Historically, most men were not “conquering”, etc.. What history does is it only notices the most prominent figures, so that report of masculinity is lacking,.

I am neither a part of the alt-left nor the alt-right. I am a part of the “alt-up.”

I don’t ask for donations to a paypal-account, etc.. All that I request if you believe in my beliefs, is that you make my content go viral.

Some have mistaken me for the C. word because I don’t regard the greedy sates of capitalism – the other C. word – well. But, actually, I’m anti-political: I have Technocratic beliefs. The politics of the C. word is the glorification of human toil. The worker. Technocracy is antithetical to that. The C. word was behind the times – an antique idea.

With much of everything being on social media, anyone from almost all sectors of life can post almost anything, so that is how we get such casual, silly ideas, & they’re much more prone to taking things out of context because they haven’t actually developed a way of integral objectivity, & they have issues of semantics & assumptions. The same fucking idiots who are the ones with the attitude of “get a life” to people who are actually more objective are now trying to act like arm-chair professors, or something like that.

A very brief bio.: When I was a teenager, I decided to just break a Velvet Underground album that I was listening to & I just thought: fuck this. I’m converting to science & philosophy.


The main concentration of my reports is this:

♂ Advances Of Data Quantification | by Jessie Nagy

(If you wish to do a recording/re-publish, WITH ORIGINAL CREDITING, this article will bring a lot of traffic to your site due to the controversy – good/bad press. How do you think that people like Oprah gained such prominence? It was because in the beginning of her career, she presented taboos.

I’ve typed for shedding-of-the-ego-dot-com, but, with further proof, my professional life doesn’t need validation:)

Firstly, if you believe that if it’s not professional enough, it’s “worthless,” you are sadly mistaken, which I will prove. If you also believe that it’s always “unscientific” to refer to ones own experience, you are sadly mistaken. I will prove, with scientific references, ( citations on end) that you don’t always need scientific citations to validate all anecdotes.
There’s a final chapter of ‘The Story Of Psychology’ by Morton hunt, typifying that articulate stupid people do exist, & academia is full of them. Many other sections of psychological research have been regularly, fiercely & often successfully opposed by special-interest groups & advocacy groups – politics, sociology, etc., resulting from threat of violence, physical attack, terminated promotions, lack of tenure, etc.. Genetic differences of mental abilities of sexes & biological basis for differences of sexes are some. The record is far longer, but that is enough to state the facts are as unpopular & detestable to many segments of the population, especially including the women. Just imagine how much that actually happens considering that women comprise of a large percentage of the population. Popularity is not the test of truth. Legitimacy is not determined by social appeal. Calling it “pathetic” & believing that you know more than those who are free from entertaining & being liked by others is irrelevant of this context.
Donna Eder [1985] studied rudimentary dynamics of popularity with females. She concluded that when females were nominated as the most popular, they were the most disliked by other females because of the who-does-she-think-she-is mentality – “don’t get out of line,” which we all know when they gossip in the bathrooms, etc.. Since they are much more prone to collectivism, it’s scientific to make anecdotal generalizations about them. (males are currently somewhat collectivist because that’s the current state.)

With this article, I will prove that females are actually more “macho” than males are:

The true cause of the slowed process of civilization is due to their own women. I can prove it with scientific references towards end of comment. (Yeah, there’s other factors, but it’s mostly their fault.)

Women didn’t actually evolve to the same degree as men. Not only did they evolve less, they also evolved differently: female evolution was mostly linguistic, hence why they go to the bathrooms together, they gossip & start politics. The reason that is is because women were mostly doing really basic stuff & babbling, so they also evolved to be more subjective.
The environmental pressures had men choose to do exploring, discovery, hunting to give to the families, etc.. It made them develop higher cognition. Men evolved to be more & more objective, while females evolved to be subjective.

An article by health professional, Taylor Larson: ‘Studies Show Lesbians Much More Likely To Beat, Sexually Abuse Their Wives Than Heterosexual Men.’ proves the spectrum of female collectivism that basically keeps telling boys to be “the bad boy”, & all it’s various derivatives – “how to be a real man”, etc.. But the reality is is that there is no “real man” when it’s implied by the female delusions.

Writer: Ian Miles Cheong has given an another article about data quantification based on what people are typing in search-engines, & it was discovered that women fantasized about violent porn much more than men do. It’s ~98% accurate, leaving that live questions has indirect, incomplete, & even lying answers. His article is the most accurate you’re going to get, also leaving the original obvious truth: male sexuality is mostly bodily/visual, which is also correlated to their objective mentalities – males like to seek their environments & stations & treat things as a muse. Just search for an article ‘FEMALE HYBRISTOPHILIA: PORN FEATURING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS MORE POPULAR AMONG WOMEN THAN MEN’ by Hedon.

Please stop the issue of semantics. When I use dominant, it’s for a lack of a better word. Further to understand what is meant: When I use “gentle” I don’t have it by the context of passive, losers, etc.. What Is meant is the same context if gentlemen. When we have that term in conversations. People think of it as the male experience, which is vastly different from the female experience.

The fact that women are stuck on “dominant” mode is nothing more than female projected lack of evolution. What are women attracted to? Vampires, Werewolves, billionaires, Pirates, even Jack – The Ripper’ – all unrealistic. (Sure, women are with more patient men, but this is mostly use/indifference for practical reasons.) Did you know that when the serial killer: Richard Ramirez had his infamy, there were actually women from cross-state trying to compete for his affection. You can search for it yourself. It’s called hybristophilia, also known as Stockholm Syndrome, although I wouldn’t put it in such a polite way as syndrome because it connotes that women should be given sympathy, it’s “funny”, it’s “cute.” Women are quite perfectly fine being confined to shuffling garbage for the rest of their lives without having the same issues with it that males would, & employing women with that kind of service would keep them out of things they shouldn’t be involved with. I don’t believe in equality at all. The idea that women should be promoted is absurd. They’re very happy to thrive with a tedious life. The most obvious case is the ugly woman working in a department store for the rest of her life, relatively unimaginative & unaffected by it, with only the less happiness of not getting a guy, to which she would be able to switch to other deals.
Because females evolved more subjectively & less than men, they project on society what men are, or should be – anti-intellect, impulsive, etc., & because of that subjective projection, they are waiting & fleeing to try to get something unreal – something that doesn’t even really exist, wasting a lot of time .
If you don’t believe that these archetypes of masculinity is nothing more than ficticious projections of female nature, just look at ’50 Shades Of Greed’ ( or they want “spunky”). That story is nothing more than abuse of masculinity under the pretense of “control” of women. The whole premise of that story is that he is a “vicious guard dog” for her to indulge in her immature sexuality. Dogs become that way from abuse by early age. That archetype also represents about 0.001% of the male population. It can only be real due to the synthetic conditions of society.
With women’s projected lack of evolution , & subjective evolution, combined with their collectivism, they take & want you to be stuck on their level.

Morality does not equal “shy”/”sensitive.” Men evolved to be more logical than women, & with better logic, you derive better morality, etc..
Acting “dominant” is only rewarding women’s personality disorders. Men are not supposed to be “dominant”. “Dominance” is a pop. culture myth perpetuated by women, & it needs to stop. The way we do this is by starting to implement the exposing of women. We report on events like the fact that criminals – a small subset of masculinity – have crowds of women flcoking to them. It’s a real thing. You can research it yourself. Sure, not all women are “like that,” but most women are a variation of that with their fucking dramatic “bullshit,” as they would say.

I will even dare type, which I know is unfashionable due to female collectivism, that gentleness, which still features intense passions – females just can’t see that because they think in terms of wondering archetypes, needs to be implemented seriously as an actual preference of males. The problem is women are intrinsically anti-masculine.




‘A Mind Of Her Own – The Evolutionary Psychology Of Women’ by Anne Campbell, pg.: 120

‘The Story Of Psychology’ by Morton Hunt, pg. 770

The Encyclopedia Of The Human Brain by V.S. Ramachandran, pg.: 301

Studies Show Lesbians Much More Likely to Beat, Sexually Abuse Their Wives Than Heterosexual Men
By Taylor Larson – Squawker-dot-org