Tag Archives: sigmond freud

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. . .

Women Described as Elektrons


I am going to describe the female mind in terms of my Organic Computer Theory and in terms of my experiences and meditations.  Women are like electrons in that they have a negative charge, I am speaking about women in general, not all women specifically, this negative charge comes from their desire to be the center of attention, to be pretty, to be admired.  It also comes from the way in which the female brain is arranged, it want’s things to be done for it by merit of it’s being pretty.  It thinks in terms of it’s desires, and needs and the desires and needs of those she projects her sense of self onto.  Like electrons, women can leap off unpredictably at any time in any direction.  In order for the  Protons in the nucleus to attract an electron they have to have a positive charge or be in an excited state.  They have to have a surplus that is attractive to the electron.  The more surplus they possess the more electrons they will attract.

The peculiar thing about the female mind is that women think they are the center of the Nucleus, they think they are the reason for the season, they think the relationship is about themselves, and they think with the powers of their femininity and powers of attraction they are generating all the value that the relationship is creating.  They edit their consideration set not to think about the world outside of the atom, or how their behavior in that relationship affects the Atoms relationship with the surrounding environment, they only think about getting as much from the relationship as they can, and they are only interested in the relationship in so far as they can get from it and socially climb in the relationship.

It is the way women behave in relationship that is robbing the Western World of Value and destroying not only the family unit but the very fabric of society.  Women view men as disposable, bouncing from relationship to relationship, competing with other women to see how much they can get from a man, and using their relationships with men to establish dominance over other women.  Ask yourself, What kind of men participate with a game that is rigged against them?  And the men that are determined to compete and win on a slanted playing field, how are they generating their surplus?  Not by creating value for society, that is for sure.  Not by doing honest work.  Women, like electrons, don’t take responsibility for the over all success in the end.  They don’t think about creating solutions and relationships that benefit everybody.


One of the things I observed as I was studying the narrative between men and women to see how male and female brains were in relationship with one another was the feminine use of “We” and “you”.  When women were demanding the participation of the man for their benefit they would say, “we need to do this,”  but when the man asked for her participation in something that needed to be done to maximize value for the relationship the response almost always was,”you need to use your own resources to make that happen.”  The female mind presupposes the surplus of someone else to get what she wants.  She enters into relationship not to create value for everyone, just herself, and those who expand and increase her authority.


The ancient Greeks knew much more about human psychology than we do today, that is why they had an age of accountability to mark the end of the authority of the Mother.  In the case of daughters, the daughter would get married and then her husband would be her authority.  In the case of sons the Father would become the authority and in the Gymnasium the father would teach the son the laws governing, combat, finance, and good form in business and law.  The son would become a conscious and responsible citizen of the polis.  The reason that modern, western, society is collapsing is because the Authority of the Mother in the form of Mercy and Charity, never cease.  A person commits a crime and they say “I wasn’t responsible, I didn’t know.”  And this argument is used as a mantle to protect evil as evil people avail themselves of it more aggressively and frequently than do reasonable people.

Unless you can make women aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it, this process will never be arrested.  Women are naturally not inclined to self scrutiny, or self control, or self discipline, those are masculine virtues.  To quote myself Psychopaths have to do things psychopathicly, in order to do their will.  Likewise, Women have to do things femininely in order to do their will.


Women are aggressive in the relationship and submissive towards society, this is not helpful for the relationship.  Women also internalize all of the judgments of society, all of the normative thinking of society, it is society and societal norms that determine how women relate to everything and everyone.  Women don’t just have double standards, they have triple and quadruple standards and more than that even.  Society does women’s thinking for them.  Women want to appear to be harmless, the want to be everybody’s friend.

“A friend to all is a friend to none.”  Aristotle

“No one trusts a woman, not even a woman.”  Aristotle

“Women are apt to seduce men into making irrational political decisions” -Spinoza

“Women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality, but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions”

– Hegel


Frankly, at this point, the only hope to restore the balance is female male rights activists.  A strong voice of discontent has to be raised against Western Women from Western Women, to undo the patterns that are already becoming the norm.  Feminists don’t want equality with Western Men, they want the permanent subjugation of the Western Male.  They want to force female communication rituals so that men can’t talk, think, or act like men.  Men aren’t allowed to scrutinize or criticize or disagree with women.  The economy is being scaled down so that the government keeps women happy, and women get jobs they haven’t earned and aren’t executing well.  The female mind is naturally callous to the opinions and desires of men, so when you create a society in which women don’t rely on men and don’t have to think about men, they don’t, which is to say, men are forgotten about, left behind as it were.  What we are witnessing is the criminalization of masculinity…


Historically speaking, where survival is hard masculine values dominate, when survival is easy female values dominate, the economy is going away, the structures of authority are collapsing, and in order to keep women happy and to shut them up we are compensating by lying to them about what is going on.  There are cultures that protect masculinity, like Muslims, and when the structures of authority finally collapse, those cultures with masculine values in which women follow, and support their men will be successful and the others will not.

The interesting thing about the Muslim culture is this, men can be physically violent with women and the men judge what is proper for women.  This should be a deterrent for women joining, but it is not.  Why?  Because the female mind is more susceptible to trauma based mind control than male brains.  This is not a commonly known fact but women are actually aroused by violence, whether it be against them or others.  Violence awakens in women an awareness of their frailty and a need to rely on something other than themselves.

Incentives and Psychopathology.



In a further attempt explain my psychological models and the difference between psychopathic and sociopathic brains.  Psychopaths are externally incentivized, which means that their is something outside of themselves that they need or want.  Sociopaths incentive themselves from inside.  They do what they do out of a sense of morality, and responsibility or obligation or a desire to understand.  Not all sociopaths are good sociopaths.   Religion was created to control the bad sociopaths.  Sociopaths are philosophical in nature, it is just that some sociopaths are not good philosophers, so authority had to be extracted from them in order so that they would not act on their worser demons.

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Hebrews recognized a religious “right of asylum,” protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent.[2][3] This principle was later adopted by the established Christian church, and various rules developed to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.[4]

According to the Council of Orleans in 511, in the presence of Clovis I, asylum was granted to anyone who took refuge in a church, in its dependences or in the house of a bishop. This protection was given to murderersthieves or people accused ofadultery. It also concerned fugitive slaves, who would however be handed back to their owners when their owners swore on the Bible not to be evil.


Religion was created as a moral science and as one progressed up the ladder, more authority, more god, was put back in them so that they had more freedom.   I am not stating this arbitrarily, yoga is also a moral science, and Freemasonry in it’s true form is western yoga, I am willing to defend that position, I have copious amounts of evidence.

The Secret Societies were the religions back in the day.  Pythagorean cults were the origins of western religion.  Much wisdom and intelligence has been lost in the evolution.


The external incentivization of psychopaths is also obvious in their narrative and their behavior.  Psychopaths are social climbers, which presupposes their attraction to a herd in which they can social climb.  Sociopaths are more democratic and they like horizontal relationship not vertical relationship.  Psychopaths conceal their real intentions from scrutiny and reveal themselves falsely.   They hide from your threat filter by blending in.  They don’t attract negative attention to themselves.  If you ask a psychopath a question they will respond with whatever the most common answer is, blending into society, waiting for an opportunity to strike.

Psychopaths want something they shouldn’t have and don’t deserve that belongs to someone else, like power over them or to trespass your boundaries (rape) or use your resources to do their will.  For this reason they conceal their intention and opportunistically bide their time.  Psychopaths manipulate your emotions.  The truth about what a psychopath says is based on the reaction they hope to elicit from you.

Ponder how much good has been done by monks and nuns for little or no money, only for the internal incentive of feeling good about themselves.  For being able to serve others, teaching them, helping them, etc. Image

Organizational Skills and Psychopathology


In my opinion, based on the way I define Psychopaths and Sociopaths that psychopaths are externally organized, which is to say they appear organized on the outside.  While sociopaths are organized on the inside, internally, as in philosophically, mentally, they are prepared, like a militia or doomsday-prepers.  The reasoning comes from my theory on the female mind being psychopathic and the male mind being sociopathic.  The psychopath, in order to pass the threat filter of the normal individual make appeals to superficial, aesthetic, snap decistions.  (http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/superficial-aesthetic-snap-decisions/)  Image

Psychopaths appear to be something they are not, while sociopaths try to not attract any attention at all.  They do things to make themselves unappealing or uninteresting because they don’t want your attention.  Sociopaths are even rude and offputing, they want you to stay in your lane and mind your own business, they don’t want to be your friend.  They don’t want to know your stupid opinion.


I am sympathetic to sociopaths (probably because I am one I would guess) and I see them as a force of good.  Sociopathic processes are cathartic.  People have been trained to look for the sociopath, but they don’t realize that they are blind to the psychopath.  That is why I say…


Psychopaths, being female minded, respect the normative judgments of the herd.  They do their social climbing in groups of people.  They presuppose relationship for the purpose of social climbing.  Psychopaths don’t use their own resources, they use everybody else’s resources first.

Tragedy of the commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 The “tragedy of the commons” is one way of accounting for overexploitation.

The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, act contrary to the group’s long-term best interests by depleting the common resource. The concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. “Commons” can include the atmosphereoceans, rivers, fish stocksnational parksadvertising, and even parking meters. The tragedy of the commons has particular relevance in analyzing behavior in the fields of economicsevolutionary psychologyanthropologygame theorypoliticstaxation, and sociology. Some also see the “tragedy” as an example of emergent behavior, the outcome of individual interactions in a complex system.


Likewise their is a tragedy of the commons in regards to availing oneself of strategic behavior.  The sociopath is self sustaining because they don’t want to have to depend on other people, while the psychopath is confident in their ability to manipulate other people and climb to the top.  They “earn” what they get by being shitty human beings.  Psychopaths don’t really create value because they don’t really have problem solving skills.  They don’t choose options that create the most value for the most people.  They figure out some reason why they are correct or why someone else is wrong and they figure out a way to fine them or to steal their surplus and get away with it.  Psychopaths only create win lose scenarios, they are not concerned if they should be doing it they are concerned with whether they can get away with it.


You have to ask yourself, what kind of person would jump through all the hoops of normative public judgments to appear that squeaky clean?  and why?  People make stupid judgments, stupidly.  Malcolm Gladwell called this visual bias the Warren Harding error.  He was probably the worst president in history and he was a puppet for a wealthy business tycoon, but he looked soooo presidential.  Image

So why does this happen, Joxua?  Because of Neural Myelination and cellular memory and the differences between the strategies of the female mind and the male mind for survival.  The female mind is attracted by pretty, shiny, normal looking things that appear happy and harmless.  Pretty things have positive survival data for women because their will be a surplus that they can squander on their children.  Whereas ugly, tough and rugged things have survival data for men because it means that you will be well protected as you go into the world and battle for survival and a surplus to provide for a wife and your children so that your genes will be passed on.



Above is a picture of a bower bird making a nest to attract a mate.  He decorates the nest with blue colored items which are attractive to this type of bird.  Again we see the use of superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions to manipulate the (shallow) female mind.


The psychopath is the mother’s favorite.   The psychopath is the pretty one that mommy likes.  They get the most attention from mommy and mommy protects them from consequences, showers affection on them, gives them money and resources, and even allows the cute baby to manipulate and lie to mommy and get away with it.  not being suspicious of the child that appears to have everything in order she doesn’t scrutinize the child and she doesn’t confront the child’s antisocial behavior or their mental issues and diseases.   She also protects the child’s delusions of grandeur and instills in it an innate sense of goodness.  The child feels that she is good.  She feels that everything she does is good.  She even feels that she is good when she is doing things that are wrong.  When tormenting and harassing her sister she also feels good.

As they repeat this behavior they reify it in themselves, this is why psychopaths can’t reform.  They have never had to and they don’t believe they should have to.  They are incapable of self scrutiny, self honesty, self discipline, or self control.  They feel that their interpretations and judgments of reality are true and good.  They can’t tell the difference between their world and the world.  Psychopaths are introverted into their emotions.   While sociopaths, having to use their own resources, are in relationship with the world and reality.  The life experience of a sociopath tells them the one thing about themselves while the experiences the psychopath has tells them something different about themselves.   It is normal for the psychopath to get peoples help as they manipulate them to their injury and not feel any remorse for it or take any responsibility.

Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.

Well, I think that is all for today, I hope I sufficiently melted your face off with my brilliance.   Stay tuned for more investigations into psychopathology with the use of my theories and philosopy, good day.


The Two Faces of Psychopathy (A New Kind of Psychopath Pt. 3)


Psychopaths conceal their true nature and the nature that they reveal is false, it is a facade, a manipulation.  One of the things that has long bothered me is how in my relationships with women I can observe every process, instinct, and narrative that psychopaths have, because women act like psychopaths in relationship.  Women are innate social climbers, if there are only two people in a relationship they will still try to socially climb.  The processes that I have created for my relationships exist to protect myself from irrational, psychopathic people and relationships.

Women are enabled by society to be psychopathic in relationship because of the normative bias of society.  So women show one face to society (investing in and protecting their public reputations) while at the same time destroying or slowly sabotaging the reputation of their men.  Women are submissive to society and aggressive in relationship.   Also they show to their men a different side of their personality.  Men try to be pleasant in the relationship, not because they feel pleasant but because they want to enjoy themselves in life.  Women however, shit all over relationship and show all of their ugliness and aggression in the relationship.  They also intend, should the need arise, to leverage themselves in the relationship by allowing the judgments of people outside the relationship to take their own side.


I have been burned so many times by so many people that I no longer permanently make up my mind about people or completely trust them.  There were many curious things about LLL when I first met her.  She collected these relationships with semi-famous people.  I remember how she told me about her obviously stalking this MMA star who had invited her on a date or something and then he didn’t show up or something and she proudly told me about how she kept on showing up and yelling at him and making scenes.  It seemed to me that she sought out relationships with famous people because she felt a deep concealed lack of importance and she was trying to compensate for her feelings of unimportance by collecting these relationships.  I should have been more concerned about her stalkyness, but I was going through deep depression because of my recent epiphany that relationship wasn’t really possible, at least not for me.  I couldn’t be understood because I was too complicated, and so I couldn’t be properly evaluated.  It didn’t matter that I was a genius, I was weird, people didn’t like quirkyness, unless it was hipster douchebaggery.  I was like an idiot savant.  I was on the edge, like Ludwig Wittgenstein or Nietzsche and that wasn’t cool anymore.

I let LLL into my life because I was bored with the understanding that I would teach her my theories on relationship.  I communicated that ahead of time which is congruent with my theories for rational procedure.  We didn’t jump into bed and I didn’t intend necessarily for the relationship to be sexual, she demanded it.  Literally the next day she was describing the event as me burrowing into her to find her, I immediately disagreed with the description it sounded like she was trying to frame it as me chasing her, seducing her.  That suggested that I wanted something from her and I had pursued her.  It changes the nature of the relationship.  One of the things that always bothered me about relationships is the inability of women to stay in relationship the same way without trying to change the nature of the relationship or their function in it.  I disagreed with her rendition emphatically.  She laughed her annoying Fran Drescher fake laugh.  Which disturbed me because I was in no way joking.


I asked L once how many men she had slept with because I wanted to pick up her tells so I would know when she was lying and every woman lies when asked that question.  She told me that she had 3 former husbands so she guessed that she had been with 3 men.  When L was about to lie she would pause to long and then she would say, “Umm, Wull”.  I started keeping track of her lies at that point.  There had been an incident earlier in her life where she had gone to a psychologist to get her kids back (which had been taken from her by the government).  The psychologist had said that she wasn’t evil but she had disassociation.  Towards the end of the relationship I knew that L had manipulated the psychologist as she manipulated everybody else.  It took me a while to understand but L could lie to herself and believe it.  The emotions that she communicated were sincere, she was very good at eliciting sympathy from people.  What she actually was is a Histrionic Psychopath, and she was importing her genuine emotions from the abandonment of her mother and all of the sadness she had as a little girl.  L felt like a victim all of her life.  She was in a constant state of feeling like a victim, and as Paul Eckman says, being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being insane.

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή “psyche”, for mind/soul, and -ωσις “-osis”, for abnormal condition or derangement) refers to an abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a “loss of contact withreality“. People suffering from psychosis are described as psychotic. ~wikipedia

L wasn’t in relationship with me, she wasn’t in relationship with reality, she was in relationship with the source of her power her feelings of victimization.  That was what helped her make such extraordinarily believable tacit appeals to sympathy.

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam or the Galileo argument)[1][2] is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.

L was interested in me because I had a little bit of internet notoriety.  It was interesting watching her interact online, she was so careful and deliberate with what she said.  I am sure that was how she behaved with her menagerie of semi-famous associates.  It was at that time that I started playing with this concept of how the female mind is created to deal with children.  Mothers have to manipulate the child’s mind.  They inceive in it notions and make the child think that they came up with the idea themselves.  Since Fritz Perls said  “when a person wants to win they use whatever strategy they believe is dominant” it made sense that a woman would use her skills at manipulating children on people, like a Jedi mind trick.


L would tell me things that were only true in so far as the reaction they were designed to elicit from me.  It was an enriched environment in which to observe psychopathic communication strategies and behaviors. At least I have that.  Similarly with such feminine behaviors as whining and nagging these came from the mother/child relationship.  I call it “jingling the keys” the woman attracts your attention to something, in this case she does so by repeating a topic over and over again.  Then she communicates emotional data to you.  Women talk about being objectified by men but when you manipulate a man you are essentially objectifying him.  The other thing about the psychopath is that the psychopath can’t feel loved because they feel like they are manipulating everything so they are the cause of everything, even you love.  The plan is to get you to do something that they want and think that it was your idea.  ( http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2013/04/passive-cause-vs-active-cause-by-joxua.html)

L had two narratives, the one that she used to manipulate me, and the closeted, concealed, narcissistic narrative that informed her actions, thoughts, and communication errors.  It was amazing to me as I started using my theories that I had created, (shared state theory of communication and equity in human relationship theory) I was through the looking glass, I was detecting her lies in real time.  She was totally transparent to me but she thought she had me fooled.  I called her out so many times and she would tell me to my face she wasn’t doing exactly what she was doing.  It was insane.

Shared State Theory of Communication


“Only rational relationship is relationship.”  ~Shivastus Solomonicus

When I was meditating on my definition of what a rational relationship was I realized that a lot of people try to define the rational person living in a vacuum, but human beings don’t live in a vacuum.  Humans are political animals that seek out relationships and groups, so a rational person can only be defined in a relationship, specifically a rational relationship in a rational environment and then if the person remains consistently rational without deviation consistently they are rational.  But we don’t find a lot of other rational people and almost no rational environments (environments and people that are not strategic), which makes it difficult to define, describe, recognize, and be a rational person.  

Some people tell me that everything is rational and they are referring to an ability to rationalize everything to make it look rational, I do not subscribe to this narrative.  Using my system we can break down specific behaviors, strategies, and events to determine if they are rational or not.  

If I ask people if they are rational the vast majority will say that they are, and they are thinking of the times when they are rational and not the times that they behave irrationally, but what we find is that the instances when you are irrational define you much more as being rational or irrational than the times when you are rational.  You have to remain consistently rational.  It isn’t the 37 years of rational life that define you as rational it is that 24 hours when you climbed into the clock tower and started picking people off with a sniper rifle.  You can’t define rationality without examining the relationship and the environment.  

I came up with the value system of relationship. Which is to say that value is maximized for the people in relationship, one doesn’t create value for people outside the relationship from the relationship, this is a subtle act of theft.  I call it the wolf pack mentality you go into the world (irrational environment)  make your kill and drag it back to the wolf pack (rational environment).  Aequalitatus sub ratio or equality under reason, means that the relationship is a meritocracy of reason, you move about freely based on merit of superior reason.  You always comport yourself in such a way as you maximize value for the relationship and you are constantly looking for a way to increase your means of increasing value.  The people that argue this point are bad at relationship and I wouldn’t want them in my wolf pack, but they would still gravitate towards it to offer their unwanted opinions, to steal from the surplus of the wolf pack, and to sabotage the wolf pack if they couldn’t have their way.  Pleasant, douchebaggy, moral authorities a.k.a. douchebags or functional psychopaths, or self appointed moral authorities.  

The curious thing about value is that it is created for someone else, and value is negotiated from two different perspectives.  If I create value for myself from relationship that is an act of theft.  The negotiation needs to be arrived at through communication and it needs to create value for both parties, a win win.

The only opinions that matter are those of the people in the relationship, the opinions of the people outside the relationship don’t matter.  If you can’t reach an agreement inside the relationship you leave the relationship.  Incorporating the opinions and judgments of people outside the relationship in order to leverage yourself in the relationship is a violation of relationship and an overt act of theft. It is a desecration of the sacred nature of relationship.

I realized that what I was describing was the philosophical relationship between two philosopher kings.  I was describing the relationship of everything.  The wisest person who gets the best result leads and everybody follows and tries to keep up.  This relationship is a business relationship, a religious relationship, a scientific relationship, a political relationship, and a philosophical relationship.  What we find is that people in this relationship have to communicate in a specific (not vague) way towards a solution (clarity, cogiency, profundity, brevity).  Furthermore, if it is necessary for a person to learn something or to modify their behavior for the benefit of themselves and the group it is irrational if they don’t do it.  Which means that sustainability or the success of the relationship or mutual endeavor is a prerequisite for the definition of the rationality of the relationship.  This also means that a person not doing something that is necessary for the success of the endeavor is an irrational action, argument from ignorance is not an acceptable excuse, for the loss of value or the failure of the endeavor.  So not acting can be considered an act of evil or an act of depreciation. 


I realized that what I was describing was a relationship in which people only related to one another positively and rationally which means constantly increasing each others qualities, reputation, and resources.  This was a relationship of mutual appreciation which is the opposite of the relationship which I always try to avoid and want to have nothing to do with which is the relationship of mutual propertization or mutual slavery.  But back to describing the form of the good.  If it wasn’t true, useful, pleasant or solution oriented you couldn’t say it, do it, and you shouldn’t be thinking it.  This relationship, over time, would turn both people into philosopher kings, famous individuals, rich individuals, business tycoons, moral authorities, martial arts experts, etc.  They would essentially become godlike.  They would become like Adam and Eve or Isis and Osiris, I realized that what I was talking about was the alchemical marriage of the medieval chemists or the tao of taoism, the third eye or 6th chakra in yoga.  The problem is that people are lazy, weak-minded, and horrible at relationship now.  


If you think about Bodhidharma he taught kung fu to strengthen the body and the mind for meditation.  Also in ancient Greece people were encultured into society through the Gymnasium where they taught philosophy, ethics, acceptable conduct, pankration, pugilism, and greco-roman wrestling.  

So what we come away with is that the rational man must have the ability of introspection, he must be self aware, he must be self-controlled, and self-disciplined.  He must be able to scrutinize, criticize, discipline, himself and know himself correctly.  This is not easy, this requires the philosophical death, this requires the killing off in oneself of all delusion, this requires the systematic slaying of one’s ego.  This is also not normal since the vast majority of the population has a cognitive bias known as “bias confirmation”:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explainattitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).


The rational person instead of being natural must make himself unnatural doing things that do not come naturally to human animals.  Trying to prove himself wrong instead of prove himself correct.  Communicating in such a way as he can be falsified if he is wrong.  Wanting to know that he is wrong if he is wrong, loving truth more than he loves his world view.  But the problem that we run into is that people project their sense of self (plasticity of the sense of self) onto their world view, and falsifying it has negative survival data for them, it feels like a piece of them is dying.

Once we get over this hump, the ego, we can start moving towards super ego.  Until we kill the ego it will continue to encumber us and slow us down.  Ego lives off charity, it begs for mercy, it negotiates for its continued existence, for the delay of it’s execution (understanding), it refuses to participate with reason, and it won’t change until it is forced to change.   Nirvana or Ataraxia is the death of the false self, the death of the ego.



I created the shared states as a way for a person to become aware of themselves and their internal world including their emotional states and the things that they are in relationship with.  Anytime we change states we act differently, think differently, we edit our consideration state differently, we are essentially a different person.  It is important in the rational relationship, in order to be consistent, that we are predictable or known to ourselves and to those people we are in a rational relationship with.  Which means that we communicate ahead of time and that our communication is predictive of our behavior.  We can be relied upon, to participate when the time has arrived.

If you just almost got into a crash you are in relationship with that and that warps your emotional state.  Whatever state you are in you communicate that state.  If you are in a state of fear you act fearful, you communicate fear, or you conceal fear.  Likewise with all emotional states.  Each state is a personality.  One needs to observe one self like a scientist, one needs to know when one is in a state, one needs to communicate that one is in a state.  If we act from certain states we get bad results.  In some states certain actions yield good results and other actions yield bad results.  We need to know what these are, we need to be able to predict and control our own states.  We also need to be able to control our actions and influence our own emotions, we need to know when to act and what actions to take, and which states are the best for certain actions.


The problem that we run into with the averseness of the mind is that the mind it 10x more interested in avoiding things it doesn’t want than it is in moving towards the solution.  Paul Ekman calls this an “auto appraiser”, when we have had an experience we never want to repeat our mind creates an emotional scar and starts scanning our environment for evidence of the thing we want to avoid.  This causes problems in relationship as the male and female mind have different and antagonistic refractory states.  A refractory state is a term coined by Paul Eckman and I used the concept in my models.  For him a refractory state is a negative emotional state, a state of emotional morbidity, being in a permanent refractory state is synonymous with being crazy, from his perspective and I agree.  We see this with histrionic psychopaths that use their damage or emotional morbidity as a source of power.

Now the problem that we run into with men and women is that women will agree with what I am saying because it sounds good and rational, but in the application of it they fail.  The reason is that in their hearing of it the tacitly judge and interpret it from a feminine perspective and the female mind works differently from the male mind ( the female mind operates from moral authority and the male mind from sapiential authority, the female mind is sentimental, it thinks emotionally and in America men and women think like women.)  Furthermore people have the cognitive bias that tells them that their experience of the world and judgments of the world are correct and that everybody thinks like them and if they don’t they are wrong.  So when the guy in the relationship expressing himself naturally says that he is attracted to other women or he wants to look at porn the female either ignores him, or judges him, or decides to punish him or in some other way sabotage him.  She completely ignores his desires, and holds her opinion and desires narcissisticly as morally superior to his own.  We find that the feminine narrative/mind while being very sympathetic and supportive of itself wanting the things that women want, babies, affection, etc. is at the same time hostile and unsympathetic to the male mind while demanding his happy participation and agreement.  Which means that he is in relationship with her for her benefit while not being allowed to express himself or be himself, which is again not a relationship.

Nowhere is this problem more apparent than in the United States.  If you look at other relationships throughout history and in other countries you find a completely different approach that allows a compromise for human desires, sexual desires, masculine desires, and men have more rights in other countries than they do in the United States.  As a matter of fact every other country in the world is more sympathetic to men and masculine desires and thoughts than the United States.  It wasn’t always that way though.  The founding fathers got to roger all the slaves they wanted, just as ancient kings had gyneciums, harems, and concubines.  We are the most female minded country in the world.  Science doesn’t know why their is a generational decline in testosterone because their is no viable reason for it.  But I do 🙂 .  It is because of the forcing of female values and female communication rituals.  The demonization of masculinity in the united states, the undeclared war on men.  When you aren’t allowed to hold masculine opinions, or have masculine values, or act like a man, or use masculine communication rituals without being thought poorly of and being punished and humiliated as a society it creates a counter incentive to being a man.  This country is turning men into women.  In relationship after relationship i have observed how women judge me, manipulate me, control me, punish me, all in an attempt to turn me into the man that is perfect for them.  Who the fuck are you  that you deserve a ken doll designed perfectly for you to be a supporting character in the fairy tale that you are telling yourself to yourself while he is providing it for you in a world that is becoming increasingly hostile to men and sympathetic to women???  Everything in this economy, body politic, educational system is being scaled down for women and to meet feminine judgments so that women not only have more support but  men are being counter incentivized and sabotaged.  But women bravely pick up the banner from the battle field from a war that was won long ago and never declared and they courageously start kicking that dead horse all over again.




Deconstructing for Value


In my psychological model, nothing said or done is necessary, so we deconstruct the action or narrative for value.  We eat and breath because we want to live.  We procreate because we want our genes to be passed on.  Even if these are autonomic functions or subconscious impulses the result is the same.  If a person repeats a behavior or result in their life and they are incapable of changing it, even if they are crazy it doesn’t change the meaning in terms of value of the behavior.

Every interaction, every conversation creates impact disparate or otherwise.  Most interactions create psychopathic processes, which is to say that they error on the side of a feminine bias, which is based on superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions, normative or normatized judgments, what sounds good or what looks good.  There are always going to be more stupid people in the world than intelligent people, and also the pattern of the female mind to expand and increase feminine authority in the form of mercy, charity, and beauty, which fills the earth with stupid life that can’t be sustained by the environment.  A long, slow, painful, suffocating, miserable, self execution.

Fewer patterns released in this world are sociopathic patterns, which is define differently from modern psychology and I consider having to do with wisdom and natural law.  These are positive patterns that deal with a profound understanding a zen like intelligence like that of a kung fu master or the ability of nature to balance itself out over time.  These patterns also deal with an unyielding, unconpromising, equality under reason or natural law as defined by myself.  Nature is not pleasant, it is not forgiving, it is not merciful, you either make the cut or you don’t.

A person can do or say something that creates value for other people or for themselves.  The way in which something can have value is by being, useful, true, or pleasant.  Pleasantness can be used as a manipulation or it can make you stupid and weak, pleasantness has the least amount of value but it is useful for children and babies to transition to a stage where they are capable of appreciating greater forms of value.

What stimulated a person’s need recognition to act?  What was their motivation?  their intention?  What outcome did they desire?  These are all questions that help us understand the person speaking and acting.  We can build a psychological model of the person’s soul, gestalt, world view, even if they are concealing or misrepresenting their true self, which is also a behavior congruent with psychopaths.

Psychopaths, and psychopaths essentially rob the world of value for the reason that they never create more value than they consume and psychopaths will always use other people’s resources before they use their own.  Just as in the tragedy of the commons.  In my system the a person’s resources include their own abilities, their faculty of reason, their money that they have earned, their possessions, etc.  Psychopaths are attracted to structures of authority because they have been indoctrinated with feelings of superiority by their mothers if not by both their parents.  They feel superior based on their pleasantness, superficial beauty and charm, or their moral authority, or their ability to lie and manipulate people and get away with it.  This is also an act of theft, lying and manipulation that is, it isn’t using one’s own resources in my system.  Because of the feminine bias of people who have been trained to be wary of and hostile of masculinity while being indoctrinated into the authority of the toxic mother, they are blind to the greater evil of the psychopath while being hyper vigilante against masculinity, or the sociopath.  I have a saying,

“It isn’t the asshole in front of you that you have to worry about, it’s the dick behind you.”

This is a well known cognitive bias, I call it the averseness of the mind.  People over react to one false threat because they don’t have deep understanding, while being completely blind to the actual threat.  The psychopath doesn’t show up on their threat filter because they are obsessed with the potential threat which is in all reality a non threat but beyond that is actually the solution to their problems!