Tag Archives: deborah tannen

The Reason I am MGTOW

L051247Now to be honest I am not officially a member yet because I haven’t signed on to their site.    But in another manner of speaking I have been MGTOW for years in spirit just not in name.  I started this page 3 maybe 4 years ago and it is currently connected to an ex-gf’s account.

untitledhttps://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/Adam-Wolfe/383505548376524?hc_location=stream

I have not had a lot of good luck with women in my life.  As a matter of fact the vast majority of my problems have been caused by women or been about women. https://usaguru.wordpress.com/author/

american guru

After my first girl friend and Fiance’ I promised myself that I would never get involved in an exclusive relationship with another woman until I understood women.  I spent the next 20 years studying women and relationship, human psychology, history, the occult, philosophy, philology, linguistics, etc.  I was a bouncer, a stripper, a chef, a stand up comedian, and an author.  I now will not get in an exclusive relationship with a woman BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WOMEN.

As I was repairing the problems with modern psychology as it is practiced, I noticed something peculiar, what inspired me was deborah Tannen’s work on male and female communication rituals.  I realized that if you took every logical fallacy and every cognitive bias and used them all of the time, you would sound exactly like a woman.

This prompted me to look at the problem like this.  From a linguistic philosopher’s perspective, how are male and female brain’s in relationship with on another?  How does the extreme feminine bias of the western mind factor into emergent properties that come out of collective western judgments and opinions?  What does this mean for society and the future of Western society?  What does it mean for me?

untitled4

I realized that men have certain traits that occur more commonly than they do in women.  Our society forbids us from scrutinizing or criticizing women, it treats women like a privileged class of people that is not inclined to look at it’s own failures, learn from them, or correct them.  A type of sex based oligarchy in which women are considered moral authorities on account of having a vagina.  This was affecting the relationships of the individuals, and it was creating these social events which I began to predict with more and more accuracy.  I studied the natural inclination or women when left unchecked and what they would do, how they socially climb, how they think.  What I realized was that women were destroying the civilized world and making it weak and indefensible for the incursion of Islam.

rezn1

What I observed was the emasculation of the male mind through the forcing of female communication rituals or radical political correctness, a meritocracy of pleasantness in which a person could be an incorrect douchebag pleasantly, but you couldn’t speak the truth if it was unpleasant and you couldn’t point out the psychopaths or expose the pretenders to reason like Socrates did without being forced to drink the Hemlock.

the-mind-hackerI originally wrote a piece for my ex-gf’s blog, which she has so considerately set to invitation only, even though I generated all of the content on her blog and it was still generating web traffic without her promoting it.  The name of the piece was called “As the Structures of Authority collapse”  there was another piece called, “unsustainable emergent properties in human judgments”.  They were time stamped so you can see exactly when they were written, and that they were indeed predictive.

Anyway, I have learned not to rely on women, and I hope never to be dependent on a woman again for her to do her part in a relationship and to carry her own weight.  I want a working relationship and women, much like psychopaths, enter into relationship for their own benefit, to steal from relationship or to socially climb in relationship, they are detrimental to relationship and they antagonize their own and everybody else’s success, because they only look at things to see how those things might benefit themselves and they never create more value than they consume.  Their life some is always less than zero, they are oxygen thieves, attention suckers, and space fillers.  They aren’t homo sapiens.

brad

Advertisements

The Pole Position in Relationship

Image

Women have a strategic advantage in relationship that they tend to exploit unbeknownst to themselves. These instincts, behaviors, and strategies have been hardwired into the human organic computer through millions of years of neural myelination that have been passed on in the form of cellular memory.  Women don’t think about it, they don’t do it consciously, they aren’t aware that they tacitly interpret and judge reality in the experiencing of it.

The female mind was created to be in relationship with children.  The woman thinks that femininity is superior to masculinity, that is why she is female, as such when their is a disagreement between the male and female she refuses to look from his perspective or compromise or negotiate.  She uses her bias and the feminine bias of society and the children to get her way.  She basically hijacks the relationship and holds it for ransom.

If you observe women’s arguing styles you realize that they can’t get over their programming, they act like a mother in the following ways.  They presuppose their moral authority, they try to control the narrative as though they are talking to a child.  They correct the narrative, changing words, they are not just expressing a different sentiment they think that they have the final edit on the conversation.  They talk over you, interrupt your, nag, whine, repeat themselves, refuse to agree, participate, or move towards the solution or compromise, they quote people outside of the relationship whose opinions don’t matter and they will even violate the boundaries of the relationship by bringing people into the argument who are not part of the conversation in order to take their side.  These are not the behaviors of a person who is in relationship or a person who give equal credence to their partner.  The correlation between psychopaths and the narcissistic narrative has recently been discovered and fascinatingly, my theories show that the female brain, especially in relationship with a male brain acts psychopathicly, whereas the male brain is more sociopathic.

Image

The female brain operates from moral authority, operating on superficial aesthetic snap decisions as to what looks right and what sounds right.  The female mind is in relationship with its own authority and as such wants to expand and intensify its authority so it uses illegitimate behaviors and strategies in relationship to create a disparate impact in its own favor.  While men think about creating value for the relationship women think about getting what they want from the relationship and in this way women attack the relationship.  Even in a relationship of two women will try to increase their status, social climbing.  Women don’t debate analytically offering evidence,  and reasons, or being open to experiment, they argue emotionally not being able to conceive of any other solution besides the one that they are leaning towards.  They ask leading questions, they try to control the direction of the conversation, they force an emotional moral frame editing the consideration set of the conversation as if they were the arbitrary judge of the conversation and they try to force you to participate with their premise.

The female mind sees reason as a hostile, alien, influence and refuses to participate with it, or she will conflate moral authority with sapiential authority and herself the high priestess of both, but she is absolutely incapable of not being perfectly predictable in her positions and behavior.

Image

The woman acts as a mediator between father and child, a liaison, a go between, and she can use her position to bring the family unit closer together or to sabotage the father.  She can try to win the child’s favor so that he likes her more by spoiling the child.  If the father competes in this way it is more damaging for the child because he can play the parents off each other and the child starts to think in terms of possessions instead of relationship.  The mother can misrepresent the father to the son and further damage the relationship between them.  Some women go so far as to make the father an object of contempt and ridicule to the children.

Image

For those of you that are familiar with my theories on emergent properties in collective judgments of societies you might remember this piece I did to illustrate how society protects women from men they are in relationship with.  Note further that the man is basically accepted into a society by having children, that is his root in society, his entrance into a society.  Women use every possible strategy to expand and intensify their control, to make it permanent.

Most cultures have an age of adulthood which has historically ended the authority of the mother and begins the authority of the father and the preparation of the child to be a responsible and functional part of society, which also means that the issues that the mother has protected and instilled in the child through invasive narrative or psychological manipulation have to be removed and the child has to be made mentally and emotionally healthy and a contributor to society.  The child is also at this time responsible for the laws of the land and is no longer able to make appeals to feminine authority in the form of mercy and charity claiming to not be responsible for their actions and the consequences thereof.  The problem with America is that none of the social strictures on women apply and at the same time women are unconscious of their instincts and processes and of the evil they do innately.  They don’t have to scrutinize themselves or criticize themselves and they refuse to take responsibility for their actions or the consequences of them.  At the same time the refuse to confine their attentions and judgment to realms in which they are valid and get good results, completely incapable of not tacitly judging and interpreting everything from the position of moral authority.  Refusing to participate with reason they are passive aggressive and perceive themselves at the same time as being passive resisters and reformers of society while all they are really doing is making society weak and vulnerable.

Image

Women are Aggressive Communicators

Image

All of the nastiness and aggression that men are accused of can be found in the communication behavior of women.  I have spent a lot of time studying relationship and patterns in relationship and events in the world and how they are allowed or created by how people relate to one another.  Ever since I was a child I was hypersensitive to sounds and communication styles.  I used to get sick to my stomach listening to live music, and I developed a psychosomatic response to the sound of Diane Chambers, Shelley Long‘s character on cheers.  It wasn’t until I read A. R. Luria‘s book THE MIND OF THE MNEMONIST that I truly started pondering my sensitivity to sound.  I have an almost autistic level of sensitivity to sound, Diane Chamber’s timber made my heart race and I became agitated and my eyes dilated and I wanted to kill something.  I am not like other people, my mind is always working.  I relax into philosophy and higher thought, I am not happy if I don’t have a good conversation or learn something new every day.  This caused me to ponder the difference in communication styles between men and women. http://alfrodull.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/the-most-annoying-character-on-tv/

Image

I recently watched this documentary on Seaworld and noticed something interesting, they said that Tillikum was harassed by the two females he was originally put in the tank with, they would bite him for no reason and leave bloody marks on him.  Tillikum was a larger than average male killer whale.  After studying Deborah Tannen‘s male and female communication rituals and coming up with my theory that male and female brains are actually two different type of intelligences with different approaches to life, value systems, and strategies in relationship I found it interesting how similar Tillikum’s experiences were to my own.  Women will henpeck me and provoke me with no provocation on my part just as they did to him.  I began to ponder if this wasn’t because as a large male he represented a potential threat to them so they started testing him or trying to gain psychological leverage over him.

All of the nastiness and aggression that men are accused of can be found in feminine communication rituals and strategies.  When left alone the female mind acts like a parasite to the male mind.  Women are aggressive in passive ways, they are passively aggressive, covertly hostile.  I have always found it fascinating how over time the woman eventually manages to leverage herself to the point where she takes complete artistic control of the relationship and the man while in it is not allowed to be himself or to be interested in what he is naturally interested in.  Women indulge themselves in female pornography, puppies, kittens, babies, but men are judged as bad for being interested in the type of pornography that creates they pornography she enjoys.

Image

As I become aware of the subtle processes and strategies that women use I realized two things, society in general doesn’t detect them because they are considered normal.  Society has been trained not to scrutinize women or look for them to be the cause of the bad.  Society in general has a feminine bias.  Society will blame other things for the behavior of women.  If somebody says, “man that lady is a bitch, she really did a number on me.”  Somebody will respond, “she must have really gotten screwed over by some man.”  Not only is she rescued from her own behavior, blame for her behavior is put on some imagined male scape goat and she is allowed to go on her crazy way, unscrutinized or blamed, working her evil will on the universe.  The ancients didn’t keep men and women separate to protect women, they did it to protect masculinity from femininity.

Image

Millions of years of gender reinforcement create neural myelination that passes down through cellular memory.  Men are insensitive to their own feelings because life is hard and they have to do unpleasant things so that they and their women and children can live, and women have to be sensitive to their own feelings because they need to feel that feelings are valid in order to be good mothers and take care of horrible little maggot poop factories that wine, because babies communicate no analytical data and only emotional data.  Women and men and children are insensitive to men.  Go figure.

Not just that, you can see that women have adopted communication strategies designed specifically to manipulate the male mind which is sensitive to sound.  They speak in a high pitch, with a rapid cadence.  Persian women have adopted the behavior of speaking in low manly tones to communicate dominance and to turn men off sexually.  All of this works on a subliminal level, women don’t realize they are doing it, and neither do men.

Image

Women ask for mercy from their man, they beg for quarter, they start the relationship by asking him to tell her a lie or perform a herculean labor and then when he fails or fails to protect her from reality of the truth she blames him for a situational problem.  Women use leading questions herding men in certain directions.  “Why don’t you play with the children?”  and then when they start liking him more than her, “How come you spend so much time with the children?  are you some kind of freak?”   Women use humiliation rituals.  “How come you spend so much time with your boyfriends, are you gay?”  She tries to define a real man by what he does for her and what he puts up with from her.  How is it that women are the arbiters of what it means to be “real men” are men the judge of real women?  ‘Cause I have some ideas, just sayin’…

Anatomy of the Female Mind

Image

When I say “the female brain” I am referring to several things: the emergent patterns in the way women as a group behave and make judgments, men that have been indoctrinated into the moral superiority of women, and in a conflict or a relationship the more irrational person or psychopathic person, male or female.

I will give a brief synopsis of my theory on “organic computers”, Neural Myelination is passed on through cellular memory, successful techniques are passed on by people that survived, patterns that were repeated are neural myelinated, this myelination influences the way we perceive reality and make judgments, our judgments were informed by the need to survive of our ancestors, those patterns were created in situations where survival was difficult, those instincts in modern times can be out of touch with reality.

Image

Now, Nature, for lack of a better word compartmentalized functions into male and female functions.  The consideration set of the female mind was edited to be concerned with and for babies, to presuppose an environment created for her in which she could indulge herself in the concern for which her brain was created.  In doing so the female brain makes certain presuppositions and ignores certain factors.  Those concerns which would not be conducive to taking care of a child but would be useful in providing a safe environment for woman and child were the business of the male mind.

Men and women are essentially the same, but compartmentalized by nature to deal with two different concerns and topics in two different ways.  I discovered this when creating my psycholinguistic philosophy.  My philosophy states.

“All narrative is doxography.”

Which seems innocuous at first but it is much deeper than one might expect.  All narrative is point of view, which means that everything said characterizes the person speaking *(assuming you know how I deconstruct narrative).  It wasn’t until I started studying Deborah Tannen‘s research on Male and Female communication patterns that I realized there were two completely different consciousnesses talking to one another.  She refers to this as complimentary schizmogenesis, I think it is more like two alien species that have different values and speak two different languages.

MOTHER

Babies start off as objects, entirely dependent on their mothers, incapable of doing anything for themselves.  They can’t defend themselves, think for themselves, or provide for themselves.  Babies communicate no analytical data and only emotional data, so from the perspective of the female mind emotions have to be valid.  That which has NO value or negative value in the heat of battle is valid to women.  Deborah Tannen refers to the interpretation of the emotional data by these little piss and shit factories as “ventriloquizing”.  Where the woman acts as the pythian oracle to interpret the omens sent to her through the medium of the squirming and whining of the child.

The mother protects the child’s psychosis and aberrations as well as the child.  She doesn’t care if the child is insane, or is capable of dealing with the world at large, that has never been a concern for her, she has a man for that.  She just wants the child to live and be as happy as possible.  This is why historically there was an age or a trial to mark the end of the authority of the mother and the beginning of the training and teaching that would make the child suitable for their transition to the world.

The mother manipulates the child to do things and to think that it was the child’s own idea.  Women use these exact same strategies on men if they can get away with it.  That is just how their brain works.  Women also keep on bringing the attention of the child back to a subject and then communicating emotional data to try to influence the way the child feels about the object.  When women do this to men it is called nagging and whining, or henpecking.  I call it jingling the keys.

SASD

Due to the feminine bias that is innate in the human organism, and due to the nature of superficial, aesthetic, snap decisions coming from the feminine part of the brain.  We judge the flow of negative emotional data as good or bad.  Negative emotional data flows from the child to the mom and from the mom to the dad.  We have a negative reaction to seeing the negative emotional data flowing in the opposite direction.  This patter in collective human judgments creates emergent properties that create disparate impact in favor of unreason, women, and children.  What looks good is not always good for you.

Allow me to illustrate in this way.  The Neural Myelination created over millions of years predisposes us to think that foods that are more densely packed with Macro nutrients are good for us, because that neural myelination was created in an environment in which survival was difficult.  The more packed with positive survival data it is, the better it tastes, to the point where the animal will never eat its natural diet if it has the option.  This makes the horse fat and sickly to the point of death.  Neural Myelination wasn’t created in an environment where survival was easy so our instincts are WRONG!  We as a society redouble our efforts in the wrong direction, compounding the problem because we are not aware of the organism through which we experience life and we are thinking sentimentally instead of analytically and logically.  If you don’t know the logical fallacies and the cognitive biases you can’t keep yourself from making them. 

Horse-Face-Eating-Grain-dreamstime_110698611

*It always annoys me when I tell people that everything said characterizes the person speaking and then they start trying to psychoanalyze me without knowing my method and having NO experience themselves, and never having thought about it until I brought the subject up.  What a bunch of idiots. 

The Transgressively Sacral Humor of Adam Wolfe

Image

 

http://www.svabhinava.org/TSHT-old/index.php

Transgressive Sacrality is a practice originally from the Aghori Shaivist tradition of India.  It was a meditation for fostering non-duality of mind.  A yogi would do something unconscionable like drinking urine, or eating feces, or a small piece of a corpse floating down the Ganges.  This was meant as a cure for thinking one self pure and therefore superior to others.  

http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/puritannical-pursuits/

Adam Wolfe feels that if you can be offended, you need to be offended.  Stand up comedy is the last bastion of freedom of speech in this country and there is a war on it.  The countries narrative has become increasingly more feminized, and he is referring to feminine communication rituals and the new science of psycholinguistics.  There is an effort to make all communication pleasant.  Gone is the country where we used to say, 

In what context did Patrick Henry say i may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death your right to say it?

In: Famous QuotationsPatrick Henry [Edit categories]
Answer:
Simply, he posed the statement in the frame of what our country was founded on. The context is simple, your beliefs should be available for free expression and you should have an unquestioned right to express those beliefs. Our society has become so hyper politically correct it is sad that this question even exists
 
If it is unpleasant it is untrue, and you can’t say it.  The masculine perspective, the masculine voice in this country is being strangled.  We no longer have freedom of speech we have freedom from speech.  People win by being offended.  This prevents an honesty of dialogue and a clearing of debris.  The “prophetic speech” of Cornel West is being illegalized.  

Parrhesia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the moth genus, see Parrhesia (moth). For the region of Ancient Greece, see Parrhasia (Arcadia).

In rhetoricparrhesia is a figure of speech described as: to speak candidly or to ask forgiveness for so speaking.[1] The term is borrowed from the Greek παρρησία (πᾶν “all” + ῥῆσις / ῥῆμα “utterance, speech”) meaning literally “to speak everything” and by extension “to speak freely,” “to speak boldly,” or “boldness.” It implies not only freedom of speech, but the obligation to speak the truth for the common good, even at personal risk.

The very language of philosophy that predisposes itself to being understood is being undermined.  This puritannical raising of the bar doesn’t allow understanding, debate, agreement, or even comedy.  It encourages people to wear their feelings on their sleeve and if they get offended they win and they get to extract a fee from anyone.  This creates an incentive for histrionic fits and histrionic personalities.  People being aquisitively mimetic as they are copy behaviors they see rewarded and nobody games the system more than functional psychopaths.  

Image

Adam Wolfe has declared war on the status quo, knowing that this direction is doomed to failure and it is unamerican.  The street should not be an aseptic environment, an aseptic environment is a dead environment, if you can’t handle the filth on the street stay your ass inside.  From his perspective nothing is sacred and everything is fair game.  He is sacrilegious sometimes, insightful, humorous, scathingly brilliant, and dangerous.  He is a reincarnation of the spirit of Mark Twain and the Founding fathers. 

Image

Image

Image

 

BREEDING FOR STUPIDITY

Image

 

It just so happened that when I was studying Deborah Tannen’s material on male and female communication rituals and plugging it into my philosophy and psychology I was also reading THE GENIUS FACTORY by David Plotz, which is about the first sperm bank ever the one that all other sperm banks were modeled after.  It sold nothing but Nobel Prize winner sperm and not a single baby was spawned from the bank until it lowered its standards, a lot.  I have spent years figuring out why what happens does happen and how people make choices and the emergent properties of those choices and judgments.  

In just about every other culture in the world women do not choose their mates by themselves.  There are arranged marriages, there are matchmakers, etc. but in the United States women get to choose their mate without any direction based entirely on their whim and fancy.  So, how do women make those selections without guidance and without any analysis and strategy when left to their own resources?  Well, returning to the Genius Factory we find that women didn’t choose Nobel Prize sperm because they didn’t want their children to be freakishly intelligent so that they would stand out and attract attention to themselves.  They wanted their babies to blend into the herd.  

This is so interesting for so many reasons, it is telling of the female mind and the concealed contempt it has for masculinity and masculine virtue.  It wasn’t that women didn’t want their babies to rise to the top of the herd, they just wanted them to social climb in a less obvious manner, in a more manipulative manner.  Also, women naturally try to reify, and expand their personal authority.  I have observed women that will not date a man whom they can’t control or dominate, or a man that is more attractive than they are, or a man that is smarter than they are, why?  Because of the collective judgments of the herd.   Women have a hierarchy as far as importance of opinion goes. 

  1. Their own opinion
  2. The opinion of their children
  3. The opinion of other women
  4. The opinion of society
  5. The opinion of their mate

I am sitting here watching the United States go to hell every day, moving in the wrong direction, making the wrong choices, while children get stupider and stupider and I am thinking to myself “why is this going on?”  Whose sperm did women choose to get pregnant with?  SCUM!  LYING, MANIPULATIVE, PSYCHOPATHIC, STRATEGIC, SCUM!  It wasn’t until the invention of the sperm bank that people realized there was a type of man known as an “opportunistic reproducer” .  Men whose life goal it is to have as many progeny as possible and these men were pathetic losers that looked good on paper.  One pale, bald, freakish, fuck basically considered donating sperm as his “job”  he had never had another job besides that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_breeders

What is so funny is that women deliberated over their choices for long periods of time and they failed with infinite precision almost every time because they forgot to account for something in their decision making process, and that is the fact that…. wait for it……..

THEY ARE COMPLETE, FUCKING, NINCOMPOOPS!  IDIOTS!

Because of the way women edit their consideration sets they make terrible choices when it comes to relationship.  They predispose themselves to being manipulated by psychopathic men.  Because they are hostile to the things that men value they react negatively to male opinions and perspectives and avoid these.  Not only that women have auto-appraisers that look out for masculine things to attack and avoid.  http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100105050917AAUWwrV

Some of these pathetic men had as many as 26 children from multiple sperm banks.  That is a lot.  The men that thought the least of women but would never tell them that.  The men that figured out exactly what women wanted to hear and told them that.  The men that manipulated women ruthlessly without any concern for their desires, those are the men that bred the most children, and they didn’t even have to pay alimony.  Sigh….

Ponder this, right now there are women reading this article that hate my guts and want me to die.  Not because I am wrong, but because I am right.  They want me to shut up and go away, they want my voice to be strangled and shut off.  They don’t want my perspective and knowledge in the world.  And the funny thing is, I am not the psychopathic person pleasantly manipulating them.  I am pecker slapping them with the truth about themselves, and that my friends is the unforgivable sin. 

Image

COMPLIMENTARY SCHIZMOGENESIS and the I, You, and We Narratives

Image

 

Deborah Tannen, the foremost expert on male/female communication rituals refers to arguments between men and women as complimentary schizmogenesis.  She is referring to a pattern that is created between tribes and nations where in their relationships they keep on repeating their party lines.  I wanted to give credit to her but I want to be clear that much of my stuff is my understanding and my personal philosophic calculus, so don’t think that all of what I am about to say is coming from her.  I like her and I think we would have a very interesting and edifying conversation.  However we disagree on many aspects.  Scientific materials are descriptive, prescriptive and predictive.  Linguistics chooses to focus on the descriptive part of language, the patterns and processes that occur within living languages without making judgments as to what is good and what is bad.  My focus is on how to make relationship work, how to create the most value in a relationship for the most people, so I do judge and I do prescribe.  

What happens in complimentary schizmogenesis is that each person retreats behind their shibboleths and they start repeating the behavior they believe to be dominant.  Each thinks they deserve to win or deserve their way because of either the masculine solution or the feminine solution.  Each has retreated from the We narrative into the I and you narratives. (my personal philosophic calculus).  She communicates femininity to him and he communicates masculinity back to her.  They do not compromise and create a we narrative.  In my SHARED STATE THEORY OF COMMUNICATION there are 4 shared states, communication, understanding, agreement, participation.  Proximity could be a shared state too and it is necessary for the other 4 more or less but it has less to do with communication.  

I believe in “equality under reason” which means that the most reasonable person gets their way or the most reasonable solution is created.  Everybody hearing that agrees with it, but women think that I am talking about pleasantness, and moral authority and they nod their head in agreement and the go,  “MMMMMHMMMMMM!”  and men do the same but they think I am talking about pragmatism and the end result.  

Women consistently use moral authority to discount, judge, block, criticize, prevent, and not participate with the masculine solution or desires.  When women do not want to participate they will leave the we narrative.  When they require or desire participation they will say “we need to do this.”  and when they refuse to participate they will communicate tautologies of non relationship, “you need to use your own resources”  or, ” I think everybody should do what they are comfortable doing.”