Tag Archives: eihrt



Ponder this, how many people have had an enjoyable experience with a bewb?  Now how many people have had an enjoyable experience with a penis?  The vast majority of people are not analytical philosophers, they don’t know the logical fallacies and they don’t know the cognitive biases and as such they can’t stop themselves from making them.  Furthermore I have found that neural myelination accounts for 90% of the decision making of human beings which means cellular memory.  I refer to humans as organic computers because they are predictable.  In their judgments there are certain patterns that emerge, such as a pro female bias.

Contemplate how many more people spend on breast cancer than veterans or prostrate cancer and the fact that Veterans charities are rampant with fraud and theft, which is not tolerated with breast cancer awareness, people are much more hyper vigilant.  But women didn’t sacrifice themselves for us.  Every person that served protected the entire nation from threats.  A woman having breasts is not necessarily a mother or our mother.  Yet we are far more sympathetic to feminine concerns than masculine concerns.

Every year at least $1.5 billion is spent on breast cancer research.  Some of this money comes from an ever-growing number of breast cancer non-profit organizations, but the vast majority comes from government organizations such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DoD).  The funds go largely to preventionand early detection.http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?p=1772


Men women and children have the same bias, choosing in favor of femininity and weakness.  Men are even insensitive to their own desires.  Men don’t even question this when asked to sacrifice themselves for women and children, they just presuppose the validity of it.  Women also don’t question it.  Women have gotten so arrogant and so expectant that men will sacrifice their desires and wishes for women and children that even after not having contributed anything meaningful to a man’s life women finding they don’t have enough of what they want will turn to the man and expect him to sacrifice himself so that she can have more.


The manliest men go off to war, they are in relationship with death and the threats and the ugliness, they create the outside perimeter, the grizzled, gnarly, rind, the crust, the tough outer layer.  That is why I say the male mind is sociopathic.

Inside that are the effeminate men, the champions of normalcy and pleasantness, captain save a ho, the white knights, the arm chair philosophers, with their feminist, elitist, bias.  It is the guy that is not fit to go into battle.  He acts as a moral authority protecting the women from the manly men, but also gaming the system for his own benefit.  He is to cowardly to do what the manly man does.  He is a champion of femininity.


The butch women essentially perform the same function as the effeminate men, protecting women from the truth, reality, ugliness, and death.  Lying to women about themselves.  Telling them they are equals to the men and not to worry.  The butch women are closer to the women and children then the effeminate men.  Women have an innate feeling of inferiority to men, Sigmond Freud got that right.  If you observe women in their reasoning, arguing, and behavior, they want to control the penis, they want to own it.  They want to direct the activities of the penis.  They want to send it to attack their enemies.  They want to control how it thinks and they want to be the focal point of its attention and the only source of its happiness.

Penis envy in Freudian psychoanalysis refers to the theorized reaction of a girl during her psychosexual development to the realization that she does not have a penis. Freud considered this realization a defining moment in the development of gender and sexual identity for women[1] — the parallel reaction in boys to the realization that women do not have a penis being castration anxiety. In contemporary culture, the term sometimes refers inexactly or metaphorically to women who are presumed to wish they were men.[2]


What is the most fascinating is how the behaviors used to champion negate their own arguments.  The manly women copy the behavior of men, therefore demonstrating that they tacitly believe that masculinity is dominant.  Fritz Perls said that you copy what ever behavior you believe is dominant when you want to win.  So the fact that they use masculine behavior when they want to win demonstrates that they believe masculinity is dominant.  You have to understand the psychosis that the individual must have to use a means different from their argument in order to obtain a sense of victory.  Women do this because it is a natural psychopathic/female strategy to expand and increase feminine authority.  Women think of themselves as a group, WOMEN.  Whereas men do not think of themselves as MEN, they think of themselves as a man.  Men do not feel that their position is increased by being men, while women do, and this comes from the fact that their need recognition was stimulated in that they closetedly feel inferior to men, thus the need for the repeated conquest against men.

The effeminate man will argue that the woman is the equal of man in mental function and ability, but if that is so why does she need the protection of the effeminate man?  The effeminate man argues against reason, and the participation therewith to increase the amount of poontang he has available to himself and not being able to compete with the manly man in manly endeavors, he adopts a strategy flying in the face of reason he presupposes that women need protection from the manly man and that they are incapable of dealing with reality and handling the truth.

The fascinating thing about people’s judgments, when they are no analytical philosophers, is that their judgments always make themselves correct.  It always justifies why they are good for wanting what they want.  Because their are so many weak, stupid, and incorrect people out their all of these strategies and judgments create a disparate impact in favor of weakness, stupidity, and failure.  Why are we attracted to emotional pornography?  Puppies, babies, kittens?  because they are harmless, because we feel like we could protect them and contribute to them, that has positive survival data for us, it means we are surviving well and that we are capable of providing for another.  If we were really secure we wouldn’t judge so hatefully and immediately against things that pose potential threats.   We wouldn’t be controlled by our emotional reactions and pre emptively attack people because they appear strong or smart.


http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/organic-computers-definition-by-joxuashiva/ https://thoughtuncommon.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/deuchebag-nation-womans-world-part-2/ http://finscribeofwisdom.blogspot.com/2012/10/unsustainable-emergent-patterns-in.html http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/armchair-philosophers/ http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/histrionic-co-morbidity-psychopaths-at-work-part-2/ http://terminclature.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/emotional-pornography/

Deconstructing for Value


My philosophy is about maximizing value and being efficient with value.  My psychology is about deconstructing for value based on my models.  Every event, everything said, every interaction creates value for someone.  What I do is deconstruct the event, narrative, action, or thought process to discover who it created value for and who it depreciated to see if it created a psychopathic, a sociopathic or a rational process.  It is most meaningful to do this with specific instances and those are the very instances that people project their issues onto and get the most offended at.  Which doesn’t make my models less correct, it actually makes them more correct.  What you have to remember is that everything that I post more or less is part of the same integrated model and comes from the same perspective and philosophy.


Above is an example of two narratives, that of my ex-gf and that of my own.  It demonstrates her narrative based on her behavior and the direction in which she argues.  I have been honest about what I am looking for and I have communicated before hand what I am willing to do and willing to exchange.  I wanted to teach her my positive rational way of relating to people and she agreed she wanted to learn it.  In fact it is the only type of relationship I am open to because in every other relationship we have failed and we have always done it the other person’s way.  She will do something for me and then expect to be reciprocated in the way she wants without having an agreement ahead of time, and then when I remind her that what she is trying to buy from me has never been on the table and I have always let her know that, she has a hissy fit.  So we see she is trying to passive aggressively force her relationship on me and manipulate me into participating with it.  These are all psychopathic processes and unsustainable, they are unconscious and normative.  Normative meaning she wants an irrational relationship with me that looks correct to her and looks normal and therefore good to the outside world.  It is also the very relationship that I would rather kill myself than be in because I can’t be myself and express myself in a normal relationship which is also a stupid and irrational relationship.  Furthermore, if I am not allowed to be myself in a relationship it isn’t really a relationship for me is it?




Probably the most egregious modern subterfuge affecting not only the United States but the world was the sub prime mortgage drop out.  Every act of theft in an economy, in a monetary unit effects all of the money in that economy.  So it behooves everybody to prevent acts of theft especially on the scale of the drop out.  Greed caused it in the form of the banks making money by getting Americans mortgages that they couldn’t afford with the reasoning that the house couldn’t lose.  If people default the bank owns the house.  The banks eagerly started foreclosing and jacking up everybody else’s mortgage to compensate for the other mortgages being defaulted on.  They thought that they would own all of the property, but they never contemplated who they would get to live in those houses when all of America had been ejected from their homes, and in their greed it never dawned on them that maybe a trickle of money is better than the cessation of flow of money all together.

See, money is the life blood of the economy, when it stops moving through the veins the economy has a heart attack.  I refer to this type of conquest as “winning against relationship”, it is a stupid and unsustainable form of victory, you depreciate someone in the relationship and expect them to stay in the relationship when they don’t have an incentive to do so.  American people are just going to keep getting screwed and abused, which has proven to be the case since that moment.  It is a psychopathic process to not act if you should be doing it but to be asking “can I get away with it”.

To add insult to injury, the corporations that nearly toppled all of the financial institutions on the planet in their colossal greed, doing everything for only their own benefit, got bailed out entirely by the american people the one’s that got screwed in the first place.  Oh, and they also got a bonus for screwing us so well.  It marked a transition from America the Republic to America the Fascist Corporate Oligarchy.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” ~founding father Thomas Jefferson




Your World is not The World



I have noticed a common cognitive bias in conversation, people seem not to be able to tell the difference between their understanding of the world and the actual world.  They think that the world works the way they think it does.  They get offended if someone disagrees with them about what is going on.  That is the reason that scientific experiment exists.  If you disagree then you either support your assertions with links to definitive tests proving your conjecture or you have an experiment to see who is correct.  There is NO reason to get offended, butt hurt, or emotional.  Scientific materials are descriptive, prescriptive, and predictive, so if you are correct you will be able to predict the outcome.  

If our understanding of the world or our mind was synonymous with the world or somehow attached to the world then we would be able to change the world with the power of our thoughts.  The rational person makes an effort to prove themselves wrong as Nassim Nicholas Taleb said, he doesn’t edit his consideration set and bias mine to prove himself correct.  When people are on the verge of realizing that they are wrong they will panic and start repeating themselves like retards, rebuilding their world around themselves like a bacteria encysting. 






In my system I have reappropriated the terms Psychopath and Sociopath in order to make them more clear.  If I may quote myself, “all narrative is doxography.”  all thought and speech is essentially narrative, and that narrative is strung together by a character or a story that the person is creating,  I feel that psychopaths and sociopaths have two completely different mind sets, which I will get into later, right now I would like to explain why I changed things around.

Trained psychologists have trouble distinguishing between psychopaths and sociopaths sometimes, a lot of this has to do with the way in which the terms were created.  As psychologists were discovering anti-social behavior, they began to flesh out the profile of psychopath, at some later point it became increasingly obvious that there was another type of anti-social behavior and the term sociopath was created and it started to come into use.  Sociopaths, if I understand correctly, are a sub-category of psychopaths, all aberrant behavior is psychotic, but we have two different personalities in psychopaths and sociopaths.  Also there seems to be some overlap between the two syndromes and I think I can clear that up although it is possible to have traits from both pathologies in the form of shadow syndromes.  I refer to process, patterns, or behaviors as being either a psychopathic process or a sociopathic process. 

Now, here is the psychopath checklist:

The two factors[edit source]

Factor 1: Interpersonal/Affective

Factor 2: Lifestyle/Antisocial

  • Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
  • Parasitic lifestyle
  • Poor behavioral control
  • Lack of realistic long-term goals
  • Impulsiveness
  • Irresponsibility
  • Juvenile delinquency
  • Early behavior problems
  • Revocation of conditional release
  • Criminal versatility

Traits not correlated with either factor


Acquired behavioral sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e., a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive



This to me points to an over coddled child.  I see the over coddling mother and the child as part of the same mentality, they are comorbid with one another and the mother creates an environment where the child can practice being manipulative and lying and getting away with it.  The psychopaths need a group of people, a herd, in which to socially climb and manipulate others, reputation brokering, strategic communication, rhetoric, passive aggression, etc. 


I found it interesting that in the movie 300, we see the Spartan boy surrounded by images of fire, and attacked by wild animals and having trouble sleeping because of stress, and below we have the sociopathic triad:

The triad links animal crueltyobsession with fire setting, and persistent bedwetting past the age of five to violent behaviors, particularly homicidal behavior.[2] However, other studies have not found statistically significant links between the triad and violent offenders.


Further studies have suggested that these behaviors are often the product of parental neglect, cruelty or trauma, and that such events in a person’s childhood can result in “homicidal proneness”.[3] However, the ‘triad’ concept as a particular combination of behaviors may not have any particular validity – it has been called an urban legend.[4]


From my perspective it is the neglected child, alone in nature and fending for himself that would experience those behaviors. This is more akin to a male mind, alone enduring the war of all against all. 

In the movie PREDATORS it seems to me that the writers were trying to show the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths.  All of the humans were super predators of one manner or another, the dentist was a cereal killer and he concealed this acting like he didn’t know why he was there.  With his own resources he would have been dead in 5 minutes on the planet, he needed to appeal to the sympathy of the others until he was in a place where he could opportunistically take advantage of the situation, and psychopaths are opportunistic.  They don’t fight you when you are strong, they fight you when you can’t defend yourself.  Everybody was more fit for survival than he was.  He concealed his narcissistic narrative and misrepresented himself bypassing everyone’s threat filter, he was a closeted narcissist.  









In order to prove my theories on the purpose of communication I have to explain my concepts of deconstructing for value and maximizing value.  In a rational relationship their is this concept of mutual appreciation, two people only relate functionally towards one another, increasing one another’s worth or knowledge as int the case of Socratic Dialogue.


Since communication only has value in this way, conversation should maximize value for both people in the conversation.  Which means I don’t say something because I enjoy hearing myself say it I make an effort to say things that have value to the other person.  It is important to note that saying things that are pleasant is the way in which communication has the LEAST value, and it might actually be not true and not useful with the exception of lifting the person’s spirits.  This is interesting because of the dichotomy between male and female communication rituals.

Also communication should be solution-centric instead of problem-centric.  It should be directed towards the solution and about the solution, it should have positive emotional data if any emotional data at all, which is interesting because in academia one used to be able to communicate poetically and romantically as in the writings of Albert Pike, but now all emotional data must be removed from academic materials and all personal references or anecdotes.

Other patterns that rob communication of value are redundancy, useless repetition, perseveration.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the psychological and psychiatric meaning of the term.

In psychology and psychiatry, perseveration is the repetition of a particular response, such as a word, phrase, or gesture, despite the absence or cessation of a stimulus, usually caused by brain injury or other organic disorder.[1] Symptoms include “the inability to switch ideas along with the social context, as evidenced by the repetition of words or gestures after they have ceased to be socially relevant or appropriate,” [2] or the “act or task of doing so,” [3] and are not better described as stereotypy (a highly repetitive idiosyncratic behaviour).

Furthermore, if everybody is aware of a problem and no new solution is available and the problem is not getting worse, it doesn’t do any good to continue talking about the problem.  It just makes everyone miserable.

In order for something to be useful it also has to be timely.  If I tell you that your appointment was changed an hour after it was supposed to take place that has no value.  Also I can tell you something that isn’t useful but it is real and it protects you. for example: “I wouldn’t do that because you will fail and hurt yourself, there is no way you can affect a positive change.”  Not useful, but it might be true.  So we see from the way that communication has value it presupposes in it’s uncorrupt form a certain type of positive rational relationship, an equitable, democratic, educational, mutual ameliorative relationship, and this should give us some idea of what communication processes are illegitimate and irrational.