feminism, etc..

There is a power to technological & mimetic culture that enables species to adapt to change & to evolve new lifestyles.

Even Charles Darwin stated: All sentient beings developed through natural selection in such a way that pleasant sensations serve as their guide, and especially the pleasure derived from sociability and from loving our families. So, you see, there’s much more to Evolution.

Mammals & birds have bigger brains than reptiles & fish. The more social the primate species, the bigger the cortex.

As women have disclosed their tendencies of “more” harmony to be largely myths, or very inconsistent, it has influenced the consequences of suicidal tendencies toward cultures. Feminism did not make women this way. Their less evolved psychologies have always been, latent or otherwise.

As neuroscientists put it, the “computational requirements” of tuning in to the signals of relationships helped drive enlargement of brains over millions of yeas. As we know, when in relationships, there’s a lot of of negotiating, arrangement, etc.. Brains got bigger. It may be satisfying that monogamous species typically have the largest brains in proportion to body weight. &, yet, with all of masculine better capability for integrity, it’s usually women who are destroying the family unit, NOT FEMINISM, NOT THE POLITICAL GROUPS – that only adds to it.

The harmonious balancing  of multiple layers of being simultaneously – that’s a Darwinian reality. Your brain is actually attuned to tell you when you’re doing that. It reveals that what you’re doing is meaningful, & your nervous system is adapted to do that, but the problem is, as already typed, women do a lot of destabilizing.

  • The brain’s capacity to learn – & thus change itself – is called neuroplasticity. You learn by recognizing/recording experiences. Some results of neuroplasticity are dramatic.


  • Mental activity shapes neural structure of a variety of ways.


  • Neurons that are particularly active become even more responsive to input.


  • Busy neural networks receive increased blood flow, which supplies them with more glucose & oxygen


  • When neurons fire together – within a few milliseconds of each other – they strengthen their existing synapses & form; this is how they wire together


  • Use it or lose it: Inactive synapses wither away through neuronal pruning.


  • Heightened arousal facilitates learning by increasing neural excitation & consolidating synaptic change.


  • Learning different things makes enduring changes in the physical tissues of your brain, which affect well-being, functioning, & relationships. Scientifically, being kind to yourself is fundamental.


Now, making my point emphatic again, especially because in the information age people read things divided, just as how females are the determining factor that makes males obsessed with survival mechanisms, they’re also the motivating factor that creates issues of semantics. When I use the word “gentlemen,” most generally think of terms of men who are productive, or just the general male experience. However, if I just take one part – men – out of it, all of a sudden, people are more prone to thinking of fem-dom, & other silly ideas. Why does this happen? It’s because the limbic sysem is not involved so much with more abstract thought. You need survival mechanisms to a certain extent, but when gynocentrism is prevalent, it’s unhealthy. Men who are “gentlemen” are not “effeminate”, as females define, which males “write” for them. They’re more evolved. These issues of semantics are directly correlated to the cosmetics that men apply with artistry, & by that I don’t type about genuine art for men, such as visual enhancement, I refer to it as the artificial artistry for her. Women are a burden to the advancement of the male sex if not harnessed by more abstract thought processes.




The Government Can’t Replace Fathers by T.F.M. – Shedding-of-the-ego-dot-com

Knock, D., A. Pascual-Leone, K. Meyer, V. Treyer, & E. Fehr. 2006. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science 314:829-832

Rasia-Filho, A., R. Londero, & M. Achaval. 2000. Functional activities of the amygdala: An overview. Journal of Psychiatry ad Neuroscience 25:14-23.

Raichle, M. 2006. The brain’s dark energy. Science 314:1249-1250.

Raichle, M., and D Gusnard. 2002. Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:10237-10239

Raichle, M. E., A. M. Macleod, A. Z. Snyder, W. J. Powers, D. A. Gusnard, and G.L. Shumlan 2001. A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:10237-10239

Sapolsky, R. M. 1998. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. New York: W. H. Freeman Co. 2006 A natural history of peace. Foreign Affairs 85:104-121.

Rick Hanson, PH.D. with Richard Mendius, MD Buddha’s Brain pg. 52

The Loving Brain – Healing & Treating Trauma, Addictions and Related Disorders Conference, December 2, 2011  by Rick Hanson, slide 6 & 9

How Dd Humans Become Empathic? by Rick Hanson, Ph.D., 8/16/2011 huffingtonpost-dot-com

Begley, S. 2007. Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves. New York: Ballantine Books

Tanaka, J., Y. Horiike, M. Matsuzaki, T. Miyazka, G. Ellis-David, & H. Kasai. 2008. Protein synthesis & neurotrophin-dependent structural plasticity of single dendritic spines. Science 319:1683-1687.

Spear, L. P.. 2000. The adolescent brain and age related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience Biobehavior Review 24:417-463.

Lewis, M. D. 2005. Self-organizing individual differences in the brain development. Developmental Review 25:252 -277

Interdisciplinary Approaches, Lexicography, Linguistic Theories, Pragmatics, Psycholinguistics, Semantics by Agustin Vicente and Ingrid L. Falkum, July 2017 – linguistics-dot-oxfordre-dot-com