Uncharted Aspects Of Education:
“Learning” by regalement is not good enough for me. Most rebuttals against me have been that I need to experience the validation of what is counter to ratiocination. The same culmination I have gathered has been shared by other men who are either in their mid. ages or who are seniors, if they weren’t spared such conclusions at the time when many women seek middle aged men to use for all the time that was wasted in their younger years. I gained the answers in my early 20s. I already nebulously knew in my late teens, but did not refine the answers until my early twenties. Martin Van Creveld, author of ‘The Privileged Sex’, who I cite subsequently, is one of those who is both much older, as well as highly bookish – double the power.
Females are accommodated from dangers of all kinds – physical, emotional, & mental. First I will Explain the physical & emotional aspects, then the mental aspects. It’s not necessarily bad to accommodate them from such. What is bad is when that atmosphere presides most of a culture.
For one example, Males In Britain are more likely to suffer from lack of psychological support, overcrowding, & lack of amenities. Most males universally already want to be tough around age 4.
There are behaviours & attitudes that would make parental & authority figures create difficulty for the male child. It is conversed for female children.
To say that the following is due to “patriarchy” is faulty. It all commences from feminine oblique appraisement. Females naturally have an inborn prepossession for the most leathery of the apposite sex, regardless of what they express to be the contrary, & they favor this over brainpower. They might be attracted to doctors, for example, but not because of the will of his mental concentration, but because that doctor holds authority. That is generally what females are mostly concerned with. If you don’t believe, try this: next time she customarily asks you “how are you”, reply with “not so good.” You’ll notice that your relationship will soon recess & possibly be terminated because of her.
In many societies around the world, males may have to endure humiliation by having their hair removed, even pubic hair occasionally removed, make absurd poses, get naked in front of elders, recite self mockeries. Symbolically familiar? Ordeals of nutritional & sleep deprivation can also occur, & physical pain, such as body modification & tattoos. In Papua New Guinea, some tribes climb to a high place, fasten a rope around their leg, & then plummet. (Supposedly what inspired bungee jumping). Just very basic samples of universals. Other many examples would be too lengthy for other readers, & possibly exasperating. The enigmatic issue of male genital mutilation is the biggest example. Tribal women in Australia told a researcher that they would not marry a man who could not show himself to bear the pain. It is seldom told by reasoning to discipline young males to remain hygienic & in control of such regions because reasoning is extirpated. Simply, females select stupid males, so we have a stupid society. Female genital mutilation is outnumbered & due to amateurish societies jointly, not males-oppressing-females. Many actions of such cultures are poor.
On the mental aspects accommodated:
By around the early 1900s, it was not absolutely mandatory for females to take hard courses of mathematics, Greek, natural sciences, & Latin. This was the prototypical setting to modern equal opportunity.
What female separatist schools shared in common was pleasantries. The Feminist Mary Wollstonecraft, who once managed such a school, stated that it was here where the pupils were “first spoiled”, both for the U.S. & earlier Russia.
From 1850, schools became intensely feminized. By 1900, 0.75% of all public school teachers in the U.S. were women. By 1920, it was 90% & above. Boys were now being taught en masse by women for the first time in history, which caused the boys to be treated more like girls. They were disadvantaged because of this.
By 1950, females were getting better grades than males in elementary school not because of better skills, but because of more accommodation for females. The trend has grown since then to also high school & universities. Simultaneously, importance of grading has been ruined. When schools admitted females, they were hustled to remodel the system to meet females’ needs.
Because more educational opportunities are open for females, they also have more collegiate options, like the arts. One of the feminine demands is to include cleaning & cooking to be worthy of grants as much as Latin & Algebra.
If females were separately taught, it has been claimed that they’re discriminated against. If taught with boys, that they’re needs aren’t supplied.
Feminists blame the fact that females’ tendency to be involved in the humanities & the arts is due to society steering them towards such. It’s usually the apposite actually. Past attempts to introduce technical work to females didn’t change females’ tendency.
A president of Harvard – Larry Summers – actually lost his rank because he dared to suggest that there should be further studies on mental differences of
of the sexes.
Surveys conducted by several countries prove that female academics are generally less productive than males.
Other than perhaps devising a means to rate how technical a female can be, usually sexually dimorphic – masculine – females, it’s best to keep females simple & out of the way of male endeavor. Invent new schools for females to specifically further their generally limited nursing capability.
Advocating their traits in academia does not only have consequences in academia, but also in the external social arenas as well.
The more the culture over-emphasizes instincts & performing, the more jaded & entitled the consumers become. With the calculating approach, the skilled & competent can preponderate rational, scientific sovereignty, not the fake kind feted for the superficial & carnal, by reclaiming the dormant scientific recovery, truly representational of progress, which has been adumbrated by imbuing by the apposite type.
THE OTHER EXPLANATION FOR HYBRISTOPHILIA/STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, ETC.:
GG Allin was a punkrock artist (scam artist, whichever you prefer) who was huge in the underground scenes from ~80s-90s. His antics & his violence were consistently excused by the usual pre-dominantly female whores because, in their eyes, his violence, rather, the symbolic violence of the vanguard party, were a ‘righteous’ violence in that his exhibitionism had some kind of purpose, albeit shock.
I’ve typed before of this stupid hippy culture, which is basically adoption of feminine traits.
I think this interesting theme that “masculinists” are exploring in the female whore psychology tends to oversimplify that behind the violence that female whores are attracted to, even among the so called anti-establishment anarchic punk-rock whores, is the fact that it may just signal power and dominance, but even much more so than that, I believe it is a major craving for novelty. I believe that the protection-provision factor is really the “beta”, if you will, interpretation, but the “alpha”, interpretation is just resonating megalomania, which we know females are. A cultural anthropologist, which I’m not promoting because she’s not that revolutionary or anything, Hellen Fisher, (Must I really search for citation in my collection. You should put faith to rational types instead of celebrity losers.) also expert on dating, has stated, from the typical humoring/indifferent point, that dating is not about honesty & rationalizing. It’s about novelty, excitement, &, of course, disgustingly, danger which can boost dopamine levels in the brain. You can give plenty of citations, & the feminists & related will still try to deflect & humor. Males know how abstractions work though. Citations are important to make reports stronger, however, you don’t need that “crutch” to validate every single thing. You can derive more truths from a given presentation; if one thing means this, then that also means such-&-such – making the connections. It’s called thinking. I read it a long time ago from an on-line article on dating with the tag Hellen Fisher. This explains exactly what the modern man has been pressured into. The importance of more abstract, philosophical thinking, & I will claim I’m more of a philosopher than an actual scientist, & philosophy comes before the science – you can’t have science without it “sparking” the science, I knew already before ’50 Shades Of Greed’ was a vastly popular series that that was the way females are. It’s actually a very unrealistic fantasy of the female mind & even a projection of how they actually are. The majority of males aren’t purely like that – bipolar, cunning mind-set, & histrionic. It’s females who are “macho,” often hidden. It’s only until after that series became extremely popular that scientists decided to do more research on study groups, but, again, from the philosophical, with maybe some shoddy, Platonic additives, abstract reasoning – connecting the axioms, I already knew that.
You have to understand it by the context of what violence means of it’s totality. Words have multiple definitions. Of course, not all of them are like that, so it doesn’t concern them, but the point is is that MOST of them are of some percentage from subtle, moderate, to extreme. Search for documentaries of G.G. Allin. That guy got females instantly. & I know directly by learning-from-experience because I was raised in stupid “Mtv.” loser culture. Many females are drawn to the phenomena of Stockholm syndrome, etc., simply for the cocaine-high. In fact, many women actually leave productive, logical males because they DON’T cause commotion.
There’s a reason why intelligent males are cautious of you dumb animals, & it’s because you keep perpetuating various versions of this ’50 Shades of Greed’ garbage. But how could you understand that if you’re not actually siding with intelligent ones? Just because you’re with a female who gives the surface-level notion that she’s cooperative with a more functional male, that does not mean that she isn’t waiting for Mr.-ex-convict to replace you.
The disgusting “hippy”, whatever you want to call it, culture, which comprises of ~75% of people from age ~12-~40 of different versions, including “rap-ghetto-thug”, only contaminates because females basically own that. They call it “confidence”, but it’s really just obliviousness. The complete way of fixing the problem would’ve been if I had this knowledge when I was ~8 years old, then I could’ve saved myself a lot of trouble & what traitors claim to be learning-by-experience, which is really just an excuse to be like a woman – a nihilist going-with-the-flow. When you really think about it, who’s really the first one to promote & introduce to you these dumb, unproductive ideas of “Want to smoke pot”, etc.? A lot of times, it’s females, & they’ll also ostracize you if you don’t. I’ll even type majority.
It’s a combination of both a symbol of protection & provision, but also a major fundamental point is novelty. Sometimes the novelty is the only reason.
These acts themselves trigger some sort of recognition of power, dominance, hierarchy, yes, the very elements that these scene queens claim to stand against.
Think about it this way, when I was young and got a peek into the idiocy GG was doing on stage, would that have an equal significance among the punk-rock girls if the same obscene antics were being carried on by a seemingly less intimidating person with less muscle mass and bone density, or no status, less “exotic”symbols? Would the “purposeful,” “righteous” violence of a socially inept, un-stylish, as well as crippled individual in the scene render the same kind of attention and significance? It wouldn’t. It’d be dismissed or hold much less significance compared to GG. And that’s the point. Behind the violence & acting, it’s the females’ biological attraction to megalomania, no matter the social and political dogma, mainstream or otherwise.
I have been saying that for many years, which was only received by those types of idiots I used to associate with: “I disagree because it makes me feel bad for you”, “I’m going to interject for attention because it’s a vanity contest,” “I think you’re using a lot of words because you’re jealous of my ego,” etc.. & the same typical bully interpretation of “That’s a nice little critique/get a life” because they’re so fucking naive & traitorous. Same as the suburban hip-hop loser; “This fool coughs like a little bitch.” It’s really just the fact that they want to be naive.One person has stated to me when I gave him this info.: “I really don’t understand how you and others can divorce your emotions from all these rather troubling revelations.” To which I responded: you know, what I do is I just work it out by getting a tan, etc., & like get drunk at bars to speak at a woman’s level. No, but, jokes aside, I’ve actually treated these troubling revelations by trying to use freedom of speech in public, which is a really bad idea. If no oblivious males come to her rescue, she usually transfers that schooling as “flirting”, or thinks you’re just trying to be funny. We have to make sure that “masculinists” schools mostly males because they are the oblivious tools which females use. Females need male obliviousness for power. You eventually overcome the depression. You just get desensitized to it.
I’ve actually even been treated as a “threat” before & made to look like a bad-guy because I WASN’T participating in the contest.
To give a little history on the whole punk-rock/”Mtv” loser/poser culture who basically missappropriate an identity mark that doesn’t belong to them – being the archetypal “loner nerds”, etc., who get harassed by “bros”. Most of then are actually those “frat/jocks” in just a different uniform. G.G. Allin wasn’t anarcho. If you follow through this silly history lesson, there’s a pattern. He was punk-rock-`n-roll & some hardcore. Anarcho is another sub-genre of pseudo intellectual bands that claim a lot of politics – the type that a lot of these females claim to “believe” in, then when given the choice, they suck the cocks of G.G. Allin types.
I have seen & experienced this pattern so many fucking times; females have been following this trendy phase of entertaining the archetypal different Ian-Curtis/Joy Division & Nick Blinco of Rudimentary Peni interest, but the truth is is that they’d take ‘The Meatmen’. In fact, when I used to be unfortunately involved, I had my own different approach, & all those “jock”/”frat” idiots exploiting the identity that isn’t for them retaliated against me. The problem was that when I was infected by all that “poison”, I couldn’t articulate it well enough because the truth was all suppressed, & we all know who’s responsible for that, & I just became a clown.
So there’s the quick-fix someone would try to sell you – “Just earn a good amount of money & she’ll follow your lead”. You do that & you’ll likely get stabbed-in-the-back. Even if there isn’t a ~65%-~75% chance, there’s still ~50%. & after learning female psyche. for what it is, why would you want to be a servant to that & promote that way? This disgusting story needs to be given, even if it is isolated: This guy saved all this energy, time, planning, & money for cross-state meeting. She then cheated on him because “he put her on a pedestal.” & this was also another one of these “Mtv.” retards. She claimed to be a “mystic”, or something stupid because she heard a couple of rap songs about the illuminati, the mafia, whatever, & had some green hair. You get the idea. He obviously showed that he was capable of devising organizational skills, & all that – ruined. It’s really because his obviousness made him appear “weak” to her. “Oh, but that can’t be true because the new Aphex Twin song that they’re playing on the hot-dog shop.” Last I checked, she was actually with a guy who did put-her-on-a-pedestal, but I know she’s waiting for Mr. ’50 Shades Of Greed’ to replace him. It’s just their fluctuating identities & the fact that most of what females say isn’t even anything real. This fucking dumb whore thought that she had some kind of authority just because she had some tattoos, smoked marijuana, & belonged to the pathetic, bored, “yuppie” losers in “weirdo” costumes.
One thing I’ve learned from studying linguistics is that there’s a lot of patterns & versions of the same things, & you have to realize that all these smug, lame people confined to a related lifestyle, activity, or something particular, they really don’t have the-big-picture, & they frequently ruin the actual big-picture.
This is the basic pattern of various ways of terms to the arguments: “You’re boring, you’re a pussy”. Logic & the morality derived from it is “extremism”. “That’s just generalizing.” People haven’t learned this branch of mathematics called generalizing because they’re too preoccuppied (bad spelling) with the stuff I’ve repeated. They continue cycles. The ever desperately running out of deflections: “You copied-&-pasted”/”It’s fake.” It’s “fake” to them because they don’t even really do this learning-by-experience that they claim to do. It’s actually deflection by distraction. “Hysterical” – deflection by shaming – if you’re a male, “it’s always your fault.” “You got to learn to train women”. If you don’t do that, you’ll be a “whimp.” If you do do that, you’ll be a bad-guy, & that’s how they call authority for defending, which only proves a various version of the hybristophilia. From the outside-looking-in of those oblivious males, they think they’re being “heroes” because they’ve all been chasing this “confidence” thing – obliviousness. They have no idea, or close to no idea, of what’s really happening. The police who defend them when a male uses gives them real logic & morality are the biggest naive, little-kids there are. Most of what they know is paper work, the n.b.a finals, & taxes, etc..
To paraphrase Warren Farell: Even among rebels, artists, & punks, it’s the “alpha” (as much as I hate that concept because, like the word “hipster”, it barely has cohesion.) who gain acceptance.
This is just the tip-of-the-ice-berg.
Science gave birth to civilization. Philosophy gave birth to science. Art gave birth to philosophy, at least sometimes. They’re still stuck on that primordial pre-birth, if you will. There’s so much science hasn’t even popularized yet.
Of course, female sexuality is anti-intellectual. She wants you to be that “police officer who alarms her on 3:00 p.m. & uses excessive force on her for resisting arrest.”
I wouldn’t even be surprised that if this were to become more obvious, the “Mtv.” idiots, as I like to call them, would switch to saying “naaw really.” because of the feeling that it’s a challenge to their vanity. It doesn’t even really matter what you’re saying because they’ll incline to not like you for saying pretty much anything because it takes the focus away from them.
It’s all just an issue of them being addicted to entertainment. They argue, but not because they care about what’s right or wrong. The real motive is that they don’t want the good time to be ruined. Last time I made enemies because of all this, they pretended that it was about philosophy, but it was really just motivated by a territorial attitude. You couldn’t even make points because it was a “dick measuring contest” of what you’ve done because they’re still stuck & “contaminated” by femininity.
“No, it’s all fake because porn is too entertaining for this to be true.” No, it’s the reverse; Disney-Land & Mario-carts is fake.
Some might give you some elaborate or sophisticated sounding philosophy, like Sartre, or something like that, or they might give you some political points, but what does that directly have to do with natural psychology, sexology, science, etc.? You wouldn’t even be able of uttering the word sexology without them thinking you just contrived it.
You know exactly what I mean, you people with a lack of integrity. You’re the first ones to claim what I do is a “veil of semantics”, yet I’ve just made all these metaphors simplified for your level.
“You just can’t get laid.” No, there’s serious problems that have to be fixed, so I’m not just going to forget by seeking pleasure.
True, scientists are not conducting elaborate studies on the macro so that it could be taught in elementary school – the period it should be taught, but there is accumulating anecdotes that it’s obvious now of many versions. They’re not willing to accept anecdotes though because being an obvious & rational male makes you look “weak.” “You’re supposed to be an actor & competitor in the sports-tournament.”
People are not going to take me seriously because “It’s my fault” that females have a good way of masking – “that’s generalizing” (what partly caused evolution was the capability of noticing patterns & making general rules) – that they want, which they often don’t even realize themselves, an ex-convict Mafia-member & making noble males servants to their ill-integrity, infantile ways, & bad logic, etc.. They might claim: “that’s just some of the bad women”, but the truth is, whatever they claim, if they’re given the offer, they’d take the “ex mafia member who’s willing to go back.”
What really worries me though is that if there was a mass schooling for females, would be if they just changed-shape because that wouldn’t be good enough; it wouldn’t historically record enough.
Search: What Fifty Shades of Grey Readers Have In Common – Stefan Molyneux (iF that documentary is even still available)
They allow art & sports in academia so all the females & retards can feel special. It’s a democratic form of understanding based on a double arrowed property of flattery. Society will not give the podium to anything ratiocinitive because that would result in the enforcement of the separation of direct subjectivity. The ones who should be winning “Grammy awards” are the ones who are conducting rigorous research, cracking mathematical codes, showing light in a world of darkness, not your fucking “Hollywood rockstars” & “pin-up models”.
“& SO THE WORLD WILL GO ON, SINKING DEEPER & DEEPER INTO THIS MORASS OF KITSCH, BARBARISM, & INANITY…….” – FROM ‘THE MANIPULATED MAN’, PG. 155, [Pinter & Martin edt.] BY ESTHIR VILAR
BEING “COOL” IS JUST AN EXCUSE TO BE COMFORTABLY STUPID.
POSTMODERN AESTHETES ARE INFECTED WITH “FEEL GOODITUS” – STUPIDITY FROM INFATUATION. IT’S THE CONTAMINATION OF MULIEBRITY, SADLY BELIEVING THAT HIS DELAYED PUBERTY WILL BRING SOMETHING MEANINGFUL. THESE “SUBCULTURES” – (OR AS I LIKE TO NEOLOGISE: SUB-COUTURE) – AESTHETES – WILL TAKE FRUSTRATION OUT ON THEIR FELLOW BROTHERS. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR FRUSTRATED, IRATTIONAL TRIBALISM STEMS FROM AN UNHEALTHY INSTINCTUAL YEARNING TOWARDS SYMBIOTES WHO EVALUATE & DENY A SOCIAL LADDER ON THE BASIS OF CATHARSIS.
APPARENTLY, THE SOCIOLOGIST NORMAN MAILER, WHO, I THINK, WAS SADLY PRO THIS “MOVEMENT”, BRINGS CLARITY ON THIS SUBJECT THAT HAS BEEN DEGRADED BY IRONY AS A DEFENSE MECHANISM. THE WORD (NOTICE: BEFORE READING THE FOLLOWING, PLEASE FOCUS ON THE DESCRIPTION OF STUPID ACTIONS OF THAT WORD RATHER THAN THE WORD ITSELF THAT HAS LOST MEANING THROUGH IRONY, AS THAT IS HOW THESE PEOPLE COUNTER ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVE ANALISYS – THEY “DEFEAT” THE CONTEXT BY DILUTING THE CONTEXT, & THEY APPLY THIS WORD LOOSELY TO A MYRIAD OF PEOPLE TO TRY TO EVADE THE DEFINITION.) “HIPSTER” IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORD HIPPY. THESE “HIPSTERS”, AS HE DESCRIBED, NOW IN THEIR VARIOUS MORPHING SPLICED STYLES & SUB-STYLES RANGING FROM “METALHEADS”,”PUNKS” TO THE “CARTOON CHARACTERS FROM OUTER SPACE”, CAME AFTER THE HIPPIES – BORED SUBURBANITES WHO CHOSE TO TAP IN THEIR PRIMITIVE SIDES & HAD ENOUGH MONEY TO TAKE ROAD TRIPS UNDER THE INLFUENCE OF VARIOUS NARCOTICS.
SOME OF THEM APPEAR TO BE OPEN MINDED, BUT UNDER THIS ACT IS A CONCEIT PROPPED BY A PATHETIC SUBSCRIPTION OF OBSCURE STYLES. WHEN INTRODUCED TO ONE TRULY DIFFERENT, NOT DIFFERENT TONES & APPEARANCES, THEY FEEL EXCLUDED, & CAN BECOME HOSTILE. THEY VIEW MOST INTERACTION AS A CONTEST. YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU ARE BEGINNING A NEW HOBBY & THEY WILL RECEIVE THAT AS A PERSONAL CHALLENGE & THEN THEY WILL STATE SOMETHING TO TOP YOUR STATEMENT OR WILL ADOPT YOUR NEW HOBBY WITH THEIR OWN LITTLE RENDITION , NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FLOW OF THE CONVERSATION OR TO UNDERSTAND AN ACTIVITY, BUT JUST TO REAFFIRM COMPETITION IN THEIR LITTLE “COOL KID RETARD” CONTESTS – A CONSTANT VANITY STRUGGLE. THEY ENGAGE IN DEBATES NOT BECAUSE OF GENUINE INTEREST IN INQUIRY OR CORRECTING, BUT JUST TO HOG MORE ATTENTION.
THINKING THEY ARE “JOHN LENNON” BECAUSE THEY TOO CAN CREATE TODDLER SCRIBBLES &/OR SOUNDS, THEY OFTEN CAN’T COOPERATE TOWARDS MEANINGFUL PLANS THAT DON’T JUST INVOLVE FEELING GOOD.
THEIR MAIN CONCERN IS BEING CONSIDERED “COOL” AMONGST OTHERS, SO THEY MIGHT SIDE WITH YOU ONLY IF THERE IS A PROSPECT OF COLLECTING “COOLNESS” POINTS.
THEY INTERPRET EVERYTHING ON THE PRIMITIVE ENTERTAINMENT BASES OF ELEMENTARY LEVEL OF PETTY SYMBOLISM, WHICH GIVES THEM SHORT ATTENTION SPANS TO LEAD THEM TO TAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT; YOU COULD SAY THAT YOU ARE READING A GERMAN WRITER, THEN THEY WILL THINK “OH, YOU’RE A NAZI”. ALMOST AS DUMB AS SPORTS FANS. PERHAPS DUMBER. AT LEAST SPORTS FANS EXAMINE STATISTICS. IN FACT, THEY OFTEN HAVE RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO HOLD VIEWS THEY CLAIM TO DISAGREE WITH IF THAT PERSON PRESENTS HIMSELF IN A STYLISH MANNER – OCCASIONALLY PASSIVELY DABBLING IN AN IDEA JUST BECAUSE OF ITS IMAGERY.
THEY ONLY THINK IN 2 SIMPLISTIC TERMS; “EITHER YOU’RE HIP OR YOU’RE SQUARE”. BUT WHERE DOES THIS PRIMITIVE FEELING BASED MODE OF “THINKING” & SENSATION SEEKING REALLY COME FROM? IT’S UNCONSCIOUSLY EMULATED FROM SOMETHING ELSE, OR RATHER, OTHERS. RATHER THAN SPECIFYING FURTHER, I’LL GIVE YOU THE WONDERFUL OPTION OF FIGURING IT YOURSELF.
I KNOW YOU’RE CONFUSED & HURTING, I WAS ALSO ONCE CONFUSED & HURTING. HOW TO STOP IT: PUT ALL IMPORTANCE ON THE CEREBRAL & LEARN TO CONTROL EMOTIONS, RATHER THAN HAVING IT CONTROL YOU.
Consider this common scenario: A singer of a musical band may not be the organizer, or particularly intelligent, but, because he is the loudest & most shaky, this implies to the uncritical aesthetes that he is somehow a “leader” or the most “competent”. This is partly why I despise art & artists, not the technical artist, who will contribute towards anatomy or engineering illustrations, but just the common artists. Aesthetics leads to becoming alogical & amoral.
Did you think of the mathematical formula that would go towards the blueprint to produce your guitar amps? Hmm? Did you weld those metal pieces together? You have your tools to create meaningless pollution, however, I have my tools to create what actually matters.
If we analyze the bloggers Thinking-ape, a.k.a. Stardusk’s: ‘ The Time For Pretense Is Over’ or Barbarossa’s: ‘Deconstructing Game, and PUA frauds’, we can derive a difference from the world of arts & sports to make a distinction between unhealthy libidinous male-on-male competition, which only fosters celebrity attention, temporary entertainment, & is purely stalling, & subjective, with healthy male-on-male competition via the realm of science & philosophy, which is both endowed with subjectivity as well as objectivity & contributes much more to society.
Females’ sense of morality & honor is completely different from males’, & often lacking. The people who have the most confidence are usually the stupid people. The more raving the confidence, the dumber. Those who tend to be more intellectually, technically, ethically, “spiritually” evolved tend to be more austere, which is a good thing, often because true knowledge is “dangerous”; meaning: causing estrangement. What a highly masculine/rational male would understand as psychopathy, or related to it, is not going to be agreed, or even recognized, by the society that has been involved in the cycle, hence why males that would emphasize such validating would be refused by the female & have her “henchmen” – “patriarchism” & it’s products – support her en masse; “That observant guy doesn’t know how to socialize.” No, it’s that “observant guy” doesn’t want to waste time with stupid people & ineffectual routines of “I like your shirt.” That “observant guy” understands patterns which others do not because others’ stupidity is predicated only on whether something is shrinking or lively. In a case of trying to draw such in: “Hey, why are you so quiet?” Of course, the real answer could cause a potential fight, or just a worthless argument with people who couldn’t even begin to understand anything of importance – slanderous assumptions of “he’s shy & socially inadequate” against what is much too complicated for their level of slanderous thinking. The real answer is: Because I’m just not interested in you. Cogency just doesn’t make it in the arena of the normal & stupid. It’s like an engineer of the highest grade trying to explain his field to a primeval gorilla.
If a little coffee has been spilled, they won’t accept the paper. Rather than the actual message itself, females are much more concerned with how a message is given. It’s all hurled deflections – the typically repetitive ad hominems (which is so sickening that I’ve had to explain these juvenile reoccurences so many times) of “you’re too insecure about how to sexually please a woman,” “you’re a sad loser living in your mother’s basement”, the assumption of “you probably just like fem-dom porn & stuff & that’s why you complain about female psyche., so go find a female to match your passive desires.”, etc., etc.. As well as to conjecture so that they can rely on their own faith that, to them, it’s really not enigmatic, much like higher mathematics is too mysterious for many, so as a means to discard troubling reasoning, these are just meant to replace the focus on the debate to just iconography instead – altering the dialogue onto assumptions & matters of no real validity.
Feminists do the same thing through the repetition of herd-like speech and behavior.
Vagina panderers of many styles maintain this anti-realism due to always being ready to sell themselves & change their shape for catharsis.
But this interchange still creates a feeling of crookedness even in the panderers of the vagina; subconsiously intuiting: “I do it for fear of alienation.”
A realist is destroying their carefully maintained “Stockholm Syndrome” by making them uncomfortable. They can’t handle it. They’ll be discarded from the herd if they are receptive. Their existence is threatened, so they fend with “evil”, “Look at this grammar mistake he made,” “quick, I need that ‘Eliot Roger’ reference”, “Let’s laugh at his style,” “look at this weird thing he likes,” or some other object of triviality.
& to borrow from Esther Vilar, (Of course, this reiterates my point further of how those trying to deflect will use whatever cheap little iconography they can use to amplify assumptions they can’t even prove that “I’m an unoriginal faker,” among other deflections) this is an explanation of the reinforced projections emanated by females.: “As absurd as it may sound: today’s men need feminists more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless, and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their animalistic instincts. Therefore… Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without their arrogant accusations the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press didn’t stylize men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.”
Dubiously, It’s actually most females who fit this misrepresentative “macho” description explained by Vilar. This “macho” definition applied to males & assented by males is a false meme originally surmised in pandemic by females’ circumscribed personal extraction of presumptuous vaunting of just some of the opposite sex, often endorsed to gain acceptance, that has a magnetic like resonance on their own vanity.
The wrong memes that are created by mundane peoples’ bromidic circumscription are the very same ones who will often devalue independent research as pseudo-professional & “unworthy”. Their devaluing of independent research becomes a self-full-filling-prophecy as more & more of their ochlocracy replaces the scientific realism that is free of cultural conditioning.
Essential Neuroscience & A Proposal:
Sex differences – cognitive, physiological, etc. – of the brain both disrupts & interests the public. Discussion of discoveries is vulnerable to pseudoscience and assumptions. However, do not mistake this for pseudoscience. It is rigorously sourced. This is a note – meaning: refining skill, as well as archiving essential info. (this one took a lot of effort) – on a highly difficult field, however, if you check the original sources, it is correct.
Scientists come from polite societies, they’re pedantic, they’re even sometimes neurotic & afraid. Science is influenced by bureaucratic, political, social, & monetary influences by others who have no business in science. Scientists are still not free from the limits of anecdotal isolations, as much as they like to deny it; male scientists live accomplished lives with pragmatic marriages of wives who give distractions not core of what they really are. Neuro-scientists regarding cognitive differences of male & female brains are still influenced by emotions when they emphasize that females are communicative, when all this really translates to is petty commentary by her – pointless, extra commentary of real work by males. Science tries to be diplomatic. It is constructive.
A reaccurance with science regarding sex differences, in addition to some form of disclaimer of something to the affect of: “We do not wish to reenforce sex stereotypes”, etc., etc., & in addition to the typical fact that testosterone fuels aggression, then leading to something to the affect of extremely high testosterone levels, such as incarcerated males – a minority of the male population, & the basic fundamental of females being “skilled” with language, while males being skilled in visuospatial & constructing. What they tend to omit though is that real logic is not scattered, it is the ratiocinitions of absolutes, so just because females are verbose, that is just that. It is often the typical & subtle narrative of males being more belligerent & careless doers, without even emphasizing their own accomplishments, such as what is right in front of one’s face when reading such science constructed by males, while females are emphasized as more “communicative” & “reasonable”.
Neuro-science is a technical field that will confuse both appositional – “marriage” by more cultural aspects rather than harder science – mens’ rights activists & especially feminists limited to sociology. Do not confuse sociology with science. Science is much more confusing.
There is specialization of cognitive functions of the right & left hemispheres of the mature human brain. There are significant differences of the rate of maturation of apportionment of cognitive functions between two hemispheres.
Assessment by behavioural testing of relative participation of bilateral hemispheres in spatial processing involved tactual perception. Children were required to palpate simultaneously, out of view, two different insignificant shapes for 10 seconds, each with the middle & index finger of one hand. The children then attempted to establish the two shapes they sensed from a visual display that contained six shapes. For adults, tactile shape distinction relies mainly on the right hemisphere. Regardless of their level of proficiency, which largely overlapped of females, boys did consistent with right hemisphere specialization, which means left hand identification was superior to right in this particular test as early as age 6. This is one way of what I mean about confusing m.r.a.s.. This has absolutely no connotation whatsoever of females having more “agile” brains. It’s just a fact of different STRUCTURING of the female compared to male brains, that’s all: Females showed evidence of bilateral representation – no clear hand superiority – until age 13, suggesting males develop greater specialization of hemispheres during earlier age &, therefore, that over an extended period of development a sex difference is probable in the hemispheric allocation of cognition.
Sexual dimorphism in the neural organization underlying cognition might have educational implications. For instance, reading is considered to have both linguistic & spacial processing. Brains of boys & girls have probable different organization for such cognitive processes involved in reading at a time in development when they are learning to read. Different approaches in teaching reading, such as the phonetic & look-see methods, which stress different cognitive strategies &, by inference, depend on different neural structures in two different sexes, may not work equally well in girls & boys.
If the right hemisphere in girls is not specialized for a particular cognitive function, then it may retain greater plasticity for a longer period than males. Again, no connotation of females brains being more “agile”, just structured differently, that’s all. Clinical impressions are consistent with this idea. Language functions appear to transfer more readily to the right hemisphere in females than in males after damage to the left hemisphere in childhood.
Different Structure does not mean anything of the sort of females being more “productive”, etc. It’s just neutral science of difference. Another neutral fact is that males have a higher rate of developmental dyslexia, & developmental aphasia. All syndromes of language deficits as a dominant symptom. Sorry guys, it’s just neutral science.
We are still at an early stage in our understanding of sex differences in human organization.
Psychobiological research proves that many sex differences of the human brain is biologically innate & relatively resistant to extreme alteration by culture. Biographies are only significant to the extent of studying individual cases for whatever reason. Confusion starts when statistics & the latter are carelessly combined.
Hundreds of research proves that females are more sensitive to sound from the infantile stage, especially of mother’s voice. Female babies are more startled by loud noises & orient more to tone. With females having a waning of hearing at generally a later age, their enhanced hearing persists throughout life.
Do not become hostile to this. This is not “anti-male”. It is a distinction between the follower capabilities of females & constructive capabilities of males. It is obvious that females have a natural propensity of multitasking, cooperating of the level of service, while males to have a natural propensity to construct some forms of systems – leading. Females are basically much better at orienting themselves to completing applications, appointing themselves in a depriving setting, & employing functions that requires very little imagination, such as mass assembly-line careers. Rapid sequential movements are done better by females than males.
There are distinctions of what females are more attentive to. Generally – not individual biographies, females are more attentive to social contexts: speech-craft, tones, & faces. By age four, females are more enthusiastic & better at distinguishing faces.
Females do generally exceed in linguistic capabilities, speaking sooner than boys. Stuttering is also a defect more exclusive to boys.
There’s evidence that girls seek knowledge differently than boys, favoring “communicative mode”, asking & receiving others’ anecdotes. They rely more on social cues, intensity of expression, etc..
Boys show an earlier superiority in visual acuity. They do not do these unimaginative tasks as easily & enthusiastically as females, which means “clumsy” to a collectivist mindset ready to pack toothpicks for the rest of their lives. A male baby will be much more interested in babbling to a toy or inanimate object than to mother – “anti-social”. (“Uh oh, let’s get him to a psychiatrist for prescription pills.”) From early age, males will often fixate on a geometric figure – mathematical inclination, manipulate it, & study it. (“Oh no – said the mom, our boy’s interested in taking apart things, he might grow up to be a serial killer, or, god forbid, a surgeon.”)
A study by department of psychology at Stanford University confirmed boys more curious, especially to environment. Research also confirmed better ability to mentally fold, rotate, etc.. Females, when doing same task, produce elaborate verbal explanations, which also disallows them to be appropriate for similar tasks. ( I would, admittedly, be much more prone to the latter inclination of elaborate linguistics due to my “infiltrating” capabilities, however, as typed already, personal biographies do not negate generalities. There’s also a major difference between enhancing logic by intricate language & having a loose associative distribution of language for the main tasks of following, which is feminine.)
EEG measurements have been applied to electrical events within the brain.Ordinarily, hemispheres indicate a synchronous rhythm – each sides rhythmically the same. When one is doing a mental task, for example, subtracting, the hemisphere activated will demonstrate a change in its electrical background. It will be desynchronized. When boys doing tasks of spatial concepts, such as discerning mentally which of the three folded shapes can be made from a flat, irregular piece of paper, the right hemisphere is activated consistently. Another approach is to present an irregular piece of paper to the right & left visual fields. Of boys, the fastest response always follows the presentation to the left visual field. This is consistent with EEG confirmations of a desyncronization of the right visual hemisphere. Contrasting, girls continue to employ their best when the task is presented to the right visual field, showing that they use their left hemisphere for both linguistic processing & visual tasks. Different structuring.
The use of left hemisphere by girls for both spatial & verbal processes results in an interference – a type of “log jamming” – of which the use of words to solve a spatial task causes incorrect, slowed or no responses. Specialization of operation in one hemisphere causes better ability. Male right hemisphere specialization for visual functions makes superiority on visual-spacial problems when tested for particular assessment of differences of female & male in spacial localization.
Some testing have even been de-emphasized due to controversy.
In terms of personality, both sexes indicate major distinctions. Males have indicated to have predominance of curiosity. In tests of more willingness to follow exact prescribing – doing-everything-by-the-book – females scored higher. There is an innate tendency for females to be better followers, essentially.
Boys were found to be less subject to their emotions when decision making on a various testing & more willing to take risks. Females were found to get better grades, which is due, as I have referenced, that schools are set to yield to females’ herd tendencies rather than innovation. Autonomy & independence are usually associated with masculinity.
Females with higher I.Q. gains tend to be unique.
Subjects with testicular feminization were found more prone to have feminine cognition of verbal tendency exceeding spacial & mathematical. Women Indicate a heterogonous pattern for speech representation within the brain more so than males. Simplistically, females tend to do better on “left-brain” tasks, males on “right-brain”.
Women react vehemently – feminine scatterings to non-collective innovation – to these findings, confirming their limitation to mostly following aptitudes, even when some of these findings indicate some aptitude for them. Some studies indicate bihemispheric capabilities of females, however, that is just different internal structuring, not more productiveness. This is a problem when scientists’ detailing of intricacies causes enchantment & usurps reality of civilization created by males. Agriculture, mathematics, architecture, engineering, making spears for hunting, tools, etc. – masculine. Receiving duties – feminine.
Hyperactivity in the classroom is usually by males. Why is this? Because the male brain has a tendency to learn by manipulating its environment. The male brain is very visual as well. This is part of the so called “disordered” male student phenomena. Boys require more hands on methods that allows them to practice their tendency to create, fix, & invent & deal with mechanics, etc. Males know most of that “Chomsky” stuff is “bullshit”. They want to learn more important things instead, like how to assemble a bicycle, etc.
Females brains are more suited for attentive listening & sitting still to tasks of linear, instructional applications, etc.
Female language “skills” does not mean that females should take the narrative in that department, but, rather, the reverse; males need to lead to instruct females – to adjust the feminine scatterings. By acknowledging differences of male cognition of mathematical, visuo-spacial, technological, architectural, etc., & female attentive communication, we can assign appropriate methods. This is perfectly aligned with a technocratic orientation managed by males. We can progress from all the cycles of petty politics by taking advantage of females attention to instruct them to be cooperative. Nature “designs,” if you’ll allow me to use that word, to allow females to take orders – apprenticeship.
This is a transcript of an audio presentation. Instead of assuming as an idiot by slander that because I’m minutely using others’ models, that I’m “inauthentic”, think, instead, of how much hard work was implemented in re-typing from sound format & how that would be logically inferable of how diligent I would be in my ability. I compose much more elaborately than the following representatives, so…. There were three commentators in the audio dialogue. For the sake of convenience, I have labeled Jacque Fresco’s commentary as “J.F.”, “C.#1” – commentator number 1, & C.#2 – commentator number 2. Also for convenience, I have discarded small irrelevant stuff, such as “um”, etc., & other garbling stuff.
This subsequent pre-commentary is mine:
The coherent understanding of collectivism is a cowardly means of following trends & orientations which keeps progress static, or, in many cases, actually causing detriment; in a case of bystanders joining a pecking order in expulsing a genius with better plans because another authority group judged the expulsion to be the good action.
A collectivist would give you a false answer.
The coherent understanding of individualism is individual thoughts, not instinctual drives, that causes intellectual evolution.
It’s a tricky understanding because almost any idiot with delusions can claim to be enlightened, but this is actually due to collectivism’s insistence of congealed temporal habituation that pauses real intricate idealism. The minority ones with the truth are scoffed after the attrition with: “You’re insane.” More accurately: One becomes unnerved from dealing with others’ foolishness.
Because sociological vocabulary is often depriving, individualism taking over a culture would paradoxically be “collectivism.” It’s individualism – intellectually evolved by disaffection, as those are the alienated ones concerned with technical details – that would cease deprived contention.
The universally initial appreciation for a given art-form is predicated on its own introduction; meaning: you only like what you’re exposed to, & you think it’s “significant,” but it is only “significant” because your limitation to the style of it deludes one to not understanding that all aesthetic forms are trivially generic; “my extreme blackened thrash noise wall is different & better than the juggallo-surfer-indie,” when, aside from a very slight variation of language that is emblematic of temperaments & inclinations, it is actually all relatively the same, & only fixed by a difference of an opinion of liking or disliking (sometimes neutral). Even forms, for example, classical music, that acclaims of superiority because of abiding by an attentively required formula is trivial. What a waste of time. All the grand concentration held by the producers of the latter could be used for something better, instead of wasting that skill on a self-insulting level. Art does not make you smart. If you think art makes you intelligent, you are the proof of how stupid you are. This delusion then creates the attitude that a generic one is special because this mistaken notion that a personally entertained figment is only of themselves, when it is actually just a different version of the same universally, & gives the maudlin feeling ; “I just can’t explain it” – a form of confused retardation.
Since appreciation for a given art-form is only predicated on its own introduction, an anti-art technocratic oriented society only functioning on rationalism would replace such preexisting stalling notions because the extra result from rationalism would naturally instill stimulation or tranquility, thus putting the universal & generic truth about art back in order. For example, generators make stimulating sounds. The shimmer of metal is stimulating. It is even more stimulating if that’s all you’ve been introduced to.
We don’t need these disgusting attitudes in society that one is extra-important just because they have “talent”. Intelligence is what matters the most.
The worded recording:
J.F.: “In a tribe that was just about to go to war, & they were tense, & they danced around the fire, & yelled & screamed, they danced around the fire & relieved that tension before they got into battle. Soldiers, when they march, sing. The reason for that is to take their mind off: “how’s my wife doing?” “I wonder what’s happening at home with my kids.” But if you got them singing, like the Marines sing ‘Blood Makes The Grass Grow,’ takes the attention away from home, you’re better off, & if you can involve them in little games, dancing, sports, that takes the attention away from social problems.
Boxing, wrestling – sports in the future, there will be nobody punching one another because that damages the brain, & nobody seems to give a damn, except that they like that. A ballet dancer in later years will have a lot of trouble with her ankles. What they do is not good for the body, & they rehearse long hours, & they damage their body because we have emphasized ballet – we like it.
Now, if you consider ancient Rome, where they used to feed Christians to the lions, & kids would say “Daddy, can we come next week to see Christians being fed to lions?” Daddy might say “If you behave yourself.” Now, these kids are not mentally ill. (My commentary: I completely disagree. Most humans, usually the intellectually un-evolved, are naturally sick because of their cowardly collectivism towards almost any expectations.) They’re brought up in a society that’s warped. Our society is warped.
It’s hard for me to talk about the things that normal people have come to like. Do you understand what I mean? It’s like walking over to an Indian, saying “Why are you dancing around the fire with feather hats?” That’s ridiculous. The Indian doesn’t say “Gee, thanks for telling me that. I never thought of it that way.” Don’t you see, people can no longer step out of their culture by a lecture or a single movie. It just takes a long time to learn where these things came from, how they emerged, how they evolved.
Now, putting decorations through your ear, piercing your ear, something dangle from your ear, if a person came from another planet, they had a watch on the wrist, he might say “what is that?” You’d say “well, I can’t keep accurate time. This machine helps me keep time.” & He’d say “what are those glass things in front of your eyes that appear to be transparent?” He’d say “well, I’m losing my eyesight where I can’t read, I can’t see anything far away, & this helps me.” “Well, what’s that thing hanging from your wife’s ears?” “Oh, that’s decoration.” “Yes, but what is it..” See what i mean? That’s the same as a primitive person painting their face in different colors to keep evil spirits away. Now, they say that with a straight face. You can’t tell them what they’re doing is primitive, backwards”
C.#1: “You know, being an individual is not how many rings you have through your nose, or what color your hair is, or if your hair stands straight up, or, you know, the clothing that you wear. It’s how you think, & you have to think about what all these different fashions are for, too. A lot of people make a lot of money by changing fashions every year, so it’s good to consider the motive of all these things.”
J.F.: “Same with automobiles. They hang a tail-fin on them, or a… (can’t distinguish word). This is all artificial. I would spend all that money on safety devices, instead of a tail-fin. Like, if you build a monument to veterans, the veterans think that’s a good thing. I think it’s a terrible idea. If you have any surplus money for monuments, give it to the veterans’ hospital, & build M.R.I. machines & x-ray machines. Build what is needed in the hospital to help veterans, not a monument.”
C.#1: “You know, in the old days, we didn’t have cameras & things like that, so people painted portraits of one another, & they were pretty accurate, & they were pretty good at one time, but today we have the camera. We can even do x-rays right through people if we want to see what they look like, but you don’t need people to draw portraits of them anymore. A camera does a better job in many instances.”
J.F.: “But you can’t superimpose that because people were brought up with ‘art appreciation.’ There’s a lot of parasitic beliefs we have that will vanish in the future (My comment: Good!). I don’t expect people to turn around at one of my lectures, but I do hope they’ll think about it.”
C.#2: “You’re saying, to a degree, at somewhat, that they’re irrelevant, but, yet, you decide that in the future, they’re still going to be “sinners” with cameras & musical instruments & all the equipment that someone would need to perform these artificialities?”
J.F.: “Yes, that’s true, during the transition.”
C.#2: “Oh, during the transition.”
J.F.: “You need all those things as normal people, so called “normal.”….. A “normal” French man accepts France. A “normal” headhunter accepts headhunting.”
C.#2: So you’re saying, eventually, we won’t need those “sinners” anymore?”
J.F.: “We will have new forms – new art forms. I’m using the word art because that’s what people associate it with. But in the future, we’ll have new art forms. I’ll tell you a little bit about what that means. New art forms means that furniture will not be designed by artists or designers. Furniture will be designed by anatomists & physiologists to conform with the human body; as they lean forward, the chair helps you get out; the chair adjusts itself to the pressures, rather than you moving on the chair all the time to change the pressure-point, the chair will move. That’s what I mean by anatomists; Dinner wear will be designed by people that study the physiological shape of the human body, & the forks & knives will be designed to best accommodate human attributes.
Art was a great thing 100 years ago, where people didn’t have any ideas at all so they just made a lot of people buy a Kennedy-rocker. Its a most uncomfortable chair in the world, but Kennedy had one, & he was an important man, so people did things un-sane. Un-sane means not the best way for the human body.
It’s going to take a lot of movies, a lot of education. You can’t practice medicine without going to a medical environment. First You have to go to medical school. If you want to be an engineer, engineering school. You have to go to an engineering environment. We are not brought up that way today, so we have thousands of problems that generate more problems, as we invent more & more laws. Laws do not deal with problems. They’re attempts at a quick fix, but they don’t deal with the the problem. We have to eradicate the conditions that produce serial killers.
In the future, all this was transitional – the golf courses, the tennis courts. That’s all transitional. You can’t suddenly put a new society down & outlaw the patterns that people have been conditioned to. They have to outlaw that through knowledge.”
C.#1: “Yeah, there’d be churches in the city, too. You can’t ban anything, otherwise it goes underground. It doesn’t work.”
For audio version: ‘Art in the Future – Jacque Fresco’.
‘The Privileged Sex’ by Martin Van Creveld, pgs. 48,49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60. (Much enemies, much honor indeed. There’s more cited examples of the dominance hierarchies, not intellect hierarchies, females create.
‘Principles of Neural Science’ by Eric R. Kandel & James H. Schwartz, pgs.: 543-544.
‘The Brain – The Last Frontier’, pgs.: 221-230.