Living for the moment is dangerous of terms of evolution: If circumstances change more rapidly than adaptations can happen, faster than the fittest can be made, populations & species are vulnerable to risk.
It is important to appreciate that long-term studies necessary to study natural selection require certain things. For one, it needs continued aid. Biology itself selects for human researchers with characteristics harder to find. It just proves further that women don’t actually select for ultimate evolution when the sciences are impeded by feminine kitsch & their tendencies to ruin foundations.
Of North America, oceanic stickleback fish have adapted to new conditions by reducing size & number of armor plates.
Human species are much more mental than wild animals. We don’t have to adapt the same way that fish do. Human evolution is largely determined by how our minds interact. Yes, you do need defense mechanisms to women: When men adapt to the realization, brought by our own doing of modern technology & information, that women are not your – the male’s – benefactors, there will be change for the better of having the capability of total distinction. They are the enemy. Implicitly or otherwise, they’ve been using the concept of “love”, when it’s really just mostly a contract, of which you – the male – will usually be subject to disposability, especially when, as my favorite metaphor to use, you get a “scratch on your knee.” It really is that low. How does that make her NOT the enemy?
Of the wild, there are mating calls.
Art is preoccupations that are not evolved. Real domination is by systematic control. The latter has little appeal/confidence because the former is occluding.
Don’t allow them any chances to appeal to sophistication. Don’t call it sexual liberation or experimentation. It’s just disloyalty, immature sexuality, nihilism. Don’t call it emotional strength. It’s just personality disorders. Don’t call it the “school of leftist reptialiens,” or whatever. It’s just female psychology. Don’t call it divorce. It’s just female inconsistency. Don’t call it women’s studies. It’s just female psychology funded. Don’t call it women testing you. It’s just a waste of time. Don’t call it hypergamy. It’s just greed. Don’t call it opportunistic. It’s just looting, etc., etc..
Of the “apex,” women select for the political & the daddy-state. The process is, which I will type with a conversation I was having with a young woman: She told me that the reason why women are with the more aggressive men (“political”) is that those females are still in the stage of trying to find & learn. Translation: It’s the Feminist slogan: “my body, my BAD choice.” Then ,when older, it’s “YOUR MONEY, time, etc., my choice.” Meanwhile, permutations are reduced.
Irrational, & often Child-like, adrenaline-pumping, mobs are attributed to such types. Women don’t select for science. Science is the most “right wing” anyway, &, yet, we have poser/pseudo intellectual “masculinists” trying to insist that women must be guarded from the left, but the left-wing is actually a part of female psychology, & the concerned political groups are hindered/distracted by that process. No. you have to guard yourself from the feebleness of women.
After a verdict, the 1992 Los Angeles riots had fifty dead, others beaten, & did $1 billion dollars of damage to a society that had nothing to do with that verdict.
The democratic party & left-wing crowds are about using “emotional terrorism” of many kinds, especially to those who represent reality, with sloppy communication. The more dramatic & devoid of logic a mob’s chant is, the better it works to rile a mob: a crowd is only impressed by sentiments. An orator makes affirmations for female collectivism. The way science works is by individuation. There’s sectors who study the intricacies of one field to make connections, & they mostly respect & try to learn from a different field their not with. With the orators for female collectivism, it’s not really like that. Crowds can’t take logic. They take appearances.
Communication guided by masculinity is how women will have their egos checked. They will find how easy it is, & how easier it would’ve been, to be organic. When they get on the phone with their mothers, they’ll be able to say what they’ve had trouble with for like 15 years. They can attribute that to male directness.
To free masculinity of stagnation, & even instincts of lower animals, of the feminine, reformation of the character of dealings is needed. Gambling, business rush, & excitement, etc., are reductions of masculine vitality. Avoid most energy wasting habits & unhealthy addictions that only serves to your ego.
The forces retarding man is partly frictional & partly negative. Ignorance, stupidity are some frictional forces, or resistances devoid of directive tendency. Negative forces have a more definite direction: might-is-right mentality, self-destructive tendencies, small political beliefs, etc..
The negative “law of the strongest” happened when less violent men were confronted with violent men. However, the less violent men developed intelligence due to their energy efficiency, & developed ways to use tools. Positive warfare is intellectual, & the future is conclusive with intellectual warfare.
Previous forces retarding man is still prolonged with the female instincts in a modern context: Of course, we’re not living in caves anymore, but the “political”/casual men are of the mob of female collectivism of natural residuals: It’s actually very common for women to have the mentality that, if a male would rather resolve with real intellectual rivalry, then he, according to her, “doesn’t have much self respect.” It’s extremely common actually. Most women can’t even begin to understand what arguing even is because women are naturally much more vain, so the objective factor isn’t even with women.
The left-wing’s rejecting attitude to technological development is another mob attribute. While mobs demand radical changes, when it comes to scientific progress, they don’t want change.
Democrats don’t only want to block scientific progress, they want to revert it.
What – were you really surprised that female psychology is of it’s core left-wing? The traditions the left-wing are eager to negate are moral & sexual ones: First: “My body, my less thinking choice.” ~10-~17 years later: “Your money, my decision.” With women destroying, with assistance of the mob, the family unit because of unreal commitment, they don’t care for the havoc to others except for themselves. Confident that they can be drones to the automatic men of the feminine mob later, the rest are forced to live with their lawlessness, fake discipline, & bad energy. Crowds are too impulsive to be moral. With sexual anarchism of the beginning, they can then opt for relational welfare later, & then resort even more to the divorce industry.
STATUS ANXIETY: PLEASE LIKE ME!
When I originally quit the punk-rock/avant-garde scene, my past associates, which I didn’t really like that much anyway, used what is probably the worst insult in the metal, goth, punk-rock, industrial demographics – normal.
This deflection was not only superficial, but also not even true. I didn’t become a normal person. I became even more of an intellectual. Some normal people dabble a little bit with bad books, but they don’t seriously read science fanatically.
Some might think: that’s just a “zeta” demographic with loser-chicks. Not at all actually. The clubbing has some of the sexiest “weirdo” girls you could imagine. Even though getting some of those females is really easy because it’s mostly just about striking the coolest poses, I still had better integrity, & decided to convert to science & philosophy because that whole former lack of foundation is so “full of shit,” as they would say.
Anyway, those idiots have nothing to do with the original goth spirit. The root of it is good, & most of them come from degenerate hippy associations. Anyone who tries to be good now will be seen as a “pathetic loser.” Try being direct, & even worse.
The mob mentality of females bullying another girl for “getting out of line” having her suicidal has a corresponding mob of the “intellect”, relying on praise & ridicule – no logic.
The mob mentality is full of people with a desperate desire to be popular. This is why realists, scientific, seriously rational can not be a mob.
“If I’m not aggressive or entertaining, how will others like me?” “How will I have sex-appeal?” “My desire to be liked by the popular has no time for the long-winded discourses of unpopular losers.” “That’s why I need to do EASY acts of starting a band & other stupid stuff.”
Recent studies on young bullying found that much of it is driven by status anxiety.
This is why female psychology, almost always trying to be with the popular, is very dangerous, as it makes masculinity vulnerable, when whores, young & old, say it’s “creepy,” etc., for a guy to be different, doing his own thing with his own way.
Bullying behavior is correlated with how much the student cares about being popular.
People who pretend to be “sophisticated” by never castigating whores to not be labeled “sexist”, or whatever, are driven by the same desperate desire for social opinion, just appealing to a different in-group. With the guise of a “nobly dedication,” they’re not noble.
Poser intellectuals – virtually all residents of New York City – appeal to fashionable opinions; lawyers take positions that will make them super-looking; actors strike poses that they think will make them seem intelligent, etc.. Comedians try to look radical with commentary, yet still desperate – “bipolar.”
Results by Robert Faris, associate professor of sociology at the University of California Davis, indicated that bullying happens not only when eccentric or different, but also when avoiding being victims when trying to get to the popular ranks. Studies indicated that the rarer elite of 5-2% were not necessarily aggressive but, specifically, those who CARED to be popular, & it’s females who care the most for it. It’s understandable why good guys are used, but not specifically passionately desired.
This is partly why I say that ’50 Shades Of Greed’ promotes abuse of masculinity: She does not care about your struggle, & when you get whatever it is she might want, she’s just going to try to take credit for it, or leech.
Women may not be conscious that they contribute to this, but it is obvious that they call what is unpopular “creepy,” etc..
It’s only that some years later that having blue hair being popular gives women a new mask.
That is why I have never trusted fashionable philosophers, like Rand, or even female MRAs.
Tara Parker-Pope, Web Of Popularity, Achieved by Bullying, New York Times, Februrary 14, 2011
When Popularity Backfires: Climbing The Social Ladder Can Lead to Bullying by Alice Park, Mar 31, 2014 – time-dot-com
Popular Kids – But Not The Most Popular – More Likely To Torment Peers; Popularity Increases Aggression Except for Those at Top od social Hierarchy – The American Sociological Review, February 8, 20011.
The Making Of The Fittest – Sean B. Carroll, pg.: 38, 39, 53, 56.
Demonic – Ann Coulter, pg.: 4
As Popularity Rises, So Does Risk Of Being Bullied by Michelle Healy, April 1, 2014 – USA Today
Social Combat: Study Says Bullying Risk Increases With Popularity by Allie Bidwell, April, 2014 – usnews-dot-com
What Is Popular? Distinguishing Bullying & Aggression As Status Correlates Within Specific Peer Normative Contexts by Diego Palacios & Christain Berger scielo-dot-br