[Social Engineering] [Conspiracies of Female Supremacy] [Subtle Dystopia] [Psychology of Chaos]
By Cidra M
Well, I’m going to take a risk and measure a little about how freedom of expression is going, especially on the topic mentioned. Well, do they want to see supposed signs about how, supposedly and in theory, a woman contrives her superiority over a man without the same being aware of it? Well, let’s lay out the facts, at least according to one conditioning student: Have you noticed that almost every time a girl wants something with a boy, she is showing pictures of cute and fluffy animals, or pictures of very childish and cute images? Do you really think this isn’t a cold, calculating move?? You see, the nature of the human mind is not very different from the old ways of online search engines, when they still gave search results and not the dozens of results from advertisers who paid for it: if you quote a concept to a person , invokes an idea in someone, you are also ‘invoking’ a whole kind of “cloud” of related concepts: if you invoke ‘chocolate’, for example, you invoke the most related concepts so that you can define and even “compile” the concept of chocolate in consciousness… Usually comes color, flavor, texture… From ‘short tail’ (oh old terminology) comes the immediate concepts, from ‘long tail’, or secondary results, the related subjects , such as weight gain, diabetes, and others… Other details, such as sugar pumping having a very cocaine effect, but better not to comment… Okay, but what about children’s images? Well, do you remember what I mentioned that any mention raises in the operation of the mind a ‘cloud’ of concepts, based on their relationship? Well, despite the person making comments about how cute it is, usually relatively untrue, the idea is that by raising the concept related to something childlike, the person also ‘loads’ the idea of ’child’ into their concept processing system. ‘. The standard male personality, as socially engendered, is supposed to be insensitive, but in particular, what is the photo trying to conjure up? Speaking of feelings, it is extremely notorious that men and boys look to girls to open up or ask for advice; because? Simple, although androgen has a whole built-in emotional apparatus, this apparatus, although working full time and always active, only works with people according to the empathy that the person makes available, whether this empathy is a falsehood generated with precisely metered drops of attention to the least possible, be it the supposed ‘motherly love’, or the figure of an aunt or niece who paid a little attention to the sorrows of a boy, who would only cry in front of a girl; daddy doesn’t like crying man, he likes strong man and crying is a fag thing, ‘common sense’ dictates. Gynogender, on the other hand, can provide such support, although this is usually only until adolescence, and ‘mature’ (or dry) men no longer participate in such rites. Result? Total lack, now. It is a supposed apathy that is a social mask and a lie, but practically no man will admit to being a child covered in a mountain of flesh to dress up as an adult, to pretend that he is what he is not.
In a last detail, the only time a boy is freely touched by a woman is when he is being breastfed. Well, there are those reports that even milk is rationed for boys, only breastfeeding them at fixed times, while girls can breastfeed freely… Because they are fragile, and not to be well nourished, of course, I don’t know what a premeditated justification is . But whether you like it or not, it’s a desire that really marks a person, especially in a person so addicted and deprived of touch. It is also worth remembering here that girls are painted as nice and often exchange touches with each other. Boys are trained never to do it because it’s weak and gay, and that creates a population control mechanism, the act of teasing.
Whether this institutes a policy almost worthy of a horror story, when the person is convinced to live in eternal ascetic emotional hunger, or not, is something I leave open to be imagined by the reader, but well, right, and i say to myself, what a wonderful world.
Equally evoked is the situation in which trying to get close to a girl or a group of girls playing, in preschool, demonstrated that girls were not at all skilful at knowing how to reject a person and make it hurt ; almost every boy tried to win female friendship at this time, and equally famous are the ways in which girls treat boys like insects. This rejection also marks, just as it says that the social roles currently assigned to gynogender are very rudely denied, it is made clear that a boy will be rejected and will not receive touches or caresses, as girls do, except for the figure of the mother, of course.
This rejection, this “escalation” into a lower division denied certain emotional privileges, as well as the creation of a saving figure, by contrast, the only Person who touches, as boys don’t… The general rejection of a class with emotional rights, contrasted with the only figure who provided such treatment, the mother figure. Well, coming back… And the girl, when she starts supposedly flirting, starts showing cute things, pictures, dolls; this is not an act of trying to express herself, but rather a completely calculated and cold attempt to invoke, in the other person, a related reaction: cute -> cute -> cute things are children’s things -> children have a mother -> my childhood -> emotional desires -> emotional desires remedied by the figure of a single woman -> satisfaction of that -> cute image -> cute -> repeat
The immediate reference is loaded consciously, short tail. The associated references, for a person without much practice, all go to the unconscious and work in the background, minimized, without the user of the operating system noticing, as it is not on the main screen… Long tail.
Both working, balance between Beri’ah and Yetzirah, on an individual level but not the whole scene. Anyway, all references are loaded, whether the person noticing it or not. If a girl accidentally touches her hand, even just once… The dry nature of the male person, in the emotional field, with the help of those childish images, WILL evoke a kind of shadow personality implanted en masse: A cute little thing sign is actually almost practically one of the worst sigils of hypnosis and emotional control ever invented, a mere mention, the act of charging, one more touch, a ‘run’ sign… Put those in motion all associated desires. In other words, the person will literally see you as a mother, with rights to punish, fight, deny, or give milk and starve, with touches included. And that’s what the person will be thinking about.
Well, right, as girls use these tricks with boys from an early age, from 12 or 13, from what people who had a childhood remember, I wonder how far hypnosis is a science passed on from mother to daughter, as if in a family coven (i grew up in it!? / shhh, no opinions now) and a kind of female supremacy art… Completely unfair, by the way, since personally, although i love to be dominated, i usually have to . . . choose what will be done with me, right… As far as I know, most androgen respond to such sigils, and I don’t think they were asked if they authorized this… And finally, back to the subject: remember the cute pictures or cute pets? Are they totally innocent… Or not?
Tender Power on Amour Fou: