All Women Are Pathological Liars

3
2241

When my fav#1 and I were discussing a possible future she taught me “all women are pathological liars”. I didn’t believe her at first. So I asked other women and I went across many of the interactions I had had with so many thousands of women across my lifetime. She turned out to be right.


This is What a Pathological Liar Looks Like

z01_sarah_silverman_01

So, Sarah Silverman has looked right into a camera and recorded a video and told a pack of pathological lies in order to support the lie of the “wage gap”. She will not be held to account for telling pathological lies because all women are pathological liars and they don’t want to throw any women pathological liars under the bus lest the men figure this out.

The very fact that Sarah Silverman slandered a man who gave her money for a guest spot shows just exactly how disgusting and vile western women have become. Here is her pack of pathological lies.



The owner of the club has responded and called her the liar that she is. You can hear his response on this link.


Women will try and make this be about “you just hate all women”.

No. I dislike people who are pathological liars and like to tell pathological lies.

Since that is what so many women choose to do with this ability I reserve the right to dislike those women who tell pathological lies.

If women do not like me disliking women who tell pathological lies? Maybe they should stop telling lies pathologically.

Maybe they should stop telling lies at all.

 


 

Best Regards

Joschua-Brandon: Boehm©

 

Comments

comments

3 COMMENTS

  1. Women have tongues of craft, and hearts of
    guile,
    They will; they will not; fools that on
    them
    trust
    For in their speech is death, hell is in their
    smile.

    Torquato Tasso

  2. Hello.

    Did you get this article submission already?
    Shedding-of-The-Ego & some other sites have already published this. I”m seeking duplicate makers.
    It is sourced with tons of science.

    Because people are so ready to deflect this kind of info. as “pseudo science”, I have put citations ( Other than my more philosophical ones, most of my articles have them.) on the front part instead because I know the dismissive would assume that, without any proof – actual pseudo science, before ~20 minutes after starting. They never actually point to what part makes it pseudo science or specify how it’s pseudo science.

    Source: ‘Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma’ By Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., pgs.: 1, 7, 10, 11, 20, 31, 56, 75, 87, 89, 98. 117 & 118. ‘Stand By Your Manhood’ by Peter Lloyd, pg.: 187 & 188.

    The first one is not an excellent book, but has some good facts & is better than nothing on this highly riddled issue. Some truth & some fallacies. The author fails to make the connection that the practice is not a product of rationalism, but, in fact, it’s actually a product of instincts-by-nature. There’s also too much favoring of feminine emotions & claiming that masculinity is the main source of such reactions, but, in fact, it’s gynocentrism that leads to instincts/intuition.

    I always try to re-word so that points are not forgotten. Key concepts: Women weed out rationalism, generally. Gynocentrism/”patriarchy”, etc., is just obscurintist & glamorized self abuse by masculinity because society drives itself to the feminine checking of the inaccuracies of weak-or-strong, too-nice-or-dominant, etc.. Women like being secretaries for bullies & other idiots. Females are actually receptive to being controlled by such in the political field, etc..

    This is a pattern not an issue of theology: When Eve was tempted by the – the as in isolated – serpent – hybristophilia – she caused Adam to fall. The isolated of this context represents what females see as they are always seeking the very few that is not representational of the standard of masculinity. To get to the very top, you would actually lose the capacity for understanding. You would become more like a lower animal – the serpent, & females identify with such instincts.

    What females sexualize is a “vicious guard dog” on some level. How does one become that? By programming. A dash of grey of a man’s hair is sexy to women. You get grey hair from physiological reactions of stress. The ’50 Shades Of Alex Grey’ archatype is a vicious guard dog – him struggling for her. If a male has an objective way to sexuality, unlike the latter, she will imply he has a “bad” sexuality. That’s the hypocrisy of female sexuality.

    First, there needs to be a differentiation of contexts of emotional states: The feelings of masculinity that actually does matter that is useful for alarming – an aspect of logic, often signifies as something “wrong” – “you’re a faggy, “painful” loser for having such a way with thinking & articulating” – to gynocentrism. The normative kind of emotional state to be automatic is the kind that is a detriment to masculinity. The latter type is what I mean when stating that emotions are bad, not the former.

    WARNING: I do not wish to cause misery to other males – strictly educational. This is regarding a sensitive subject – the realities of male genital mutilation, generally hidden & continued to be accepted, even by vastly males as a means of obliterating the pain. That too is traditionalism. Subordination inhibits the need to know. It’s a subordination to traditional instincts. The reality of circumcision is so disagreeable that it is usually avoided consciously or subconsciously, & this answers why those who are not in denial are labeled as just anecdotes. Repression & denial is the means of what is happening. It is difficult to make empirical evidence of denial because it is evidence itself that is altered or denied. I any case, anecdotes do sometimes matter because some can notice what others can’t.

    This is not “disgruntled extremism”. In fact, it’s a calling for the apposite of it. This is going to confuse many, but if you actually read all of it &/or try to make an effort in understanding female mate bias of context to the prearranging harsh history – selecting for mostly action, not intellect, which its repository of instinct has actualized into the modern tributary of that female mate bias, it’ll be understood better. Females have much more sanctioning power than they realize, & it’s due to their primal “filtering.” It’s a custom that has morphed from the female extracting, stretching to the “patriarchal” modernity. That’s right, I blame female nature for such contingency.

    All the past times of attempted civilized debates of feminism, male-&-female biology, gender, sex differences of cognition, etc., have been reduced by the apposition of the juvenile: “you’re-a-pussy”/”you-have-problems-with-not-being-able-to-increase-confidence”, etc., or even try to give me advice on how I can become “better” for their stupid registration – completely missing the points. You know why that is? It’s because all those reoccurring patterns are translations of their core nature of having the opportunity to exercise filtering. It’s time for truly rational males to exercise filtering for our registration.

    Disclaimer: I do not 100% endorse, completely, every single author & every single thing I derive from. My research is of an eclectic one. Being detached & objective means accumulating many facets, then connecting & finding missing links.

    The most confusing aspect of this article that I will fix is this: Even though circumcision is the main conditioning factor that makes males more prone to b.d.s.m. sexuality, males are still much more interested in sexuality that is assembling of her body & her body parts. It is psychologically inherent of females though to be much more pronte to it, even though they are not circumcised in western culture, because females interpret sexuality of terms to politics, etc. Of other words: If you were to explain to females what this article is about in as many different ways as you tried for them to understand, females would still defend rape-fantasy, etc., & evade the empirical evidence.

    A study by a cognitive psychologist from the University of Southern California & co-author of a paper featuring some of it’s findings in the Oct. 6, 2010 issue of the Journal NeuroReport found that when men under stress saw angry faces, they seemed to not want to engage. There’s that masculine rational fear deemed by mass society as “bad” or some kind of “illness”. Contrastingly, as usual, females were more insistent. This neurological basis signalizes females’, of varying degrees, amorality/hybristophilia – the attraction to extrinsic commotion, villains & wrath – lazily described as “sympathy” by most. The hybristophilia/Stockholm syndrome transcends violence itself to other displays, indicated when females enjoy males arguing, calling whichever the loudest one is to be “intense”, or whatever display they deem to be sexier, irregardless of the points made. To paraphrase Steve Moxon – social science author of ‘The Woman Racket’: Women like to see men stamp themselves among their peers, so this hybristophilia is also connected to hypergamy/female lack of contentment, as they are seeing males of terms of constant comparisons.

    Specializing in a given field reduces completion of other integration, hence why it’s called “sympathy”. Greater interest in synthetic formulas & components does not necessarily guarantee fuller exactitude.

    ~3,500 cuttings are performed every day [1997] in the U.S., one every twenty-five seconds.

    33% of American pediatricians & obstetricians oppose, yet don’t necessarily disclose, it. Some nurses & doctors refuse to do it.

    Financial incentive is one motivating factor as to why it is done.

    Parents continue ignorance by confusing benign intentions with effects; believing that non-intended harm equals no harm to occur.

    Pavlovian, along with most psychology, conditioned reflexes is a field that interests me. The following are some unpopular aspects of it.

    Babie boys are usually not having sex, so arguments to reduce s.t.d.s are lazy. The lazyness/emotions/ anti-objectivism is what stops quality sex education to stop s.t.d.s by the individual mind.

    Psychologists have known for a long time that trauma sets, often hidden from awareness, long term effects. You could be psychologically damaged & not even know it, or not know how it happened. An infant’s eyes tightly close during circumcision. Levels of cortisol – hormone release as response to stress – are high during circumcision. Increase of excessive heart beats, even over baseline, per minute have been recorded. This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients. Infants tremble, cry vigorously, & in some cases become mildly cyanotic – lividness or blueness of skin caused by pressure of skin due to prolonged crying. It is an abnormal type of crying. By the late 1800s & early 1900s, it was believed that a baby had similar level of consciousness to a vegetable. By the mid 1940s there were changing understandings of infants. Pediatrician Benjamin Spock (yes, real last name. You can check the sources.) reported in 1946 that infants are more cognizant. Infants can generally distinguish between the vowels i & a on the next day following birth. Infants require attendance to proper sensory responses. For one, infants’ deeper breathing in response to tactile sensation gives more oxygen to tissue. Stroking causes better alertness. Infants do have their own set of well-developed thinking. It’s just of a different type.

    From the Journal Of Sex Research, Davison & Money of the John Hopkins University School of Medicine reported that changes includes drastic diminished penile sensitivity. With relatively little effect of arousal, it can be described like callused fingers a guitar player receives.

    I have even read from an independent research article a long time ago without a citation that the procedure actually takes away a chemical occurrence that would otherwise happen between a male & female to be much more committed to each other. It’s believable, & there’s tons of research one can do on it.

    Extreme pain, bahavioural modifications, risk of complications, & loss of protective, sensitive tissue, resulting in diminished gratification – “But none of this could be true.” “We were too busy paying attention to that new style, or the comedy-skit, or score from the team of the west-coast, etc..” Priorities are wrong. Shop mannequins are made to look fatter so that females don’t female bad about looking fat, but millions of boys are getting cut. People have close to no idea of what’s really happening. Facts are naturally altered or withheld because of feelings. More damage is then done due to concealing rather than disclosing truth. The authentic & benign hyper-sexuality of masculinity has actually been regressed as those who were “sexually molested” or “free-loading” males when that sexuality would make the male-to-female interaction more of an actual friendship than sports & mostly business contracts. When I was a teenager – the stage when sexuality is fresh, I had to deal with things I didn’t really care for. They’d come to me: “let’s smoke some pot, take you to gatherings of people you don’t really want to be around, & listen to music you don’t really want.” I’d emphasize: “I’d rather be inclusive with girls & do my own thing.” They’d treat me like I was some kind of criminal. Just imagine trying to say real things as this article to the disgusting “Mtv.” culture, which fosters the absurd notion that, because they go to raves, lounge in cafes, etc., they all know more than guys who actually have the drudgery of studying, etc.. The result would be something like a beta male posing as “alpha”: “Girl, is this guy talking shit to you?”. They’d also take me to events of the main hosts being these belligerent idiots, & when I wasn’t doing what most of the others were doing, they’d insinuate that I was the bad one becuase I wasn’t paying respect like they were. They’d think: “Why isn’t he doing what we’re doing?” “Let’s try to ruin him.” I never wanted to do any of this “Mtv.”, stuff, which is controlled by the feminine, but had I resisted, it would’ve been: “Get a life”. No, this is my life. They need to get a life. There’s been reports, which I have reduced for the sake of convenience, one can confirm from the cited source on the end of this article, that adult males could compare effects before the practice & after, & that after it was done, it was similar to being incapable of holding something normally with hand due to wearing a glove. I think this could possibly contribute to females’ mass perception of genuine intense attraction called “put-on-a-pedestal”. As an intact male, it’s been my experience that my more passionate but much steadier, thoughtful & intensified sexual interest was interpreted by many females as an exaggerated, fake act by me, either that or that I had something “wrong” with me for having my passions more grand. This is a common reoccurrence: males honestly show how much they like a female, she then sees that as “too needy”, “weakness”, obvious, or something stupid. This is not an issue of semantics, so please save the retorts of: “females love attention”. Like vampires, they lead astray to traps & waste time, even including for “alphas”, because they lack persistence, & often just use that attention for entertainment with plausible deniability.

    We live in a very juvenile world because females don’t respect male intellect, & then they opt for other males stuck on their level. The police is one case of such males stuck on their level. I’m not a hippy, so I believe they’re a necessary force, but they have major problems with believing the fact that they often shouldn’t believe females. Not to brag, I don’t live an average life. I’ve had some critical periods. I’ve been incarcerated before shortly due to having aspects of my philosophy “cock-blocked”, if you’ll allow me to use that ridiculous analogy, by the chivalry of police officers when they allowed females to take advantage of freedom of speech & abuse it by lying after I’ve given “extremist” dialogue in public. All I did was harmless commentary. I then heard other inmates speak of getting arrested after restraining their female partners who had knives & other violence, etc.. Even some that called the police for their safety were blamed on the males by police & then arrested. I’d also advise to not even publicly debate with them. Present all content on the other formats. Even if you were to make a report to police that they did something to you, you’re more likely to get arrested because the police prioritize female’s claims.

    What I type as results of gynocentrism were not originally intentionally planned. That is my point; gynocentrism causes & enhances accidents because of the fact that females are bad planners, & their nature also monopolizes social structures. It was a process of embracing stupid or mediocre men, replicating genes of stupid or mediocre men, & then following those stupid or mediocre men. Most of actual importance was created by rationalizing males mostly undesirable to females – division by females of the meme replicators from the gene replicators, combining their characteristics with the latter.

    Contrary to what the deconstructed author of the book believes, which I think is due to that he’s more of a specialist on medicine, this is not a result of suppressed feelings. Instead, this practice is feelings carried on a systematic level with utensils. It requires a longer, thoughtful process to devise other methods of treatment than relying on methods of foreordained instincts to nullify, especially when confronted with the annoying task of examining genitals maturely. Instinctual activity has often such a direction that it persuades one as an efficient means for the avoidance of more options requiring patience. Preference of quicker practicality & emotions is consistent with the general difficulty of being aware of & expressing intellect. Cultural, derived from historical instincts, over-reliance on emotions has caused inclination to adopt practicality as the great arbiter between fiction & fact so that quick feelings of convenience can be liked.

    I do not call for hysterically, “reversed Feminism”, or for something fanatical, such as FGM – clitoridectomy or excision of its hood, apart of culture of the Persian Gulf, which overlaps with MGM, & neighboring regions. Those actions are just another subset of the preordained instincts. Instead, disallow the value of intuition over intellect that has promoted weeding of a rationalist renaissance – masculine monopoly. It is not the scientific. It is anti-intellectual intuition as a hasty vagary to get-it-over-with, & even monetary desires, infused by habitual drives, posing as the science.

    Simplistic interpretations of the “patriarchy” lacks accuracy.

    In this game of status-forging, healthy only limited to certain extant, with females watching & selecting & upgrading for other deals by ambiguous commitment, it’s going to be a “juggle” by masculinity with mistakes & even some spontaneous self-abuse. It’s the way it’s been by natural history & it’s the way it is recently. The varying displays of “machismo” are largely unnoticably controlled by femalehood’s inculcated intuition. Though males can seek such displays of status, it’s not enough. Females seek connections with others to gain & use status. Male, determined by gynocentrism, status-forging has a price; it is incompatible with understanding & creating a disciplined principles/true rationalism – “weakness” – by patience.

    Females with apparent inflated egos are only threatening to males because these males subconsciously know it’s going to be extra competition to gain rank to her inflated self. Males have somewhat of a method to try to stay away from this; opting for females on mainly the level of a limiting physical attraction – good choice.

    Male fear of female sexuality can be if that female sexuality is pronounced, & if that is pronounced, female lack of integrity is also pronounced. Concern with being a bland-minded acquirer of capital undermines concern for cultivating masculinity – better standards, promoting better self-esteem. The self esteem of males has already been ruined by circumcision.

    There are several types of memory. Painful experiences in neonates can lead to psychological sequelae. Remembering, for instance, something you saw two hours ago requires a different type of memory than knowing how to tie a knot or recalling a place you’ve been associated with heightened sensation. Memory is not limited to only intellect, but body & emotion also. Long term memory has been demonstrated behaviorally in various mammals & other animals. Considering simpler animals have long term memory, it’s about 99.9% likely that infants have it also.From neurological & developmental analysis, newborn infants can have trauma & retain memory of it. A sector of society has projected their inability to consciously remember that time on the infant. We store memories of that time, just generally don’t have access to them immediately. According to a psychological survey, the majority confirmed that forgetting was due to retrieving problems & not loss of info. from memory storage. A mother explained that her child of 6 years old crawled through a tunnel & said to her: “This feels like when I was born”. Similarly, birth Primal can be studied by simulation. Psychiatrist Nandor Fodor was the first to propose accessing trauma memories by simulation. Many types of psychopathology are connected to the birth experience – “vibrations” reverberating. Can you believe it? The DSM IV classifies PTSD, & not limited to, as resulting from extreme traumatic stressor beyond routine life of a given average maturation. Responses include intense fear. Instances of which are torture, etc.. According to the DSM IV, PTSD includes symptoms of impulsive & self destructive behaviour, etc.. By definition, in conjunction to other facts cited, circumcision is traumatic. Like other traumas, it is repressed. Psychological problems increase as age of child decreases. Adult males with such experiences have adverse behaviour responses, mainly undetected by society. The revelation is that we have a society of unhealthy males, continuing instinctive self abuse.

    Just a personal anecdote: The level of “machoness” preordained by gynocentric instincts has alienated & maladjusted me, who never had this procedure done to me. What is considered normal is the society we have. It’s completely normal to have a bad society of varying degrees of exaggerated gallantry & just indifference/nihilism.

    Symptoms of PTSD vary. The hidden – long term effects generally not of awareness but evident in behaviour – PTSD of circumcision has a contributing factor of violence as just one of those varients. Violence can also be exhibited in different ways, which may not even be capable of classification of crime statistics.

    Subsequent distrust & aggression is connected. The systematic practice teaches to be angry or accept loss. Trust is a prerequisite for setting discipline of commitment. Disruption of development of better communication to females for future is impaired. It is very strange that the artificial mold of masculinity is what females admire mostly. Although these artificial moldings of masculinity are external forces reinforcing females’ malleability, the admiration by females reveals innateness of themselves. Gynocentrism is much older than such clinical practices. Originally, gynocentrism monopolized by females reinforced artificial displays of masculinity, &, coequally, artificial molds of masculinity reinforced further monopolization of gynocentrism by female-hood, &, as typed further, females also have a collectivist hive-mind by which they check of an anti-intellectual binary classification. If you know about such, etc., or type about such, very hypocrytical, you are an archetypal “creep” or “serial-killer” to them, even though those traits of harmless typing & thinking are the antithesis of the accidents of the intuition of gynocentric gathering.

    To specify though, I’m not typing that intellectual males should present themselves as offers of “take me, please”, but, rather, especially to eliminate potential usurpation from supposed “intellectual” females – high rate of potential traps, always maintain a female on the incommensurable level for masculine self-preservation of rationalism.

    Dissociation – erasing associated pain from traumatic experience, both physical & humiliation – results from trauma. Dissociation is a response of a psychological survival mechanism analogous to numbing a part of ones body to inhibit extreme pain. A boy actually makes himself believe it didn’t happen, thus actually altering himself. Based on clinical neurological research, traumatic & painful experience can actually cause long-term physiological changes in the neurochemical & central nervous system. Brain-imaging studies conducted on adults with histories of sexual abuse of childhood were reported to have reduced size of hippocampus, which is a zone of the brain associated with memory. Also, low scores of adults who had been abused were reported on another test of verbal short-term memory. Circumcision actually alters brain development. Presence of high level of the stress hormone cortisol, which is increased 3-4xs in the blood stream correlates with deep memory imprinting.

    Connections to sadomasochistic behavior & child-hood injuries has been noted in psychology. Common elements of S-M behavior & circumcision include pain, struggling, bondage, & a loosely, originally unwanted, associated sexual context. Not “minor anecdote” – trivialized report: One man reported to have S-M fantasies since he could remember. Further claiming it’s not normal to have S-M fantasies by age 4. There are other factors to the phenomena & “normalcy” of severe S-M, since females also have an interest in it, but genital male mutilation is a major contributor. Some intact men also participate in it, although much less to the same seriousness of buying leather, & living-the-lifestyle, etc., but that’s just mostly from cultural introduction.

    But what exactly caused such a barbaric practice to be normalized? One has to go back even further to the natural history by a context of evolutionary psychology.

    When I type about this, I’m not referring to a generic slap on the buttocks, loud cursing, hair-pulling, etc. – fast & hard sex. I’m not typing about when a male puts his hands playfully around her pretty neck & spits in her mouth & states: “Say: please, more”. I type about something else that females fantasize much more, such as a male who owns a dungeon, or a male who would fight you becuase you happened to look at his girlfriend for ~3 seconds &/or you approached her instead of just telling you she’s unavailable, & who takes the burden of her just saying that for herself. I’m referring to an entire practice of b.d.s.m., the devices, the safe words, etc. – the type that females tend to be much more interested in, both as a sex act, as well as a simplistic rating instinct they treat males with.

    B.D.S.M. has it’s origins in the practice of circumcision, but such practices itself were by-products of the origins in feminine weeding – “vibrational” gynocentrism monopolized by femalehood, altering phenotype – mostly done by intuition – barely recognized. Anyone who has a serious understanding of evo.-psych. & Darwinian science knows that females are attracted to mostly authority. Do not confuse rationalism with authority. They’re 2 separate things, which only occasionally overlaps. The feminist & cultural idea that sex-is-about-power is also manifested from the b.d.s.m. mentality of female nature. Yes, I’m sure there’s some aspects about sex being linked to power, such as procreation to expand more legacy, etc., but it is not directly synonymous. Sex as power is a feminine projection because they aren’t necessarily interested in forming a friendship with benefits of sex, romance, or whatever you wish to call it. Sex, affection, etc., is not fundamentally about “power”. It’s about sharing. It’s largely about power because female-hood has defined it that way. To be thorough, I’m not typing about it as a generic, or fast, etc., sex. I refer to b.d.s.m. as an entire mentality that females superficially employ, & not just in-the-bedroom – a feminine mentality, not just physically, much more intrinsic to them; Humble, intelligent males are possibly useful, which is the most casually observational category that obfuscates these other categories, “creepy”, maybe novel for a little while, “pathetic”, frustrating, “weird” & something to gossip about, which is funny because males of the apposite of humble & intelligent are by definition creepy. Females are attracted to or ordain to be instinctive males, hence why society is docile & even stupid. For the reactionary is the natural selection of females, & why we need to learn to control nature.

    Culture is not a friend, & it perpetuates false selves.

    Don’t believe it when females state they are “pan-sexual”. There is nothing “pan” about the various transliterated binaries of slave-or-master, bashful-or-not, instant-failure-or-instant-upgrade, “autistic”-or-fun, & even appealing-approach-or-possible-stalker. Different males think differently. If you are different from that binary, you are a “freak”. Their evaluation methods is just insufficient & outmoded. Most products of merit have been due to different, thinking-outside-the-box.

    A study by researchers affiliated with University of Montreal presented 1,516 adults with a list of 55 different sexual fantasies ranging from sex with multiple people to sex with objects and animals, and more. The participants ranked the intensity of each fantasy and described their favorite ones in detail. Nearly 65 percent of women reported fantasies about sexual submission. Specifically, more than 52 percent of women said bondage revs them up, 36 percent fancy spanking, and 28.9 fantasize about being forced to have sex. (For the record, a significant number of men were turned on by the same things — even though guys were more likely to fantasize about oral sex, group sex, & ejaculating on their partners.) What that reporting of the questionnaire directed to males omits is, firstly, significant number does not specify same or more frequency, &, secondly, there’s no specification as to whether some of the overlap of female sexuality is innate to masculinity when the questionnaire disregards the conditioning effects of circumcision, &, thirdly, there was no specification of the rating of intensity of overlapping sexuality. Fourth: no specification as to reasons along amount for desire. For example, some males, such as an intact male as myself, can like b.d.s.m. for completely different reasons – posing & imagery – than females, while females tend to love it for the idea. So we have this popular source giving misleading, tiny percentage of truth & superficial “factoids”. The study also stated that these females enjoy such sexuality, but don’t necessarily want it to come true. Translated from masks of femininity, meaning: they’re waiting for it. How reliable is it to gain real answers from the verbosity of females? So, yes, citations are useful tools to make your reportage stronger, but there’s some research that can’t actually document properly, which is why philosophy is especially important. (The source of that study was delivered to me by e-mail from a Cosmopolitan article. Exact date & page of it was not specified.)

    The rape-fantasy is so popular with females because it takes away the burden of actually having integrity. Most of what females do is by intuition-by-nature. They have bad planning methods, poor communication predicated on the baby-communication level of body language/facial expressions/tone, etc., so they have no or little discipline & lack of commitment, & when you have a bunch of women gathering to gossip on the level of facades, you’re going to have a really bad narrative. The truth is is that female nature is actually “macho”. The intellect has an effect of cuckolding males by feminine rating. Narcissists are drawn to other narcissists – a fake or minor aspect of masculinity that females have ordained or selected from their “solipsistic” schema – & that’s the nature of gynocentric monopoly – feminine sexual selection.

    The culture of b.d.s.m./ taming the dumb animal, which requires becoming the lower animal to “top” the dumb female animal, again, not just as a generic fast/hard sex, etc., but an entire practice, emphatically, actually has it’s roots in male genital mutilation/self abuse, which, by “coincidence”, for a lack of a better description, females have an alignment to. M.G.M. interferes with male sexuality & corroborates with female psychology innate to it’s selective bias of the primitive hundreds to thousands of years ago – a non-consensual practice done by the system that females accidentally enhanced by instinct.

    With my personal analysis, B.D.S.M. is actually really bad, clumsy, dishevelled, unskilled sex. Has nothing to do with being “prude”. In fact, I prefer dirty, sweaty, disgusting, slimy/smooth sexuality, a lot of face fetishism, & visually experimental sexuality. It’s more complicated than the feminine: “you’re either prude/shy or you aren’t”, “it’s either romance or it’s hard-core, “it’s either fem.-dom or it’s male-dom”, etc. I’ve tried explaining to some females before about what is typed & they usually just responded with: “Oh, so you don’t like it. Ok, try some soft-core then,” or with slang: “You want a mommy figure then” – still missing the point.

    Rather than more cooperation by females, what results is more implicit demands by females because of the impulsiveness associated with it, & females also have dichotomous preferences of males for two different reasons – one for desire, the other for usury, which will be read in a separate article.

    So females want monetary symbols to discern provision for birth. Ok males, be literal. You don’t have to perform. Females are quite capable as well.

    The so called “rape culture” that feminists complain about is a fantasy retained by a vast percentage of females, including feminists, but you can not explain all of what is typed to them, or even just the general public, because they have absolutely no, or poor, understanding of evolutionary psychology, conditioned reflexes, how statistics/generalizing/stereotyping works, Charles Darwin, hoe reading comprehension works, or just plain psychology. It is natural for narcissists to deject what they can’t understand. Because of the limited understanding, they try to contrive definitions to make easier cohesion out of something too hard for them, so then using the quickest assumptions or trivialities; “sad loser who can’t work on himself & change for a woman”, “disorganized text/lifestyle”, etc.. Feminism is just mostly highly inflated opinions, assumptions, & a very simplistic interpretation of history – all not scientific. History is not categorized in the pyramid of knowledge as an actual science. They will claim this is a “veil of semantics” because they just can’t understand it, & they are more concerned with what provides for a basis of confidence. Females have a “rythmic”, if you will, registration, none of which is encased in this.

    This is the most essential point of this article: Our fight-or-flight beginnings were of the-survival-of-the-fittest, so now in our modern civilized times, when those instincts are no longer mandatory, it is morphed derivatives of that. I will repeat: THIS WASN’T ORIGINALLY PLANNED, & THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT; GYNOCENTRISM & FEMALE’S MONOPOLIZATION OF IT CAUSES ACCIDENTS & INSTINCTS. It’s not their fault. Well, it is largely their fault, just not intentional. Tautologically: the environmental influences, particularly circumcision, alters masculinity, & the environmental influences were already caused by pre-selection by females. Halting the cycles of gynocentric intuition that reinforces feminine estimations requires different & newer strategies. Such strategies would be conceived by males not for associative female recognition, but by incitement of a modified, learned masculinity via leadership of dissuaded males with concentrated options. It’s a very mind boggling issue, but this is how it manifested: Our beginning climates were situated for females to have a sexual preference for reactionary males, not intellectual. They claim it’s mostly for hygienic purposes, (more complicated than that) but had females selected for intellectual males originally, we would have devised other methods of hygiene. Females have a higher rate of urinary tract infection than males, not that I’m advocating contrasting treatment, yet no procedure for them. Now, because gynocentrism is still monopolized, the notion is varying degrees of humble & intellectual males being “creepy”, “pathetic”, frustrating, “boring,” “weird” & something to gossip about due to first, limited judgement – usually no experiential confirmation, or possibly useful, as can be experienced with “let’s just be friends” when a male tries to make good planning becuase his patience is seen as “weakness” to the natural “machoness” of females. It wasn’t planned by females; it was just simply a natural accidental result of the instincts they ordain. So, yes, females are basically choosing toxic forms of masculinity by a cyclic process such as this: There is the implicit offerings. Some males are used for mainly resourceful reasons, some males are desired for their impulse. Since female consciousness is limited, they don’t know how to take other males, they can’t revolutionize opting. More traits of docile characteristics & reactionary are promoted. End result: Commonality of the population makes intellectual males a minority. Inhibition of female monopolization of gynocentrism would alter production of toxic masculinity. That’s why this kind of info. needs to be applied as a protocol to masculinity for the rationalist proprietorship of policies of approach – minimized accidents, stupidity, mediocrity, & checked feminine appraising & feminine sexual selection. Females chose what they could understand, or, rather, allowed them to not understand. Rationalism has not been respected by female nature. When has it been commonly the case of females respecting males for who they are? It’s always about giving to females.

    Unlike the female m.r.a. – “bipolar” poseurs with a sloppy judge of character, which is why they can’t understand the denser processes of male-female interaction, & this is going to offend many, there is a class of barbaric, stupid, inauthentic males, but these males critiqued by the feminine are the result of their own will. Rationalism then gets blamed for the bad representation of masculinity. The female m.r.a.s. love to talk more about feminism than judge themselves. In the ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Destroy Him’ video, which is actually a really lame, self-indulgent interpretation of the so-called “friend-zone” phenomena, the commentator only critiqued how feminists call nice-guys “evil”, a.k.a.: creepy, then only once admitted that “we think their pathetic”. (I would not even be surprised that if the commentator got a hold of this, she would resort to making a revised version of that ‘Look Out, It’s A Nice Guy. Destroy Him’ by removing that “pathetic” comment.) That itself is just as bad as calling them evil. “Patriarchy” is not synonymous with rationalism. It’s synonymous with female nature. “Patriarchy” is a product of the semi-consciousness/impulse of femininity. The “patriarchy” enhanced by female fraternization indicates more about female nature than it does about male. Consider Isl**** (*taboo word) culture where harsh treatment is done to females, as well as males. But this is a result of “karma”, not to use mystically; meaning: cause & effect; their mindless intuition selects, so mindlessness begets. In the hip-hop song: ‘My Neck, My Back’, Khia Shamone tells-it-like-it-is, rude & made easy: “The best comes from a thug…. You might have cheese (money), but fuck that ni***, get on yo knees….” That is a naked representation. You can learn a lot of underlying truths from different communities. “Patriarchy” = obscurantist self abuse by males glamorized, & if you abuse yourself, you abuse surroundings.

    Anecdote: Yes, I know it’s just an anecdote, but many males will identify with this: My father was a friendly, hard-working, successful male. He just wanted to humbly come home to eat hot-dogs & watch action movies ( &, interestingly, he’s also intact.). He had some pretty obvious high testosterone levels, & yet again, his wife eventually concluded him as a “wuss” because he never actually wanted to show any displays of defeating in petty argumentation.

    Also, during my adolescence, because I never had this practice done to me, I reduced much of the ritualized associations so common with others’ sexuality influenced by the practice. Because of my personal reduction, other females didn’t like me as much.

    What Mr. Goldman is missing is a more integral understanding of Darwinian science & female sexual selection.

    As Buddhist purists know, although not explicitly because they do not welcome politics from intruders, of female nature – “the daughters of Mara” – is that they are of a demonic nature, with the appearance of “bodhisattvas”, cutting off the seeds to enlightenment, which leads to unconsciousness – cuckolding the intellect. This is not a theological analysis. All knowledge is symbolic. This is an issue of patterns in many diverse, far-ranging fields. Paralleling the Darwinian science, Buddhist understanding is basically that female consciousness selects or ordains for sin-fullness of varying degrees. Perhaps in a future incarnation, but they will never attain elightnement in their current incarnation as females becuase they’re too delfiled. You might get from someone like the Dalai Lama that females are “good”, “wonderful,” etc., but it’s just a way to fend what they don’t want away. Females started the cycle. A Buddhist had predicted that allowing women in would cause his teachings to survive only half as long. Some such ancient declarations have been eliminated from texts. Your turn – Happy-hunting!

    Obscuring info. also has some of its origins in gynocentrism, which can be analyzed in a bluntly-put sequential pattern; transcending gynocentric socialization by analysis; “extremism” is labeled by pleasure/females; frustration sometimes occurs to slandered analyzer; observation then is further slandered as “hysteria/”criminal”, etc.; “comedy”, etc., of male argumentation from pop. culture. To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Bill Burr: You can’t criticize women because men are too busy trying to have sex with them. If you tried being a vigilante by shaming females in public, some idiot would try to be a “hero”, often to “peacock” his way to her approval, & beat you, or she would often try to manipualte the situation. We’ve been entertaining & promoting females’ egos so much that we can’t find what’s real.

    Female sexuality – political, dramatic, crafty/sneaky, role-playing of situations like an older uncle figure violating a pre-teen female, anti-intellectual, themes of power exchanging, & fantasy oriented – is completely excusable, yet there’s frequently some beta males & females denigrating, compared to a ratio, the bodily/visuo male sexuality as “low”, “immature”, “trashy”, etc.. You can even glimpse female porn models commenting on male sexuality as “so easy.” The reality is is that female sexuality is much more detrimental. Of course, female sexuality is anti-intellectual. Being abducted on 3:00 p.m., blindfolded, forced into a van after being suddenly awoken, taken to a desolate area, & having 7 men violently have their way with her body & humiliating her, etc. – this is what females fantasize about much more commonly than males because females are the first ones to interpret sexuality of terms of politics & sexualizing intimidation, while males much more so of terms of body parts & visual enhancement, & you will not necessarily get a scientific analysis on this because, A., scientists have reputations to maintain, B., females are secretive, C., they will give incomplete answers. Beta bureaucrats are willing to sometimes defend & apply legal measures with the feminine critiques of pornographers recording females dressed playfully with pigtails, foaming on phalluses, or other images of slimy gapes, etc., & that we should be cautious of this sort of thing, yet why can’t we apply critiques on b.d.s.m. themes much more common & innate to female psychology? & it is not necessarily completely found in video or photographs. Much female pornography is literature. I’ve even criticized females in public (Very bad idea. Don’t do it. You could have your life ruined.) of their varying versions of hybristophilia, & they look at me like I’m the wrong one. The former – an issue of choice of bodily juxtapositions & functions, while the latter – an issue of rationalizing & even the integrity of the future of the species.

    There’s the other argument that beta males & the like will try to use to defend hybristophilia of female-hood; that it’s these females having a noble cause to try to change such bad men for the better, but why would you defend that when those females could apply that desire to build something beneficial with more rational males? One of the most commone defenses by females is “we’re multi-dimensional creatures.” Translation: “I’m scattered & can change-shape whenever I feel like it.”

    Associated physiological responses are evident. “Adrenaline shoots through me”, states one outcast, again, as typed firstly, masculine rational fear is interpreted as “bad”, a “sickness”, etc.. The general lack of curiosity as a defense mechanism about such a practice is strong. There is an aversion to learning potentially ego-threatening new info.. If you consider the defenses maintained by the vast popular to guard a lack of curiosity on just that single issue, consider other experiences males have, often blamed on those males, of being psychologically destroyed also declined. This is an anti-/a-objective culture where you’re here to be “macho”, entertaining, or automatic. “So, that’s just anecdotal when that one states adrenaline shoots through him”. Correction: To reiterate: there is a general lack of curiosity as defense mechanisms & mass cognitive dissonance as well as forgetting. Do people want to know about something as common as the interwork of slaughterhouses, just as an example, not a debate on veganism, & other things of that nature? Male disposability, not just in terms of divorce & male-female relational problems, is not a strong meme because, by even claiming that, males are already type-casted as non-entities.

    It’s been happening for a very long time. You, as a male, have been tricked, if you will, to perform this ’50 Shades Of Greed’ act. & you, as an intellectual male, who does not act like a woman by female collectivism, have been mistreated & induced greed-opting when you tried to have moments of internalized conclusions & just contentment because females have not learned well how to be humble. Remember when you were just sitting there for like 20 seconds, etc., perfectly fine, & she implied that you should continue to give her a life? Fear, oppression, excessive assailing – this is what females are receptive to, & most of society believes that this is the “healthy” way for masculinity, but, to use an analogy, it is like a male pushing a cart for the majority of his time rather than dedication to other more beneficial pursuits. The ’50 Shades Of Greed’ act is a mass female, quite literally, projection of what they think reality should be.

    If one were to simulate the experience of circumcision, which I would not recommend from my own trial, it is my guess, & I’m probably underestimating it, that the pain would be ~50xs that of smearing ultra-strength icy-hot, deep-penetrating pain-relieving cream of camphor, menthol, methyl salicylate on the head & ~1/2 inch below the head, & that indoctrination for the new-born male is, of course, going to be much worse considering that when on the age of pre-adolescence, sensory experience is newer before becoming more jaded.

    & now that I dedicate most of my life to reading books, which betters myself, which, in turn, betters society of varying levels, I’m even less attractive to females because what I represent is antithetical to female sexuality.

    So you might ask: “How is it that there’s still men who were cut & don’t care for b.d.s.m.?” Because some accept indifference, the other becomes angry, both sides of desensitization. The much more important question to ask is: Why is it that females have an intrinsic fascination with b.d.s.m. & synthetic sexuality anyway? There’s even been studies that stated that lesbian relationships are much more about ownership/control-freaks, but that’s entire other chapters. The ownership of her constrains masculinity, when she should already learn to be humble on her own instead so that he doesn’t have to excessively attend to the little retard with the expense of deducting other pursuits. With the b.d.s.m. communities, women will have these convoluted/scattered – not complex in an intelligent way, just scattered – concepts, including sadomasochistic relationships that isn’t even sexual of the way of nudity, penetration, etc., that are, itself, what is the goal – false ideas that you can find “beauty” & “sophisticated” & “mysterious” multi-meanings in the barbarism of b.d.s.m., but the actual obscure meaning is gynocentric ordination. Males though do not really sexualize such ideas to the same frequency. B.D.S.M. has just become added to male sexuality. We all know women are much more megalomaniacal, even the normal culture knows this of some ways, so consider the projections that females have from that.

    The “party” will be over when it is well known that females enjoy abused – vicious/desensitized – masculinity.

  3. Helⅼօ jսst wanted to give you a quiϲk heads up.
    The text in your article seem tо ƅe running off the scrеen in Firefоx.
    I’m not sure if tһis is a formatting issᥙe օr something to do wіth web
    browser сompatibility Ƅut I thought I’d post to let
    you know. Τhe design look great though! Hope you get the problem resolveⅾ soon. Mɑny thanks

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Sign up to our newsletter!