Structures of Authority extract Authority from people.


I am going to describe to you a process in my own terms.  I am all about and for the Authority of Reason, but I am completely against any other structure of authority and I will explain why.  Structures of authority extract authority from human beings.  They essentially extract god from human beings in the form of authority.  They are up down relationships in which one person gets to judge and punish another because of status.  I am up here and you are down there so the rules are different for us, and I benefit from them.  I am closer to our god than you are…

Structures of authority do our thinking for us and we begin to rely on them, and then we stop thinking for ourselves.  Once we know longer suspect them or are suspicious of them, once they have gotten used to listening to them and doing what they say, they can start slipping other information in there that they shouldn’t be doing or saying because they don’t have the authority to do it.  Immoral or incorrect things.  


Structures of authority attract psychopaths and they all eventually become corrupt.  Psychopaths feel innately superior and deserving of anything they want, so they gravitate towards structures of authority without even thinking about it.  Once they are in that office they abuse their authority.  Now you are in an up down battle with somebody with more power and a better reputation so the temptation is to acquiesce and say, “I guess this is just how things are.”  Psychopaths have to do their will psychopathicly.  Ask yourself, why is it that child molesters keep on getting into positions where they can molest children?  Because they have to get close to the children in order to molest them.  What incentive do they have to protect others from themselves?  What incentive do they have to reveal their intention and true nature?  You have to be able to recognize them for yourself.  So you make a structure of authority to do it for you.  You give the government the authority, your authority, to snoop on people, but a psychopath gets into that structure of authority and abuses his power against, you guessed it, you.  


The only way to prevent this is for every person to be able to recognize psychopathic behaviors and be able to confront the behavior of the psychopath and win.  Everybody needs their authority put back in them, they need god put back in them.  They need their responsibility put back on them.  You do this by educating them highly and equally, not just in the usual subjects but also in psychology, philosophy, and  ethics.  

Moral authority does our moral thinking for us.  The moral authority has a reputation for being moral, right?  How else could they be a moral authority?  They are apriorily moral.  Scientific authority does our scientific thinking for us.  Judicial authority does our judicial thinking for us. Legal authority does our legal thinking for us.  Presidential authority does our presiding for us.  


What I find so interesting about the majority of the Atheists online, is that they are not scientists or analytical philosophers or psychologists themselves, they accept received knowledge from those sources.  What they do is select a source for what is true.  As they receive knowledge from those sources they mistakenly make the fundamental attribution error about themselves.  F.A.E. is thinking in terms of essences.  They feel that they are increasing in sciency-ness, they feel very scientific about themselves.  With each factoid they accept they reify to themselves that they and science are becoming closer and becoming one.  They feel that their scientific authority is increasing and that they are increasing in stature and expanding their authority. They in turn expand the authority of science thinking that they are expanding their own authority.  

The curious thing is that they are conflating Atheism with science and correctness and themselves.  If a new idea is presented to them that they have never heard or it doesn’t come from the right source, they reject it.  They even reject things from scientific sources that falsify them.  It is a very fascinating phenomenon.  They are not science, and they are not debating scientifically, and they are not doing science.  Their authority, their god, has been separated from them.  I am about putting god back in people.  


Some of the Atheists online are man-hating women that see religious authority as masculine authority and reject it and want to remove all masculine authority, some of them are anarchists, some of them are pagans, some of them are people that have been traumatized by religious people and have come to associate their trauma with religiosity and god hate. 

Many of the Atheists on line are control freak parents trying to control what their children are exposed to and trying to influence their children to grow up being hostile to religiosity and concepts of god.  So what is going to happen?  When you create a meritocracy of god hate how does the next generation make their parents proud?  By being even more contemptuous than the last generation of religion.  I refer to this as a puritanical pursuit, all puritanical pursuits are dangerous because purity can never be attained.  You can approach purity but you can never attain it, so by it’s very nature it is obsessive and compulsive.  

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear or worry, repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety, or a combination of such obsessions and compulsions. Symptoms of the disorder include excessive washing or cleaning, repeated checking, extreme hoarding, preoccupation with sexual, violent or religious thoughts, relationship-related obsessions, aversion to particular numbers and nervous rituals such as opening and closing a door a certain number of times before entering or leaving a room. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming, and often cause severe emotional and financial distress. The acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and potentiallypsychotic.

Puritanical pursuits are not aware of the law of diminished returns.  

In economics, diminishing returns (also called diminishing marginal returns) is the decrease in the marginal (per-unit) output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

The law of diminishing returns (also law of diminishing marginal returns or law of increasing relative cost) states that in all productive processes, adding more of one factor of production, while holding all others constant (“ceteris paribus“), will at some point yield lower per-unit returns.[1] The law of diminishing returns does not imply that adding more of a factor will decrease the total production, a condition known as negative returns, though in fact this is common.

How many of you know that when Hitler was a youth he war a cornflower in his hat to show that he was in favor of a “pure” Germany?  Remember to this simple concept, aseptic environments are also dead environments.  


So what will happen if Atheism continues on its present course and is successful?  Let’s say that they manage to get rid of religion and bring everybody to the tower of babel so that it can do everybody’s thinking form them.  Science without conscience.  Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason will start a youth program, to start exposing children to science and contempt for religion at a younger age.  Their will be no structure of authority to check the Scientific Authority.  When these youth grow up they will be prejudiced against people that are religious or even spiritual.  They will harass them in the work place and get in other positions of authority.  They will edit their consideration sets to preclude information from anywhere but certain sources.  This will leave them blind to other options, thoughts, and relationships.  They will work like a secret society to further their agenda believing themselves good and incapable of wrong, arrogant in their certainty that they are correct and that science can tell them what to do.  Rewarding their members for being ruthless and vicious towards differing opinions.  


In the end they will defeat themselves, I have foreseen it. That is what happens when you indoctrinate people into what to think and not how to think, you emasculate the brains of your progeny.  



The reason I don’t believe in relationship anymore.


Most people don’t understand the concept of what Aristotle was talking about, he was talking about philia, 

Philia (/ˈfɪljə/ or /ˈfɪliə/; Ancient Greek: φιλία), often translated “brotherly love“, is one of the four ancient Greek words for love. Philia, Storge, agape and eros inAristotle‘s Nicomachean Ethics is usually translated as affectionate regard or “friendship“.[1]

He was making reference to a philoish, which is a philosophical family.  The closest thing to that today is a Fraternity, but not like a college Fraternity, more like a Secret Society.  


I have a saying, “if you don’t understand me you can’t love me.”  I am a very deep and complicated person and somewhat of an expert on myself.  In order to feel loved I would need to be understood, and understanding me isn’t easy, hell, becoming me wasn’t easy, but I like myself and I understand myself.  I have had several people, all of them women, tell me that they could love me without understanding me, no, they can’t and they didn’t.  If your love isn’t specifically crafted for me, then you are not loving me, you are giving me some manner of generic love, a stupid love, because it is not genuine and not for me.  

A friend to all is a friend to none.


I am not only not of this world I am AGAINST THE WORLD.  The world is screwed up, Reason has fled, relationship is impoverished, the laughter of fools everywhere, the leaders are corrupt nincompoops.  I worship the god of reason, I move towards the solution.  My emotions and my body follow the dictates of reason, now for me to be in a relationship with a person less wise than myself whose Reason follows their emotion that would not allow me to do my will.  In order for me to stay in that relationship I would have to force my reason to follow their emotions which means I would give up on my purpose and lose my soul, unacceptable.  

Being that I am on a path and moving in a direction towards a solution for the sake of the world to destroy the current world, in order for relationship to exist for me the other person would have to be on my level at this point in time, moving at the same speed, towards the same goal.  If they weren’t on my level then the only relationship we could have is an educational one in which I am the teacher.  Should I meet somebody that is in front of me moving towards the same goal who knows more than myself then I would let them teach me, because I am reasonable. 


Now what most people call relationship is more like 2 boats passing each other in the night.  You never really know the other person.  When relationship begins you don’t know each other at all, relationship is a process of getting to know one another. Most people are shallow, fake, superficial people that conceal their true self and misrepresent who they are.  My last gf used to constantly ask me, “where is the nice man I met,”  and I would respond, “you killed him.”  What she was trying to do was to force me back in time to when she didn’t know anything about me, and we hadn’t had any disagreements, and none of her lies had been uncovered, and none of her strategic behavior had been exposed.  She thought she had the right to lie, emotionally abuse, manipulate, sabotage, refuse to participate, demand my participation, and all other manner of psychopathic strategic behavior.  She thought she had the right to terrorize the relationship for her own benefit if she wasn’t getting everything she wanted while at the same time denying me everything I needed.  


Every event in the relationship not only characterizes the relationship and determines how we feel about it it also characterizes the other person in the relationship and both people in the relationship to people outside the relationship.  If you are in relationship unconsciously you are creating friction and releasing negative energy, so I have a saying, “Save your best for first and constantly strive to increase your best.”  


What usually happens in relationship is that people’s paths cross, like star-crossed lovers, and as time goes on they realize that they are moving in two different directions.  At this point one of them tries to coerce or seduce the other into following them on their course, what this means is that one party has to follow the other and give up on their dreams.  Relationships should create value for both parties not just one party.  The relationship should help each person do their own will.  It should create value for both of them, not a relationship where one party parasites off the other.  

People shouldn’t be aggressive in the relationship against the relationship, they should be aggressive for the relationship, aggressive against the world.  They shouldn’t try to hi-jack the relationship.  It is a process of learning and growing and increasing the value of the people in the relationship.  It is a process of mutually perfecting one another and helping one another do our own will.  One of the problems I have with Jesus saying,”Do unto others as you want them to do unto you.”  Is that what I want for myself is not what other people want for themselves and unless we share the same philosophy, who is to say they are going to reciprocate in kind?  I want what I want, you want what you want, don’t try to force me to do your will and I won’t force my good on you.  Amen. 

Emotional Morbidity and Psychopathology


Now the difference between the Psychopath and a rational or  sane person is that the Psychopath acts out of emotional morbidity.  I created Shared State Theory of Communication in part because I was observing two things, the fact that I was aware of the fact that I was changing states, emotional states and the way I was in relationship with people, the world, facts,  and events.  While every time I would communicate that I had changed states I noticed that almost everybody else would change the way they were in relationship with me and the relationship either without knowing, or without communicating that something had changed.

Whereas I was able to be self aware, self conscious, and self controlled, these appeared to be intelligences that others did not possess in the same proportions or at all.  I was constantly the victim of this unconscious changing of states, some of the time it was strategic, subversive, or passive aggressive.  I was the first to get screwed.  Instead of being considered a virtue, people seemed to consider being self aware a form of sorcery of which they were suspicious.  Baba Muktananda had always mentioned how he studied people that were successful and people that failed.  I found this interesting as well, how over and over again I was the first person to get sold down the river, not because I was wrong, or bad at my job, but because people feared my knowledge, insight, and ability.  They didn’t want to compete with me on a level playing field because they were afraid of how they would look in comparison to me, and they would have been right, given a chance I would have made them look like they were moving backwards in time.  This is also a clue to why we as a country and a world are in the state of affairs that we are in.  No money in the economy, cleptocracy in the banks and stockmarket, propaganda in the media, puppets in the government.

Knowing that I was in an emotionally morbid state I wouldn’t make decisions or act.  Psychopaths on the other hand only act on their issues, and out of emotionally morbid states.  They don’t take responsibility for their issues or their emotions, as far as they are concerned, everybody else is responsible for their emotions and their emotions are responsible for their behavior.  So a psychopath will throw an histrionic fit, and it is your fault, because you attacked them by existing and them being aware of your existence.


Histrionic psychopaths keep their pain fresh, like an open wound, and they use it as a source of power, they are consciously looking for things to get offended by and they think they win be getting offended.  Then when they have an opportunity they loose their venom on somebody that they are projecting their damage onto.

We now know that Anger comes from feelings of frustration, according to my SSTOC people are always communicating whatever state they are in, even if they are concealing that state, they are probably still leaking that state.  A person that feels thwarted will communicate thwartedness, unjustly thwarting others that don’t deserve it.  In an environment in which people are not educated knowing psychology, America, and not encouraged to be mentally healthy, what we see now is a creeping normalcy.  People are acquisitively mimetic, and they copy behaviors they see.  Monkey see monkey do, ad nauseum.  I refer to it as the tragedy of the commons in regard to strategic behavior.

The problem with modern psychology is that it is normative, which means that it compares the individual to the normal person in society which presupposes that the society itself isn’t batshit insane.  Which as it happens right now, is the case.  This also means that people that are quite rational will be singled out, and considered insane, because the crazy society has to be protected from the sane individuals that every day see the decay of the form of the good.

As part of my theory of rational relationship, a person should communicate in a timely manner if their behavior has been modified from what is rational or expected or necessary so that the other person can respond or change their mind or plan.  This maximizes the value in a rational relationship.  If you don’t communicate correctly, you do not think correctly and you do not act correctly which means the end result will be bad.  All force is a subtle form of rape.

Some of you know my theory on how philosophy and religion came to the west from India through Greece and for those of you this word will be meaningful.

auspicious (adj.) Look up auspicious at Dictionary.com1590s, “of good omen” (implied in auspiciously), from Latin auspicium “divination by observing the flight of birds,” from auspex (genitive auspicis) + -ous. Related:Auspiciouslyauspiciousness.


From auspice +‎ -ious, from Latin auspicium (augury), from Latin auspex (augur), possibly via French.

  1. Of good omen; indicating future success.
  2. Conducive to success.
    This is an auspicious day.
  3. Marked by successprosperous.

Ask yourself these questions:  What stimulated my need recognition?  What are my intentions?  What is my motivation?  What is my desire?  What is my end game?  What is my desired result? 

Things end as they begin, and nothing ends well that is motivated by negative emotions.


Psychopathology and Blame and Responsibility.


In an ongoing effort to explain my theories on the difference between Psychopaths and Sociopaths. I will know explain how they are in relationship with responsibility and blame.  The Sociopath, and when I say sociopath I mean enlightened sociopaths, take more than their fare share of responsibility, not only do they want to survive, they want to have a surplus of survival so they can look out for their wolf pack or lion pride.

The psychopath who is the female mind, or the over-coddled child relies on other people to make up for the lack of value that they are creating.  Not even creating a surplus of survival, not able to survive on their own without the help of another, they complain when they are not being provided for well enough, they don’t even think about how they are behaving in the relationship and how it is affecting the group effort.

The psychopath, not understanding the problem and not comprehending the solution wants the male mind to solve the problem for them, but at the same time, they want to judge and criticize the solution.  They think that the solution should look good to them from their perspective and meet their approval.  In their behavior wanting to behave as they want the actively, unconsciously antagonize the solution.


Sex Deconstructed in terms of SSTOC


I want to show people how I perceive and understand reality, it took years of study and meditation in order for me to create my psychological science in order to create a bridge from my personal experience in the form of rational description for others to understand what I understand.

Let us take the subject of heterosexual sex and deconstruct it so that we can see what motivates both parties.  It is a shared state in that we can agree two parties are there and are having sex, but this experience is shared by two completely different minds and perspectives.  What motivates and arouses the male is not necessarily what motivates and arouses the female.  What he thinks is going on is not necessarily agreed upon.  The male is simply aroused by sex and the positive attention and affection, he is not looking for anything beyond that, unless he is.  Some men are opportunistic reproducers and will take any opportunity to reproduce.  We didn’t even know that opportunistic reproducers existed until we created sperm banks and observed their strategic behavior.

Now women are different, most women will not and cannot be aroused by sex alone unless they have male minds.  Women are not attracted to a man whose DNA they don’t want to see reproduced (with few exceptions)  There are some contrarian women, more than you might think, that will force themselves to have sex with men they are not naturally attracted to.  In my experience women are much more capable of being false to their natural instincts than men.  In order to prove other’s wrong they will ignore their natural desires and express themselves falsely.  This shows that they are not actually engaged in relationship honestly but strategically.  They are more interested in proving somebody else, outside of the relationship wrong than being authentic and present in the relationship, this is interesting because it shows how women are more interested in the herd, competing with other women, and proving others wrong than they are present and invested in their relationships, succeeding in their 1 to 1 relationships.  They rather see themselves as part of a herd.


A natural, honest, woman will not be aroused by a man who she feels is genetically undesirable.  Now in the act of arousal a man is stimulated by what arouses him and the woman is stimulated by what arouses her (unless one of them is faking).  Assuming that the arousal is mutual it creates enough value for both of them to remain in the relationship.  Now let us examine the organism.  Women were not made for sex they were made for conception.  While the man is aroused by the woman, the woman, whether she is aware of it or not, is aroused by the concept of children.  Even a woman who simply likes sex, on an unconscious physical level, her body is aroused by the concept of conceiving.


Osho said that women, sexually, are the polar energetic reversal of men.  Women are lunar in the uterus, and solar in the nipple, while men are solar in the penis and lunar in the nipple.  Women are more interested in their authority than they are in the source of their authority, which is to say, the woman is physically predisposed to being more interested in children than she is in her husband.



Now let us examine the normative presuppositions made about relationship.  We presuppose that the woman is the object of desire, that men chase women, what if that is not the case?  What if women had to pay a stud fee?  Why do women not have the onus of responsibility and pursue the man they want?   Why do we think that women should not have good taste in the matter?  

Women would want to have children even if marriage didn’t exist.  Since we know that women are more likely than men to get a divorce, why do we blame men for the divorce?  Why do we punish men?  Why do we not, instead, create a system based on an understanding of male and female inclination which doesn’t create a disparate impact?  Why does the government essentially take sides in the matter?

Imagine that women could have anybodies child they wanted, without putting financial responsibility on the man and looping him into this unfair cycle of blame and responsibility?  Can women not choose consciously and before hand what they want?

What happens when you expect men to pursue and seduce women instead of relying on the good taste of the women is you create a type of relationship where the women operating on ego consciousness has an incentive to get as much attention as possible and to force men to compete for her attention, while she competes with other women for the most attention of men.  This robs everybody of value, look at the phoniness of Kim Kardasian’s relationships.  It is not a relationship it is theater, advertising, her vagina is a billboard to her own ego.  Other women copy her.  What this type of relationship does is it exposes women to being manipulated by the most psychopathic male.  The one that lies to her the best.  The one that spends the most money, how did he get that money?  By creating value for society?  Or by stealing from society?


Not to mention, when we assume the normal relationship, society having a normative bias and presupposing that what they have seen is normal and good.  We invite the prejudices of society into the relationship.  Many times I have communicated the type of relationship I want to have ahead of time, and when the woman didn’t want to participate she want outside of the relationship and invoked the normative judgments of people that didn’t know what kind of relationship we had or what we had agreed upon between ourselves.  She brought the authority of the herd to put psychological pressure on me, to force me into the relationship she wanted, and to control and influence my behavior.  Of course every time this happened I just left the relationship.  Interesting how psychopaths approaching the relationship strategically are aggressive in the relationship not for the relationship, creating negative feelings in the relationship as a form of emotional abuse, all the while expecting you to stay in the relationship.  Since my last failed relationship I have forsworn women, in this economy, in this political environment, women are more of a liability, than a boon, more of a curse than a blessing.



Fanaticism and the Plasticity of the sense of self.


I wanted to explain something that I thought would be interesting to a certain friend of mine about my theories on psychology.  The thing is that we as humans have a sense of self that we arbitrarily and unconsciously expand and retract.  We do this based on several different factors, we expand our sense of self based on affinity, shared suffering, and survival data.

For example, the illustration I usually use is that one is in the store and they have a shopping cart full of stuff, they look away for a moment and when they turn back around the shopping cart and their groceries are gone.  They become emotional.  They had projected their sense of self onto the shopping cart and the items in it because of the survival data contained there in and because of the work they had done to procure it.

The easiest way to get people to “click” is through a shared sense of suffering.  People connect more quickly through their issues than through the faculty of their reason.


People also gravitate towards one another based on psychological co-morbidity and addictions.

One of the behaviors I find the most interesting is sports fanaticism.  The person expands their sense of self to include a sports team.  What is so fascinating about this behavior is that events then have emotional data for them.  If the team loses they feel bad, wins they feel good.  It’s like magick.


I am really only interested in how people treat me.  Of course I do have some issues, I expand my sense of self to include reasonable people and highly intelligent people and people that increase my value, people that help me do my will.

The Holy Trinity as a Psychological Metaphor


I have been trying to figure out how to put this information together in the least offensive way.  The western brain, male and female has a feminine bias, and reacts emotionally and violently to certain Ideas.  The information expressed in this blog is descriptive of a philosophy from a long time ago and explanatory of the situation we currently find ourselves in.  Please do not presuppose that I agree with everything in this blog.  You don’t know how I am in relationship with the information in this blog, if you ask me I will tell you.  Above all I would like to appreciate Fidem Turbare for having the open mindedness to entertain my explanations, and the intelligence to understand what I am talking about.  It is a huge frustration when there is nobody on your level capable of evaluating you or understanding what you are talking about.  I have decided to rewrite this blog as a personal conversation between me and Fidem.

As some of you know I am a philologist and a linguistic philosopher, I have traced the origins of Christianity to India through Judaism.  Many of you might not know this but the people that created the religions were not theists, they were deists.  I set out a long time ago to understand the perspective of the people that created the religions.  Jesus was a member of the cult of Pythagorus, I know this because I have learned how to recognize rhetorical tautologies, and languages of experience in a person’s narrative.  Jesus references the corner stone that was rejected, even today this symbolism is very important to freemasonry which also traces it’s origins back to Pythagorus.


In my very popular piece here ( I lay out my metaphysics and explain the rolls assigned men and women in an attempt to make a scientific marriage unit, scientific from ancient standards, but still not without merit as we will discuss later in this blog.

From the perspective of the ancients, male and female roles were internalized and externalized, there was a division of labor and a division of attention.  In Persia women were property, in Greece marriage was a business contract.  It had less to do with love and more to do with survival.  Women naturally and instinctively like to think about things that women like, puppies, kittens, babies, etc.  It was known back in the day that women are interested in extending and expanding their authority, anybody that is not a threat and that expands their authority they want to protect, the sick, the poor, etc.  Women expand their authority to usurp masculine authority.  They don’t think about the political environment, or the economic environment, and when they make decisions they take fewer considerations into account.  They think only of their own needs and the needs of those under their authority.  For this reason the man represented Sapiential Authority, the Mother Moral authority and the child survival and action in the future, also acting on the fathers wisdom.


It is important to note that the average western male no longer studies Torah everyday, or attends a Wisdom school like Freemasonry, and even if he did Freemasonry is no longer the moral science that it once was, it has devolved into a business fraternity and drinking club for the most part.  The average American male is no longer conversant in high philosophy, he doesn’t hang out with the boys at the gymnasium discussing politics and policy.  So the rules have changed.

If you observe women’s behavior under life threatening circumstances you realize that in that state of temporary autism a person operates on their hard wiring.  Never have I heard of a woman throwing herself between her boyfriend and a gunman.  I have heard of women sheltering their babies.  In the recent batman movie shootings 3 young men died protecting their girlfriends.

Aristotle wrote on this subject immensely, of interest is that any society that stops reading Aristotle shortly ends up back in the Dark Ages.  Aristotle wrote extensively on the proper relationship between men and women noting too that men sexually peak at the age of 18 and women at the age of 40.


In the Hindu Epic the Ramayana, which I believe is the source of inspiration for the biblical account of Adam and Eve, Sita is kidnapped because she sees a beautiful deer and she wants Rama and his brother to go and catch it for her so she can have it as a pet.  At the end of the book it is because of her Fickle sentimental thinking that the whole escapade happened in the first place.  Women are sentimental thinkers.  They weigh emotions as more important than reason.

Most people don’t know this but God’s Holy Spirit is actually a woman:

ShekinahShechinahShechina, or Schechinah (Hebrewשכינה‎), is the English spelling of agrammatically feminineHebrewname of God in Judaism.[citation needed] The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the Divine Presence of God, especially in the Temple in Jerusalem.

The reason that the Catholic Church had to turn her into a ghost is to silence her.  There is a psychological reason for shaming girls for their sexual behavior, women need to be more careful and take more responsibility for their actions because of their nature.  Women do not take responsibility for their actions in general.  A woman will have sex with a man and just assume the relationship is about her needs, desires, and wants, without communication ahead of time.  When men are blamed and shamed for the desire for sex this creates negative, unsustainable, patterns in society.  It counter incentivizes masculine sexuality.  This is something that should be meditated on.

Because women don’t solve problems in such a way as they create value for men (IN GENERAL) they automatically presuppose their own authority and think that men should be like women.  It is a cognitive bias to think that everyone thinks like you do.  Men and women were separated back in the day not to protect women from men but to protect masculinity from femininity.



Genesis 2:18  Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.”

In societies where survival is difficult masculine values dominate, in societies where survival is easy, feminine values dominate.  To believe is the current virtues of Western culture you have to presuppose a leisurely ability to survive.  But that isn’t the case is it?  The economy isn’t coming back because we do not have a large surplus of anything to sell that we don’t appreciate or need.  We do not have an infinite supply of energy with which to transport those products.  Atomic energy has proven to be unsustainable, which is why they are shutting down the atomic energy plants.  We are running out of oil which America needs because it has the larges military in the world and China needs that oil because they are industrializing.  So the military is a depreciating asset and the oil is a resource that every day gets more expensive and less abundant.  

A few years ago I downloaded all of the free classes from Itunes university from all of the Ivy league colleges on all of the subjects I was interested in, and I listened to them over and over.  Cognitive science, philosophy, and psychology.  I also downloaded a bunch of commentaries on literature and such.  One of the things I downloaded, and I wish I remembered her name, was a speech by a black female Judge from Chicago, explaining how the no fault divorce was created in order to get women out of abusive marriages, but what it did was it allowed a windfall of women divorcing their husbands for no reason.  She specifically blamed women for the divorce epidemic.  And I believe she was correct.  Once a man has been divorced he doesn’t have a home but he still has to pay her bills, he can’t see his children unless she allows him to, and somehow, depressed and alone he still has to support himself.

The female mind is naturally insensitive to the male mind.  So in a society which every day is being scaled down to please women NO VALUE IS BEING CREATED FOR MEN.  Men don’t have an incentive to protect this society or these women.  Every woman that comes along wants to hitch her wagon to my horse.  She enters into relationship for her own benefit presupposing herself good and correct in her desires and giving not a single fuck about my desires and happiness unless my will is to serve her needs alone.  What is being said to American men is this, “Oh, I am sorry, me and the children do not have enough stuff, perhaps you can kindly go kill yourself so that we can get the insurance money.”

Now ponder this, Muslim men and the Islamic culture CAN control their women, while our women are not reasonable and refuse to be controlled.  Which society is going to survive?  Especially, when women edit their consideration sets so that they only look at the things that make them happy, immediately are suspicious of western men, and blame and abuse the very men they expect to serve and protect them?

The liberal, elitist, feminist mentality is only sustainable in a society that is highly successful.  Imagine that we are in ancient Greece and it isn’t that easy to survive.  You have to survive into the future or your culture will disappear, so you have to have children.  You have to have a relationship that maximizes value for everybody.  Everybody has roles to fill and they have rights. You can’t afford to give any person in that relationship more than is sustainable from the surplus of value created by the success of the relationship.


Muslims consider Christians polytheists and therefore heretics and blasphemers BECAUSE of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  From their perspective:

“There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

That is a rhetorical tautology of a masculine only perspective.  So who is going to inherit the earth?  What precedes the collapse of Western rule historically?

In my psychological models what I did was I studied, Deborah Tannen’s work on male female communication rituals.  All narrative is doxography, which is to say point of view.  So it characterizes each person speaking.  What you realize is that the human brain was compartmentalized into 2 different brains by evolution. Due to their natural strengths and weaknesses a division of labors if you will.  What modern society is doing is undoing what evolution did, while at the same time destroying  modern society.  If you observe female vs. male communication rituals you see also how the male brain and female brain are in relationship with one another.

Now here is the key for you, when I say “male and female” part of that is based on yin and yang or broken and unbroken.  Which is to say an inferior mind to a superior mind and the relationship between them.  The reason you cannot infer from your experience to falsify my research is this, you are not normal, you are a lot smarter than most people and completely different from any other woman I have met.  From your perspective, the majority of psychopaths/female minds that you have experienced in relationship are men.  Psychopaths are aggressive in relationship, they approach relationship strategically for their own benefit.  They expect you to stay in the relationship while they continue to judge you, abuse you, lie to you, manipulate you, and punish you.  No matter how many times they are wrong or they fail they still feel themselves your equal and refuse to participate with reason.

The Science of yoga is the art of finding all of the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases that the human brain makes.  In essence, throwing the mind.  Emotions warp and distort reality around us.  I call this the averseness of the mind, it happens unconsciously without our knowing it.  Familiarity breeds contempt.  Nassim Nicholas Taleb documented a similar phenomenon.  On long flights statisticians were more likely to buy insurance for things that were far less likely to happen, like terrorism, than insurance for accidents that were far more likely to happen, due to what I call the averseness of the mind.  Observe if you will the behavior of the Atheists.  They are far more verbally abusive against Christians than the far more menacing threat of Muslims.  Even in the middle of a global Jihad push they would rather harass Christians.  Richard Dawkins himself says that you won’t see atheists leading troupes into battle.  Who is fighting the Muslims?  The Christians.

Women are aggressive communicators while at the same time being deaf to reason.  If appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy than communicating emotionally is a dynamic tautology of the appeal to emotion fallacy. Observe how women argue, histrionic fits, changing the pitch, tone, and cadence of their speech, talking over your.  Observe how this deviates from Socratic dialogue.  Men are sensitive listeners, women adopt these communication rituals to abuse the male mind, and to force it’s compliance.  When I was younger I actually developed a psychosomatic response to the sound of Diane Chamber’s voice on Cheers, my eyes would dilate and my heart would race, I was having a panic attack, it was stimulated by my having to talk to my mother and my relationship with my sister.  All of her smarmy sanctimony and her self appointed moral authority, presupposing her right to judge everybody from her own narrow perspective.  The funny thing about her was that she wasn’t acting, that is really who she was.  Everybody on the caste hated her.  One time they threw a party and they gave her the wrong address.  True story.

Inferior minds are bitch move artists, (I am sorry, I know you don’t like that word)  they are artists that express themselves through the medium of bitch moves to appear to be more than they are.  They try to expand and increase their authority and interrupt the rational conversation.  They approach the conversation strategically, concealing their true intention and misrepresenting themselves, they try to control what can be said, the direction of the conversation, the focus of the conversation and they attempt to force the conclusion of the conversation.  The conversation is the relationship, every event in the relationship characterizes the relationship.  All of these tactics are the same tactics used by mothers on babies.  I call it “jingling the keys” the mother tries to control your focal point, and then communicates to you emotional data as to how you should feel about the thing and what you should do.


The feminine bias in society is also associated with tacit judgments I refer to as superficial aesthetic snap decisions.  This is based on the flow of negative emotional data.  The child can communicate negative emotional data to the mother, and the mother to the father, but the flow of negative emotional data cannot be reversed without invoking the refractory state of the western mind which reveals a tacit bias in favor of femininity.  Here is a picture I photo-shopped to illustrate the way in which the male and female mind are in relationship with one another.


In ancient times they had the age of accountability. It was at that age that the authority of the mother ended and the authority of the father began.  The role of the father was to make the child suitable for society, psychologically sound and whole, capable of being a citizen and understanding the values of the culture.  The highest form of the good and the worst form of the bad.  With daughters when the age of accountability was reached, they were given or sold or married to a man and he took over her instruction.  In our current modern society the authority of the mother never ends, and people never take responsibility, they never understand, they never grow up.  We have created an entire generation of babies expecting to be provided for.  When they do something wrong or stupid they just appeal to feminine authority to mercy and charity, claiming that they weren’t responsible and they didn’t know what they were doing.

Other countries and cultures have no problem recognizing that men and women are different.  It is only because of propaganda in Western science that we hold this prejudice.  Even Western science is starting to realize it’s error.  If Western society hasn’t degenerated it is degenerating. . .

At least that is the view from my seat.