Latest Posts

They are bigger than mine, have to fix that....

As dearly as we love em!. One does have to wonder how they are capable of reaching the responses and reactions they do. Feminists are no different obviously, as they are predominately saturated by that very sex and that would actually explain how one can never really have a reasonable discussion with them veering off on another tangent without any provocation whatsoever..

It is probably the main reason men are so fascinated when they come across an intelligent female, whose responses are closer to our own rather than the standard examples we read about, talk to and see on a daily basis. Meeting one is like winning a lottery and out the window flies that special effort required to bite the tongue and whip out the brain cells for a readjustment to mindless maudlin in mediocrity, the effort required to deal with the situation..

It is also why I relish in the fact that when I see an article or post that actually considers a broader perspective or a considered meaningful viewpoint,  instead of the usual standard level of discussion one is attuned to as well as come to expect, is obviously refreshing. I could name a few offhand, who consistently express reasonableness as well as a deep POV that stirs the senses. But it is not the norm, unfortunately. Normally the tangent evolves around actions and areas one really does not give a rats arse about, like shopping, dancing and partying, areas already sufficiently covered by those magazines, that can stay in written print without ever being repeated, as far as I am concerned but unfortunately it's not the case..

One does want to question feminists on their mind lock but it is an effort in futility as the response does actually encourage and present that cognitive dissonance one hopes to spend their life, avoiding..
  And in the case of intelligence, there are actually grounds to infer that provided-for women who never have to do anything except shop shop shop, text text text and dance dance dance finish up actually losing their intellectual capabilities.
Spending one's life deciding what colour that item should be to an unrecognisable level of insignificance or that automatic response to answering the phone when it rings as if someone's life was in balance when in reality, it's just more gossip, the decision of what to wear for a specific occasion while already knowing precisely what outfits one has, discourages practical brain activity, demanding that to functions similar to watching television, already demonstrated that the brain functions stands at zero, ahh! thats better..

That claim made by feminists that women somehow hover in a higher sphere is soundly discounted by watching their behavioral patterns, reading their endless complaints and one wonders just how many more lies they can get away with..


Lessons from nature: Brain in a vat

In this somewhat tongue-in-cheek article we examine the difference in intelligence between men and women. The normal bell curve distribution is often addressed metaphorically to describe women’s distribution in parameters like intelligence as being taller and narrower, while that of men’s is flatter and wider. This essentially makes the point that men occupy a wider variation on parameters like intelligence; from incredibly dumb to incredibly smart, while women occupy a comfy medium. There is less variation in performance and abilities among women than there is among men. It turns out that, on average, the intelligence of men and women is the same.
This is all well and good, except that there is another dynamic playing out in gender differences. There is something called sexual dimorphism. [11] This is a term from the mainstream biological sciences where the male and female evolve to acquire different phenotypic traits. And in the case of intelligence, there are actually grounds to infer that provided-for women who never have to do anything except shop shop shop, text text text and dance dance dance finish up actually losing their intellectual capabilities. In their provided-for lives, without moral responsibility, their brains actually appear to rot. They do become dumber. In order to appreciate why this should be so, we need to dump the mainstream evolutionary psychology (EP) paradigm grounded in genocentrism. [5] If this offends genocentrists, then be warned. Muff your ears and cover your eyes. This article is not for you.

Habits of indulgence

Men and women value attractiveness in women. Especially within the Anglosphere, a woman’s entire worth is established almost exclusively on her physical appearance and how she packages it. The EP crowd have an explanation for the importance of female beauty. They will blather on about attractiveness as being an indicator of health, superior genes, etc. Meanwhile, the Game and PUA community worship beautiful women at the Altar of the Vag, and women who can package themselves to look attractive enjoy privileges and entitlements that are not extended to those women who either fail to pay attention to their packaging, or for whom no amount of packaging can salvage.
But there is one dimension of womanly existence that is never taken seriously, especially within our current zeitgeist, and that is a woman’s intelligence. Personality may rate to some extent…her readiness to laugh at men’s jokes, her social savvy, her ability to get drunk just like men do, her ability to establish belonging within a huge group of girls, etc. But these are aspects more related to group-think and conformity rather those deeper qualities that we associate with intelligence… such as curiosity, integrity, skill, commonsense, courage, etc. This raises a most important question. Can the disconnect between beauty and brains ever be reconciled? In terms of universal possibilities, I’m confident that it can; in terms of human life on Earth and our current trajectory, the answer is no, it cannot. Trying to reconcile the beauty-brains disconnect within the context of our zeitgeist and culture is a fool’s errand.

Atrophy of the mind

It is well established now that PUAs, as performing seals begging for fish, routinely work themselves into a lather about what women think of them, and then construct elaborate strategies to demonstrate to their objet de l’amour that they don’t care what women think of them. The extent to which women’s opinions matter is proportional to where these women rate on the attractiveness scale. The unspoken rule is that the opinions of nines and tens are weighted more than the opinions of fives and sixes, while the opinions of ones and twos are weighted probably nothing at all. There is no rational reason for this instinctive association between attractiveness and credibility. It’s a subconscious reflex, a bias.
This manner of thinking comes about because of the EP paradigm and the genocentrism on which it is based. Women who are deemed to be attractive are valued more, and so game theory extends the fantasy by rationalizing that they must also be “better” at other things, such as intelligence. These “higher quality” women demonstrate their intelligence in their social savvy. This is naught but projection, receiving its inspiration from a culture obsessed with female beauty and then attributing to it various assumptions that are unfounded.
But let’s take a closer look…What if the reverse is actually true? What if intelligence is more likely to be inversely proportional to attractiveness? There is sound reason to expect precisely this to be the more likely truth. There are various theoretical frameworks available to suggest this; whether they are grounded in religion, customs, psychology, semiotics or science, for example, and within many of these frameworks is the idea that habits play a crucial role in character formation. [6][7][8][9]
Sometimes these habits might be described in terms of “units of imitation”, and this brings us to the field of memetics and the spread of memes. [10] Where do these habits, or memes, come from? The answer is…culture. The provided-for sex has permission to be, well, provided for. These days, a woman has permission to work (if she wants) or to do nothing (if the fancy takes her). Affirmative action grants her freebies and entitlements to which men have no comparable access. And of course the prettier that a woman is, the more privileges and entitlements she can wallow in. For all her practical utility, she might as well be a brain in a vat.
Traditionally, women’s stay-at-home option was a part of the marriage contract, a division of labour that came with responsibilities, from raising and schooling children to domestic and social duties. Implicit within this contract was moral conduct. Sharing the load with her husband, these environmental pressures and the attendant division of labour between the sexes constantly tested everyone at the boundaries between self, family and environment. So imagine how intelligent…not…today’s prettiest stay-at-home must be, given that she no longer bears the onus of these responsibilities. Today’s provided-for stay-at-home must be the ultimate hippopotamus wallowing in freebies for which she does not have to account. She is a parasite sucking the lifeblood from her clod provider and as useless as a brain in a vat. A brain in a vat is not sustainable – without stimulation from the environment, it is destined to turn to mush.
Now it is true that women often derive considerable stimulation from texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing. However, these forms of stimulation are not comparable to things like fixing a car, creating a computer, composing a work of art, or working out a business strategy. So what do we notice here in the differences in the ways in which men and women think? In women, it’s the absence of decision-making. There is no outcome to decide on in the process of texting, gossiping, shopping or dancing, beyond consolidating popularity with your girlfriends or more simply: pure indulgence for its own sake. And while housework and shopping for the family have an important part to play in domestic responsibilities, decision-making is rarely as consequential for women as it is for men.
There are limited risks in deciding on one brand of hairspray over another. For women, there are no consequences for mistakes that are comparable to getting sand in your engine, or misaligning the head of your engine, or messing up a masterpiece, or creating a short circuit on a circuit board, or your opponent getting wind of your strategy. Men have to make things work… often to the extent that it can become a matter of life and death. For women, texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing are not quite as dangerous or risky. Many things that women do can be done in their pyjamas, without even having to venture beyond the front door. Women’s activities may stimulate memory and white matter (glia), but they won’t stimulate the grey matter…the neurons. Maybe that’s why women age so much quicker than men…with the limited stimulation that texting, gossiping and dancing can provide, things must get old for them very quickly.
And here we come up against an essential property of all living things. Namely, a mind that is never tested is a mind that atrophies. Use it or lose it. And it does apply as much to men as it does to women, it’s just that men’s role as utility device limits their options for being an unproductive parasite. There is evidence that the “use it or lose it” principle is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom.