Permanent Victim Status

adam wolfe comedy

I wanted to explain how the psychopathic/female mind works when it makes superficial Aesthetic snap decisions. The female mind thinks of expanding and increasing it’s authority, it does so by usurping the authority of reason.

Now, based on my psychological models there are essentially 3 types of Authority:

Sapiential Authority— Moral Authority— Coercive Authority

These correspond to the brain in it’s 3 stages of development:


Which Correspond to:

Super Ego——Ego——Id

Now I refer to the Psychopathic mind as the Mother/Child mind.  Because psychopaths are over-coddled children, and the mind of the enabling toxic mother and the psychopathic child are comorbid with one another.  Working together to thwart reason, and steal the surplus created by the Father Principle.

The Authority of the mother exists because of the child.  Children start out as irrational emotional little creatures completely dependent on other’s for their survival.  They communicate no analytical data and only emotional data.  They are quite irrational.  But from the perspective of Mercy and Charity the Irrational Delusions of the Over Coddled Child make sense to the Mother Principle who knows that her authority comes from the existence of the child.   Since the Mother’s brain evolved to make sense of the Irrational and delusional mind of the child the emotions and desires of the child have more value or merit to her than they do to the father principle but also she is more akin to the reasoning of the Over Coddled Child than she is to that of the Father Principle or Reason which she perceives as a hostile, foreign, will.

To protect, increase, and expand her authority she must maintain the pole position preventing the relationship between reason and action.   (Coercive Authority represents not only violence/punishment or coercion but also action and survival into the future)


While the Sociopathic Male brain contemplates the outside world and changes himself to make himself suitable for survival in the world.  The Psychopathic Female brain is turned away from reality and towards relationships, conversations about emotions and about people’s desires and feelings.  Because of the way the female/child brain edits their considerations sets they are ignorant of what the father (Reason) knows.  Reason, in it’s judgments, already accounts for as much Mercy and Charity as is warranted, deserved, and affordable.  Therefore the Appeal to Emotions of the Female/Child mind is also redundant and exaggerated, the female mind increases and expands her authority by usurping the Authority of Reason.


This is easier to explain from the Chinese perspective, to explain how the Western Mind with it’s feminine bias categorizes people and therefore determines if they are deserving of Justice or Mercy.  In the Asian system, Yang-ness, Masculinity is unbroken, symbolized as an unbroken line, and Yin-ness is symbolized as a broken line.


This is how the Western Mind determines if you are worthy of Mercy, and Charity or Justice.  Failure and evil get categorized as Yin or female, and thus they are deserving of Mercy and Charity.  The Western Bias is also self loathing being suspicious of it’s own men, while at the same time reliant on them and incapable of understanding or agreeing with them because they refuse to look at what the Sociopathic Male Brains look at.  (In Joxua’s Psychological Models philosophers are “Enlightened Sociopaths”.)

The mother principle not only protects the child principle from reality, understanding, and Justice, she also protects and nurture’s it’s issues and mental diseases at the same time making the child more aggressive and narcissistic in it’s insanity.  There is a tacit prejudice in the way Mercy and Charity are abused in this perversion.  It assumes that a person or group of people are incapable of raising themselves to the same level everybody else is on, the bar for entry level.  They are incapable of being equal to everybody else under a meritocracy of reason and so they need to be admitted any way and given a handicap to compensate for their natural state of constant failure and ineptitude cause by the over coddling of the mother, but her authority is still intact because the over coddled child is still under her authority and dependent on it.


If you study the psychology and the behavior of the permanent victim it is really quite interesting.  Permanent Victims have at the same time an inferiority complex and a superiority complex.   From their perspective they are superior because they are inferior, their over-coddling mother taught them that they win by failing, this isn’t necessarily expressed overtly but through the incentives and the sequences of events this concept is instilled in the child.  People copy whatever behaviors they see succeeding because they are Acquisitively Mimetic, people are not innately Analytical Philosophers who introspect to see if something is just.  People just want what they want and if they always get what they want they have no reason to give pause.

Now, the permanent victim feels that everything that happens to them happens to them because of their issue, whatever that might be.  “This is happening to me because I am a woman, this is happening to me because I am black.”  Whenever they don’t get everything they want they claim to be victimized because of their issue and invoke the Mother principle of Mercy and Charity.  At the same time, it has been instilled in them, that because their issues are protected they can act as the judge, jury, and executioner on their own behalf, championing themselves and defending themselves vociferously in their delusion and error.


When I started my fiction endeavor,( to reintroduce Wisdom into the literature of the world, I created a civilization known as the Zed, because they were the last civilization before the earth collapsed into anarchy.  One of the tenets of that civilization is that if you are found to be lacking, if you are incapable of contributing more of a surplus than you consume or if you commit a major infraction of the rules, if someone speaks out in your favor for mercy or charity on your part, in disagreement with every body else, then they are responsible for your failure and your fate.  Which means they rely on your resources, not those of society, and if they re-offend you get the same punishment that they do.

The most egregious abuse of Mercy and Charity almost always involves taking the surplus of those who have earned it and squandering it on those who have proven they don’t deserve it.  This is an act of theft and a sabotage of society, it punishes success and rewards failure.  And all to often those asking for Mercy and Charity on the part of others risk no personal financial loss or damage to their reputation, or the need to accomplish the outcome which they guaranteed would be the end.  This pattern in society exactly mimics my psychological models.

When nobody in society takes responsibility for their actions and results, you don’t have a society.

Notice the tacit emotional appeal, how women communicate an excess of emotional data?

maryam kheradmand


People with HPD are usually high-functioning, both socially and professionally. They usually have good social skills, despite tending to use them to manipulate others into making them the center of attention.[4] HPD may also affect a person’s social and/or romantic relationships, as well as their ability to cope with losses or failures. They may seek treatment for clinical depression when romantic (or other close personal) relationships end.

Individuals with HPD often fail to see their own personal situation realistically, instead dramatizing and exaggerating their difficulties. They may go through frequent job changes, as they become easily bored and may prefer withdrawing from frustration (instead of facing it). Because they tend to crave novelty and excitement, they may place themselves in risky situations. All of these factors may lead to greater risk of developing clinical depression.[5]

Additional characteristics may include:

  • Exhibitionist behavior
  • Constant seeking of reassurance or approval
  • Excessive sensitivity to criticism or disapproval
  • Pride of own personality and unwillingness to change, viewing any change as a threat
  • Inappropriately seductive appearance or behavior of a sexual nature
  • Using somatic symptoms (of physical illness) to garner attention
  • A need to be the center of attention
  • Low tolerance for frustration or delayed gratification
  • Rapidly shifting emotional states that may appear superficial or exaggerated to others
  • Tendency to believe that relationships are more intimate than they actually are
  • Making rash decisions[4]
  • Blaming personal failures or disappointments on others
  • Being easily influenced by others, especially those who treat them approvingly
  • Being overly dramatic and emotional[6]

Origins of Western Philosophy, Rabbi Ba’al Shivah

Thought Uncommon

A huge help in putting together my theories was the work of Okko Behrends.  What I do is I look for the movement of ideas, words, philosophies, processes, practices (praxis) from one culture to another over time.  These create rhetorical tautologies or identical patterns.  Some cultures adopt and keep those patterns because of an affinity and others do not.

Frankly I think that the Augur’s of Pre-Greek Minoan cult were originally from India and in India I believe they were called the Aghori.

The Aghori (Sanskrit: अघोरaghōra)[2] are asceticShaivasadhus.

The Aghori in Shaivism.

The Aghori are known to engage in post-mortem rituals. They often dwell in charnel grounds, have been witnessed smearing cremationashes on their bodies, and have been known to use bones from human corpses for crafting skull bowls (which Shiva and other Hindu deities are often iconically depicted…

View original post 2,059 more words

Epistemology Paradox Where Psychology meets Philosophy


Ponder this, how is it that you know yourself and how is it that you know anything about the world or facts?

You know the world through yourself and you know yourself in relation to the world and the things in the world. 

Even your self image, the way you feel about yourself is determined in part by how people characterize you to yourself by how they react to you and how they treat you.  Also a lot of your self image is determined by what you don’t know about yourself.  Normal people are not depressed, but in psychology it is known that only depressed people evaluate themselves correctly.  If we examine the Dunning Kruger Effect this might be because the experienced individual compares themselves to people that are better than themselves and knows their own weaknesses and down-fallings.  Whereas an inexperienced person just has feelings about themselves.  The young woman who thinks she is very good at sex because she enjoys it a lot.  The young man who thinks he is good at singing because he sings very loudly.  If we are delusionally in relationship with ourselves we are delusional about the world and vice versa.

There are other people who are non-delusional about facts but they are delusional about themselves.  These people are quite curious, they worship factoids and are non delusional about facts but they don’t have wisdom or understanding that connects them, they are like rain man.  These people often have warped personalities or non personalities.  We often see them trolling the internet as radical Atheists, ruining interesting conversations, and passive aggressively sniping and criticizing others but completely unaware of themselves, incapable of scrutinizing themselves and incapable of allowing themselves to be scrutinized or criticized by others.  It is though they want to be a person with no body that throws stones at every person with a body.


Psychology was originally in the form of the Talking Cure.  Modern psychology has failed to maintain a connection to it’s purest root and highest manifestation.  The Talking Cure actually made you smarter, it was a form of discussion and relationship almost scientific in it’s nature.  It was an intimate joint venture into the nature of reality through the realm of proper conversation.  It was aware of all of the logical fallacies and cognitive biases.  It was participatory in spirit.  You helped the other person refine their relationship with reality by pointing out any logical fallacies or cognitive biases they might be using.  In a way this became what is now peer review in science.  It was a rational, appreciative, ameliorative, relationship where people didn’t mislead, obfuscate, bifurcate, conflate, conceal, misrepresent,  or mislead intentionally. They didn’t try to shut the other person up, or passive aggressively create negative antagonizing emotions with veiled hostility operating on a hidden agenda.

The funny thing about the “fanatical atheists” as Albert Einstein referred to them, is that they aren’t even rationally in relationship with science or philosophy (or themselves, or others for that matter).  They really don’t know how to reason or how to make a positive assertion that is rational, specific, explanatory, useful, and educational.  They can’t get to the correct answer by themselves.  They presuppose that everything is already known or that there is an authority on the subject to whom one can go and ask a question.  All of their knowledge is received knowledge and all of their arguments are borrowed, and yet they make the fundamental attribution about themselves, thinking in terms of essences and every time they regurgitate a response that they have heard somewhere else, they reify to themselves that they are very sciency.  That they have something to do with science.

A rational person is rationally in relationship with themselves in that they evaluate themselves correctly, admitting that they are wrong when they are wrong.  A rational person is rational in relationship with other rational people.  A rational person is rational in relationship with the world and with facts.  Every deviation from rational praxis is psychotic.  People who haven’t done enough philosophy don’t understand, if it can’t be argued rationally that is because it isn’t true or it might be true but you don’t have the philosophic calculus to express it in a winning argument.  Science and good Philosophy are done analytically not emotionally.  Emotions warp and distort the world around us.  That is why appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Also if you have become emotional or you reject a persons argument because of their conclusion because you can’t falsify their philosophic calculus, or you are being passive aggressive or covertly hostile because you are operating on a hidden agenda…

Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.

For research purposes, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder as a “pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations”.

You are leaking ( that you are emotional and that you are doing bad science or bad philosophy because of being in relationship with your emotions (issues) and you are not letting your reason demonstrate sapiential authority, you think your argument is made better by the emotional content, or you are trying to win or attain some goal by upsetting the emotional state of the party whom you are trying to antagonize.

passive aggressive

(E 2 V) Efficiency Towards Value Philosophy


One of the premises of Rational Praxis-ism, is an efficiency with value.  What has value?  Anything could potentially have value.  Value presupposes a human perspective.  Efficiency towards value demonstrates an awareness of others opinions and desires.  Possible deveations from this rational praxis include being unconscious in relationship or insensitive towards the feelings and thoughts of the people one is in relationship with, or an overt anti-social contempt of the others one is in relationship with.  Yet a third unreasonable deviation is an ascetic, hyper sensitivity to the desires of others and a lack of reasonable concern for oneself.  (you will also find that this mentality enables the other two mentalities, because it projects it’s sense of self on the other rational people in the relationship to participate with it’s world view, and this mentality is tacitly self-loathing self-sabotaging, and self defeating, and it expects reasonable people to participate with it’s self destruction.)

The desire itself must be rational and must not extend towards things which it has no right to, such as the self expression of others, or influencing their resources if those resources have been earned meritocratically.  It must take everything into account and their is a reprocity to this relationship which has to do with relationship and time.


Space has value, clean air has value, being able to move through an area without obstruction has value, personal space has too much value, demanding too much personal space is a sign of narcissism, like a pirate captain that will kill you for stepping on his shadow.  He demands not only that you respect him but his shadow as well.  Likewise giving others too little space is irrational and a sign of self appointed authority to judge others and trespass boundaries because there are no rules as far as one self is concerned, because one self is always the cause of the good and never the cause of the bad, like a mother figure who (presupposing her own authority/superiority over you) feels that she has the right to come into your room, and rifle through your possessions, and spy on you and judge and punish you.

E2V requires an understanding of others and what has value to them, how they are in relationship with reality, and the subjects in reality or how one is in relationship with the world and the phenomena in the world.  It is important to not, in (E2V) that you don’t get to control or influence someone’s relationship with the world or the phenomena in the world unless they have asked you to do that, think of this as the Guru principle, don’t offer unsolicited advice.  If someone has asked you to help them or teach them or offer suggestions the rule is not violated.  You can leave relationship with them if you disagree, but don’t try to force people to conform to your world view especially without evidence or reason.  If you have a contract with that person it might be necessary to force their hand a little because of shared fate. (it is important to remember this is a portion of the perspective that is Rational Praxisism).

For example, how is one in relationship with noise? As I am writing this I have relocated myself in the library, because an old homeless man keeps rustling plastic bags.  I despise white noise as I have an almost autistic level of sensitivity to sound (and communication) and I am not like other people white noise keeps me from focusing and thinking on higher mental plains. (If you read Mind of the Mnemonist you will see that high level savants with synesthesia often have their processes disturbed by unexpected or undesired sounds).  A silent ambiance has value for me, and the homeless man and myself cannot both do our wills in close proximity to one another, I value silence and he has the need to constantly make noise, so no rational relationship is sustainable.

When you think about it, it’s really about understanding people better.  When you apply it what you find is the closer and more frequently you are around someone the better they should understand one another, working together without friction and maximizing the value they create for one another.  If you could see it, it would look like a fractal of value, and it would create a surplus of value for everybody.


Another facet of this rational praxis is Vicarious Value.  Let’s say I were to come into possession of a delicious chocolate cake but because I am on the Paleo Diet the cake not only doesn’t have value for me it has negative value for me.  I could choose to refuse it or to throw it away, but this action would lack understanding of the (E2V) formula.  I remember that my room mate loves chocolate cake. The cake might not have value for me but it has vicarious value for me because we have a relationship and she might reciprocate in the future especially if she subscribes to E2V.  Bench-marking the concept of trade sanctions I also recommend never giving anything of value that is un-owed to anyone that despises one self or one’s relationships or wants to antagonize one’s will.  Just as in espionage one doesn’t give true information to one’s enemy, you instead give counter-intelligence to the enemy because that has negative value for those that create negative value for you.

This relationship presupposes that interactions be only positive, rational, useful, or pleasant.  Some people, let’s call them cheerleaders, think that they create value by only communicating positive emotional data, from their perspective they think they are making an equitable contribution, they think positive words have an actual monetary or objective value.  These people are Klingons.  They will demand that you only tell them positive things about themselves as well so their is no way to communicate to them that they are not making an equitable contribution.

This relationship allows both people in the relationship to maintain an individuality.  It realizes that people have different wills just as the founding fathers realized that people have the right to pursue their own happiness.  One person or group of people doesn’t get to decide what the other people in the relationship should want.  While there are some obvious ring pass nots, if one reached an impasse in the relationship they would simply go their separate ways doing as little damage to each party and their resources as possible instead of entering into a battle of attrition.  It avoids the cognitive bias that everybody thinks like ourselves, and that what is normal for us is also good, and everybody should be like ourselves, think like ourselves, and want what we want, which shows an obvious blindness to the fact that if everybody wanted what you wanted then there would be less of what you wanted in the world.  For example if you think that you are the most alpha male because you are a good downhill ski-er and you think everybody should value you as you value yourself the natural outcome would be everybody would be downhill ski ers and the amount of down hill ski-ers better than yourself would increase and the amount of opportunities you have to actually ski would be diminished because the resorts would be packed with ski-ers, many of them richer than yourself and prices would be driven up with increased demand.

Money has no intrinsic value, it isn’t magick, it is a symbol that we agree has a certain unit of value which is exchangeable.  If people understood themselves or money better they would understand that value is only created in relationship.


Help them do their will for themselves, so that people will help you do your will for yourself.

Relationship has become a form of Asymmetric Warfare.


In this blog we are going to discuss the current state of relationship between men and women in this country based on shifting ideologies, socially created incentives,  views of sexes that are being reified, general properties of male and female perspectives, and natural instincts, strategies, and judgments of society and those sexes.

This is a difficult topic to discuss because unlike other countries that accept that men and women are different there has been a century long successful campaign in this country to blur the lines between men and women while at the same time marginalizing men and promoting women.  This means that we don’t have the vocabulary to discuss the topic, the topic itself is unfamiliar, and their is a social taboo on the topic itself, that topic being left for certain people to discuss in dark corners and by making back door deals and choosing what is good for everybody to be allowed think.


Relationship seems like a simple enough thing.  One man one woman, but we find that is not actually the case.  There is a playing field of public opinion and normalcy that is slanted in favor of the woman.  Western Society itself has a feminine bias which we are going to examine.

In cultures where survival is difficult masculine values dominate, in cultures where survival is easy female values dominate.  What are female values, you say?  Mercy and Charity.  Millions of years of Neural Myelination create the instincts of the female mind.  Nature has compartmentalized male and female minds to focus on two different subjects, survival (male) and Procreation (female). The female mind edits its consideration set to focus on the things that it likes, that make it feel good and it expands and increases it’s authority by usurping masculine authority in the form of reason.

Women are attracted to the most alpha man (they can control) in the largest group of people that they like.  This is herding instinct.  They feel safer because of the size of the herd and then upon starting a relationship with a man in good standing in that herd, they instantaneously have status and recognition in that herd.  But the female mind is more self interested in relationship, being that it’s instinct is to enter into relationship for it’s own benefit, not mutual benefit.  This happens because women need the surplus created by men to care for their children, they are weak when they are pregnant and the also need a safe environment for taking care of the children.  So the female mind has an incentive to have a child and then protect the child, to do this she needs the resources and participation of other people.  But the female mind is more sympathetic to the child and herself than it is to the man she is in relationship with.  So women are aggressive in relationship but also submissive to the herd.  From the woman’s perspective she is more part of the herd than she is part of the relationship and when she can’t get what she wants from the relationship she will go outside the relationship to enlist the peer pressure of others to put pressure on her male partner to give her what she feels she deserves or what she wants, when she does this she weakens her mates reputation in the herd.

Babies start out as whiny emotional creatures, completely Dependant on everybody to do everything for them.  They communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, for this reason the female mind was created to interpret the babies emotional data and communicate emotional data to the child.  From the mother’s perspective the emotional perspective of the child is valid, as it has to be for the survival of the species.  But this also means that the mother’s perspective itself is more emotional and less analytical which is why feminine reasoning appeals to emotions, makes certain logical appeals, throws histrionic fits to get its way and engages in other irrational behaviors.  The babies perspective, is completely delusional as far as the world is concerned because it would immediately perish on it’s own.  The mother’s perspective is slightly less so, still depending on the herd and her husband to protect and provide a surplus for her and an environment for her  with which she can take care of the baby.  The existence of the baby reifies the authority of the mother in the form of mercy and charity for the baby.  The female mind edits it’s consideration set to focus on things that please it and make sense to it.  Puppies, babies, kittens, relationship, poor people, victims, anybody that she can expand her authority over and usurp the authority of reason.

If men and women are the same, as some people argue, why are men thought of as bad for wanting what they want (sex) and women are thought of as good for wanting what they want (children)?  Why since this world is so massively over populated does society not think of women as evil for reproducing irresponsibly?  If men and women are the same, why is society so hostile to masculine opinions and so accepting of feminine reasoning and emotional appeals?  Why does society tolerate more violent and insane behavior from women then it will from men?  Why is society less concerned for the fate of men than it is for women?  Why is it that society is more concerned about breast cancer than it is for Veterans that have fought and bled for the country and risked their lives and their health?  Because Western Society itself has a feminine bias.


A brief description of female communication rituals is as follows:

  1. the conversation proceeds pleasantly and ends pleasantly.
  2. the conversation ends in the appearance of agreement.
  3. Women communicate sameness.
  4. If it isn’t pleasant you can’t say it.

The problem is the way this conversation style edits it’s consideration set and application set.  It is possible to lie, or to be passive aggressive.  The female mind being more psychopathic is less capable of detecting the psychopath because it defends against the sociopath (male mind) which can be demonstrated by masculine communication rituals and how women are hostile to male communication.

When a society forces political correctness, it counter incentivizes masculine thought and solutions, it also fails to detect the strategic behavior of psychopaths that are gaming society, by lying, concealing their true intention and motivation and manipulating others or stealing from them.

Women have double and triple standards.  Women are tacitly arrogant, in that they view femininity superior to masculinity.  Even though they depend on the surplus created by male minds they like being what they are, they don’t realize that the male minds and the herd have to be successful first before their is a surplus to satisfy their needs.  If a man uses female communication rituals a woman can interpret that as he is admitting that women are superior.  If a man tries to get a woman to speak as a man, she will either refuse to participate, lie, or try to communicate that she is dominant by being abusive, if he accelerates the situation to get her to submit at some point she acts like the victim and goes outside the relationship. Some women, tacitly believing in their superiority, frame male minds as childish minds, and try to manipulate men as a mother does a child.  Trying to get him to take a course of action and making him think it was his idea.  I call this jingling the keys.  The female mind tries to control the focal point of the conversation and then communicates emotional data to the male to control how he is in relationship with the topic emotionally.  This tactic is very effective on way too many males.


Millions of years of Neural Myelination have hardwired certain behaviors and strategies into feminine instinct.  Women want to appear submissive to the herd, so they adopt an intellectual camouflage in the form of agreeing with the social norms.  Whatever society thinks is true about black people, white men, women, Mexicans, Muslims, or what have you, women in general will adopt the most common perspective.  Not just women but psychopaths and female minds.  You see this every day in the form of the P.C. Police that presuppose their own authority to judge and punish anybody that doesn’t agree with the common opinion.  Champions of normalcy and enemies of freedom of speech and individuality.  You got the “Cool Honky” who thinks he is the only one who is down with the black people and tries to act as a mediator and an expert on the topic.  Or you have the “White Knight” who will police conversations between men about women.  They conversation block, or through histrionic fits, or make emotional appeals, or complain to other people in the herd to manipulate your reputation and standing in the herd.

Women/female minds/psychopaths are innate social climbers.  They enter into a large herd and try to climb as high as they can get using various strategies.  Since they have to get “up there” they have to push others down, so they will attack pre-emptively because they need to get “up there” as fast as they can and they have unwarranted, innate, feelings of superiority.  Instead of using a masculine, democratic, horizontal communication process, they use tyrannical, vertical, female communication processes.

mcr fce


Imagine for a moment that you have put together a fraternity of a successful group of people.  Everything is working out fine and then you decide to add a woman, nothing bad happens so you decide to add another women.  Because of the way women reason, relate and think this is what happens.


This isn’t an isolated incident, it happens all of the time.  A good looking woman goes to a grocery store, finds the biggest most pussy starved gomer that dotes on her and caters to her every whim and then complains that other team members are giving her bad service when they don’t treat her like he does.  And then Helga Unibrow shows up.


Women and psychopaths take advantage of the way things appear to game and manipulate society, and to win against reason.  Recently in Ferguson one advocate said, “it’s not enough that things are right they have to look right.”  This is an appeal to what I refer to as the female mind, Superficial, Aesthetic, Snap decisions without understanding or reason.  When we cater to the Aesthitics of the uninformed or stupid you unleash the Lowest Common Good, not the Highest Common Good that is released when people exert an influence on themselves to be reasonable.

When you scale a government down so that all of women’s needs are satisfied and given priority over men’s so that women don’t rely on relationship to satisfy them, what happens is that the female mind keeps editing it’s consideration set.  The psychopath and the female mind try to maximize the amount of return while minimizing their investment.  When you change the playing field to suit women that becomes the norm, which becomes the expectation, which is then taken for granted.  Women being natural social climbers, unconscious of their instincts and behavior and incapable of self discipline or self scrutiny will just raise the level of their expectations, as they are doing right now.  Women as a group are more inclined to reward only, and men to punish only.  For men the reward is that you did it right and you get to live, they expect you to be reasonable because it is about success and survival, this is not enough for women, they also have to have a support group and like children they have to be bribed with pleasant words and candy in order to do the right thing, and then they have to be encouraged afterward.

Women in western society treat men as if they are disposable, now that they make as much or more then men they still date men that can buy them nice things.  Now that women don’t need men, they show less interest and arousal for them.  Women act as though it is some manner of accomplishment to not be attracted sexually to men.  This is just a natural outcropping of society stigmatizing them and diminishing their role and constantly humiliating them.  Some women only date men who will let them dominate the relationship.  Some women only date men that chase them, compete with other men, and make them the center of attention.  None of this impresses me, what impresses me is a woman who has good taste in men and pursues one pointedly that which she wants.  What impresses me is a rational woman.


The other interesting thing is that while western civilized men are not allowed to exert an influence on their women because of societal judgments, Western Society turns a blind eye to cultures that are tribal and do control their women.  Black people as a culture are for more likely to view a Black woman dating a white man as a race traitor.  In the Mexican culture, males sons have a say in who their sister dates, and they are more controlling of their women.  The Muslim culture even in the united states still kills their daughters for having intercourse with Non-muslim men.  If it isn’t strictly frowned on it is downright forbidden.  But none of this enters the consideration set of the Western Female because she only cares about herself and getting what she wants.  And from the perspective of the western mind, this kind of behavior gets categorized as requiring charity and mercy, it falls into the protected category of children and women, it’s just part of their culture, they don’t know any better. . .

Since my comment was so rudely deleted…


My comment which was deleted, was as follows to the best of my recollection.

We do have an inborn moral sense and that inborn moral sense is based on Neural Myelination passed on through cellular memory.  Now they have already found cellular memory in animals, a sheep dog that has never shepherded sheep is put with sheep and with little to know coaching he is moving them about like a pro within 30 minutes having awoken his cellular memory.

The way I word this is repeated thoughts and actions creates Neural Myelination which is passed on to future generations in the form of cellular memory.  When I first came up with this concept my Organic Computer Theory on which my psychological models are based on, it had not yet been proven to exist in humans but experiments suggested it.

Many of you don’t know that Noam Chomsky is famous for falsifying the tabula rasa of Skinner and the behaviorists.  This made sweeping changes in the kind of research that was being done in certain scientific fields.  One such study found that French babies cry in French and German babies cry in German.

In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments?Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th centuryclassical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment seems too poor, variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which otherwise would remain merely speculative.

One implication of Noam Chomsky’s innatism, if correct, is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker. The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions.

If we do indeed have an innate morality as is suggested by Atheists and Richard Dawkins to suggest that we don’t need religion or some manner of Moral influence exerted on us, then ask yourself this, Where did our morality come from?  It came from cellular memory passed on to us by our ancestors who were exerting on themselves a moral influence.  So what was that moral influence?

People that were raised in Democracy presuppose Democracy, and people that were raised for thousands of years under tyranny presuppose the goodness of tyranny.


The Atheist suggestion, without understanding psychology or human behavior, is that we should just let everybody follow their natural instincts.  What every person’s morality allows them to do is equal to what everybody else’s morality allows them to do.  To paraphrase, Martin Heideggar, referencing Kierkegaard:

“The duty of the philosopher is to overturn the covert judgments of common reason.”

Louis Figo asks the question:

“Does caring behavior necessarily imply a moral sensibility?”

In a way, yes.  To use my philosophical calculus we have what I refer to as a plasticity of our sense of self, which means that we arbitrarily expand and retract our sense of self throughout the day and our lives, projecting sameness onto others for various reasons and retracting sameness from others.  This is what causes our “caring” and our participation or lack of participation or outright hostility.  Until we examine why we participate with what we participate with caring and participation are not valid indicators or morality.


Tyranny and democracy have always been hostile to one another and anti-thetical to one another.  Why will some people participate with tyranny and coercive authority, while others participate with sapiential authority and the authority of reason?  What happens when you grant equality between tyranny and democracy?  To make Tyranny an equal citizen with Democracy, under the Authority of Reason, is not reasonable.  It flies in the face of reason.  Because of the nature of both mentalities, to make Democracy equal to Tyranny is to make Democracy the prey of Tyranny. . . Because they are not equal in essence they can never be equal in relationship.


The Comparison Set in my Profiles.

Leonardo-da-Vinci-Vitruvian-ManWhen I am constructing a psychological profile on a person, which I do on everybody I am in relationship with, I compare the individual to the rational man, based on every exchange, action, and word.  I am sure that many people will react negatively to this idea, and that is a reflection of the impoverished state of reason and relationship which has become the norm in todays world.

It seems obvious to me that we would want to intimately understand the people that we are in relationship with, but relationships have deteriorated into superficial, personality addictions, we like someone not because of who they are but because of how they make us feel, based on the way they look or someone or something they remind us of.  People are playing characters, they aren’t being honest or authentic.  Nowadays both people in the relationship are acting like they are something they are not.

buddhaIn my psychological models, no action is necessary, so every action is meaningful. You eat because you want to live, etc.  Being that their are two types of behaviors rational and irrational there are also two types of minds, male and female or sociopathic and psychopathic.  Every interaction creates an end that is either sociopathic or psychopathic (based on how I define those terms).  Whereas, a rational person can remain consistently rational, a psychopathic person must act psychopathicly (irrationally) in order to do their will.  They think this makes them smart and unpredictable but just the opposite is true.  It is because they can’t behave rationally that they are predictable, they will try to take some unfair advantage, they will attack, they will not have a reason, and they will not warn that they are about to attack, of this you can be sure.

A reasonable person can only be defined in relationship, in relationship with reality, in relationship with other people, in conversation.  Shared states are participation, agreement, conversation, and understanding.  


Also, it depends on the environment itself, is the environment rational?  is the other person rational or are they being strategic.  To remain rational while the other person is being irrational is irrational because it is unsustainable.

A rational relationship has to be sustainable, it has to succeed, it has to create a surplus of value, not a deficit (which is to say it has to create more value than it consumes).  It has to allow all parties to do their will.  No person in the group can be given more value from the group than is sustainable based on their contribution to the group.  A rational relationship has to increase the value of the members and the members have to increase their ability to create value for the rational relationship.  This presupposes that in this rational relationship, which we eventually see is a philoish, or a philosophical family, people learn, they grow, they teach, they only relate to one another in a positive and educational way, not in a negative strategic way.  You increase the value of those around you.  You help them become rational and get better results in the world.  This is the relationship of all relationships, the original perfect idea of relationship.

Everything said can have value in one of 3 ways, it is true, it is useful, and it makes you feel better.  Of these 3 the least valuable is making you feel better, this is true of female minds including children, and they irrationally esteem this communication of positive emotional data over the other three.  Children are irrational, emotional creatures, so it is necessary to communicate to them positive emotional data that is not always true or useful until they get to an age when they are capable of being non-delusionally in relationship with reality.  This makes more sense to the female mind than it does to the male mind, because as Deborah Tannen says women ventriloquize, interpreting to the husband the emotional data communicated by the child.  Evolution compartmentalized the female mind to be more interested in and sympathetic with babies.  From the female perspective the emotional/irrational reasoning of the child is more valid than it is to the male mind which is more interested on survival.  But the end result of both instincts determines whether the relationship is rational or not.

When I build my psychological models, every deviation from reason communicates to me something about the person I am in relationship with or conversation with.  Does the person identify with reason?  If reason is their highest good, then reason informs their behavior and narrative.  How and when they deviate from rational relationship leaves traces, clues as to who they are, their psyche, their soul, how they are in relationship with the world and the individuals in the world, rationally or delusionally, authentically or strategically, psychopathicly or sociopathicly.