Healthy Cosmetics Vs. Unhealthy Cosmetics | by Jessie Nagy


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.

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.

“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 dominance hierarchy – 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.




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


5 thoughts on “Healthy Cosmetics Vs. Unhealthy Cosmetics | by Jessie Nagy

  1. ♂ I wanted to take this opportunity to announce to everyone reading: be very careful of what you click on & receiving weird messages. Make sure sites are secure. Just recently got a fake message from some hackers claiming to be for my bank, asking for personal info.. I know you, Hedon, don’t study that rigth-wing stuff, (I study some of it for “factoids” – “steal sharpened against iron”), but Red-Ice-Radio recently got hacked. The hacking that’s been happening in many spaces is very real. ♂


  2. ♂ I’ve been watching some Jordan Peterson lectures, & that guy is another one of those idiots with pretentious college degrees. According to him, & I know it can be a semantic issue, philosophical systems were created by dominance hierarchies, with the first testing of religions – total nonsense. Systems were created by what is associated with the apposite of that – not “dominance”.. In fact, the process is: women continue all of that dominance when civility tries to interject, a dominant male, infected by female collectivism, will tell the interjection to shut-the-fuck-up, & then women encourage more & more of that because the interjection made her limited consciousness uncomfortable. ♂


    1. Yea, you pretty much got the gist. I’ve known for a while, after listening to few of his lectures, that the guy is an idiot pawning off his pseudo-intellectual ideas on half-wits online, mostly right wing conservatives/alt rights. Then he made that lecture where he shamed MGTOW as bunch of pathetic losers online who are too afraid of commitment and relationships. He later apologized, somewhat, after several barrages of criticisms from the manosphere, but it didn’t change my opinion of the guy.


  3. Three hours shopping for something to put in the closet is an underestimate. Mine would spend more like nine and then return half of it the next day. How much pollution is generated by women collecting 600 pairs of shoes, enough clothes for a village and thousands of useless decorations and then bigger houses to put them in.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s