Wednesday, August 13, 2014

False Scarcity and Rewarding Bad Behavior

I realized, about a decade into a marriage, that I was inadvertently "Rewarding Bad Behavior." Every time I was treated poorly -- and this was almost daily -- I came to the conclusion that I just had to treat her better, love her more, be a better "man."  Every time this happened, I was "rewarding bad behavior." 

I'm not a Behaviorist myself, in that, I don't believe that all behaviors are conditioned. I believe there are environmental, social, and familial factors that contribute to a person's overall personality and actions. However, we are all animals, subject to Pavlovian training, and as men, we often exploit this to our own demise. Kulturally, we are taught that it is our responsibility to provide for, dote on, and generally make the woman happy. If she is not, the WE must be doing something wrong. So what do we do? We do more, try harder.

What occurs is a Pavlovian cycle of diminishing returns. She refuses our advances: we buy her flowers. She says we don't earn enough: we work harder. She insults us: we attempt to improve. Do you get it now? Every time she is a complete jerk to us, we treat her BETTER! It is only animal instinct that she will continue ... no, increase her poor actions because every time she does, she gets a positive response. 

This is not to say that WE are to blame -- we are not. After all, we are just doing what seems to be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, we continue to reward bad behavior until they have absolutely no respect at all for us as men.

Why do we do this? False Scarcity, an economic term. Kulturally, we have been trained that women -- at least available women to copulate with -- are scarce. We have been taught that women don't desire sex as much as men. We have been taught that women are a prized possession when no person is a "possession." The idea of "false scarcity" is most easily seen with the example of diamonds: if diamonds are so rare to be highly priced, how come so many women are walking around with them on their fingers? Ever seen a jewelry shop say, "Oh, I'm sorry ... we're plum out of diamonds." Of course you haven't. It's a false scarcity that increases the price you have to pay.

Find some water, man.

Well, we run into the same thing with (and forgive my crudeness) pussy. It's HARD to get laid (no pun intended). Women, kulture, have created a scarcity of the commodity we seek the most -- that which should not be a commodity at all, but a natural, loving moment between a man and a woman. And when we feel we have "secured" our supply of this limited resource, we will do almost anything to keep it. Unfortunately, the more we do often leads to the situation I described previously -- a downward spiral of rewarding bad behavior ...

And why do we continue? Well, it leads back to scarcity. We know, inherently, that if we don't treat our woman well, some other weasel will come along and do it for her, because he is under the spell of false scarcity as well (not excusing his behavior). We know if we don't, someone else will; she knows if we don't, someone else will. Talk about FUCKED.

So the spiral goes: Either reward bad behavior or suffer the consequences of false scarcity ... if you don't do it, someone else will. Although slightly over half the population are women, women perpetuate the notion that WE should have to struggle to get our basic needs as male human beings met. Until this basic cultural issue is corrected, the cycle will continue. 

Tuesday, July 2, 2013


We are limitless beings continually limited by environmental distractions. Our “souls” are pure consciousness, purely divine. The fear of contact with this aspect of ourselves, and others, is intentionally, rapaciously thrust upon us from the time we are very young. This is materialism in all forms.  The material world, in itself, is not “evil.” It would not exist only to be so. However, it can be used as a shield between us and our true natures. This is the unfortunate reality.

Like a toy, the material is there to be manipulated for our experience: For home runs and touchdowns; For the creation of new Life; For enjoyment. These are the “forms” of the material, human “being” experience. But we are all, underneath, human becomings, constantly changing and evolving from this material experience and its outcomes.

FORM = FOR (M)aterial experience

Our consciousness has no material stuff. Some would argue that consciousness consists wholly and entirely of and within the brain. It has been my experience that this is not entirely so, and I would propose that the brain is merely a conduit, a container within which the immaterial expresses itself outwardly in the material, 3-dimensional world. While the brain anchors consciousness in 3-dimensions, consciousness remains interwoven with the fabric of a greater existence that we can't wholly integrate.

With this partial understanding, we can extrapolate that while the body surely will die, the consciousness part of our existence might not. In fact, the very reason we might have bodies is so the entity that is our consciousness can experience and grow in a 3-dimensional plane, with nearness and distance, touch and feeling, sights and sounds, birth and death and all the dynamics involved.

Of course, some sort of “afterlife” is not a secret that the Kulture tries to keep, however hardily it might attempt to confuse. Religions such as Christianity and Islam rely heavily on the idea of some ethereal survival after the death of the body. Some, Buddhism and Hinduism in particular, have varying ideas regarding reaching this state of existence before death, through ritual, meditation, abstinence, and the like. I have come to believe that the secret our Kulture and other cultures have sought to obfuscate is how easy it is to connect with our infinite selves and the infinite selves of others. I don't believe there is a special chant, a secret handshake, a password, or a set of pain-inflicting tasks one has to achieve in order to access this other plane. Why should it be so difficult? After all, it is within us.

Okay, now for the hokey part. I have never been an extremely religious or new-agey person, I don't believe in ghosts, and for the most part, I'm fairly down to Earth and analytical. However, I do believe I have communicated with the “consciousness” of someone who was close to me and now is dead (body), and also believe I occasionally communicate with another “person,” the nature of whose consciousness I'm not going to get into right now (entirely human, don't think I'm all evil-spirited up).

Yep … get the meds and call the R-wing, he's ready for transport to the rubber room!

Except, not really. When the world's largest religion believes that bread and wine are literally turned into 2000 year old flesh and blood, when another promises 72 virgins as a result of martyrdom, when yet another believes that darker skin means more sin in a previous life, the idea of consciousness transcending locality and the death of the body isn't too extreme. 

Now, I don't mean to prove that my own idiosyncrasy is true just by the fact that others are more outlandish; to the contrary, I don't mean to “prove” this belief at all. I mean, I'M not even convinced. But let's just suppose …

IF consciousness is non-local, AND it survives the death of the body, THEN the likelihood of inter-dimensional communication is not only possible, it is highly probable. As I stated before, I believe that I have experienced this very phenomenon and there aren't any bells and whistles.

I wrote the lion's share of this essay directly after one such “conversation” with, actually, both of the two consciousnesses I previously mentioned. Parts of it I felt as if we were writing together. Almost entirely *lost in thought and well-focused, I didn't find the rift between life and death difficult to maneuver. Maybe, after all, THIS is the secret that all the Kultural fiddle-faddle seeks to hide:

It is as easy to communicate with those who have been close to us in the material world and have died as it is to communicate with those who are still present in body. In fact, it is much easier. Terrestrial communication is limited by many barriers: time, location, focus, consciousness barriers, language (including the obvious language barriers, but as well, body language, differences in vocabulary, nuances in meaning of words – a single word can have different “experiential connotations” attached to it depending upon the person uttering it or the person listening, etc.), semantics, health, age, culture, and others.

"This is not a pipe."

Telepathic communication (and I'm not even sure telepathic is the correct word because that involves distance) is limited only by focus. Cogito ergo sum. There are a few other, perhaps geometric barriers I don't quite understand and it has only explained to me but in visual representation. It appears as a kind of rounded, opaque, grey corner, rotating toward me with mathematical symbols and lines of demarcation, as if it were time itself unfurling in my direction (that is my interpretation, anyway). Those who are free of the material, can “see” around these corners, like shadows lurking in the direction of the light. “Pre-shadows,” if you will. Initially, I would assume that these barriers would only limit our communication from them, but oddly enough, it seems to be the other way around. Perhaps this is for “their” protection (i.e., would a dead parent want to experience his child having sexual relations, or committing a crime?). That appears to be the only barrier None of the Hollywood contrivances like seances our talismans are necessary. These ideas are simply more barriers that are put between us and our true nature.

That is not to say a piece of the material world might hold a “piece” of former consciousness within it, or help one to focus, at the very least. An illustration of this (pun stumbled upon) would be an experience I had in the Vincent Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. While gazing upon a Van Gogh self portrait, I experienced a literal “thought conversation” with the man. It was as if he had left a piece of himself in that painting with a message and the painting itself acted as a doorway to this communication. Tortured soul that he was, it would only seem logical that he would leave pieces of his soul within his works. It's possible that sigils such as great works of art, which are, in essence, gifts (in this case, gifts to the world), help to eliminate the aforementioned thin geometric barrier.

Our Kulture seeks to further the limits of our true nature consciousness regarding the transcendence of the material. You have the obvious – the decadent descent into all things superficial. Most people are lost on this 1st level material plane, hindered by financial hardships or greed, desirous to be fashionable and keep up with all the Joneses, blinded by technological advances, obsessed with appearance and all things shiny and visual, seduced by science that tells us such things are impossible, stupefied by the school system, and/or hypnotized by the media.

But there are other, less obvious barriers our Kulture places between us and ourselves. One is the implication of the necessity of “evil” in the transcendent. How many men in black robes does it take to chant mystically in a circle around a sacrificial virgin to communicate with the dead? ZERO. However, this idea becomes implicit when we read, watch television or movies, or even go to church. It is implied that something BAD must happen, that there must be an evil mojo present, or at the very least, an ordained minister's blessing to conjure such a notion as the transcendental nature of human consciousness.

We actually know VERY LITTLE about our own human consciousness experience or even the very essence of the universe, but these wise men and women are certain to tell you exactly how NOT to do it. They've let us know that we must be dabbling with the dark if we consider anything but the material … unless, of course, it is a practice labeled and approved by a major religion.

From my experience, the transcendental nature of reality ebbs and flows through the material world as sure as all those little Wi-Fi waves are zipping and fluttering through your bones this minute. Let me give you an example:

Imagine a perfect square and assign a unit of 1 as length of each side. Mentally, draw a line from one corner of the square to its opposite, making two right triangles. Now, give me a measurement in units of the line you just created. The fact is, you cannot. The measurement of that line is 2, which is an irrational number – it is a number that continues infinitely without repeating 1.414213562 … and on and on and on … So, a basic shape that you learned to identify when you were 1 ½ years old, about the simplest shape there is, one which appears bounded on all sides, and in every way extremely simple, actually contains the infinite.  Nevertheless, we can use a square to build a block, and this block can be played with by a child, or it can be used to build a pyramid. All the while being at once completely tangible while containing the completely intangible.

Now, of course there will be those who will answer: You can't draw a perfect square. To whom I will answer: You can't draw an IMPERFECT square. By definition, a square, the concept – square – is perfect. By definition you can't draw a square, period, because we live in a 3-dimensional world. A square is 2-dimensional. Even the dust from the pencil makes this impossible.  Regardless, this conceptual square exists, and we use it to lay foundations, build walls, and guide ships. And within this very solidly bounded shape exists the UN-bounded!

From our tangible experience, we humans begin with a body. Kulturally, it must be clothed. Then, they must be the right clothes, the fashionable clothes. Then, by kulture, you've got to have the right accessories. Next, you put this Kulturally clothed person in a box, a house or apartment, somewhere away from the elements. Send this person to a school box to conditionally associate all the Kulturally acceptable from unacceptable. Give this person a Je-ob (or, Job, Biblically, tortured while worshiping the torturer over a bet, as similar to industrial employment as any metaphor I could conjure), and put the person in a boxy vehicle to get himself from one box to the other. Feed it a daily dose of fear from boxes of cereal, program it from boxes that flash little digital pictures and audio into its brain … is it any wonder why the original, naked being while becoming loses its connection to the limitless? Is n't a person in our Kulture analogous to the diagonal of a square? Even if you begin to think “outside the box” it is labeled “radical” thinking.

Our naked body is the 3-dimensional boundary of the infinite, limitless consciousness contained within. If this were the only boundary, without all the Kultural distractions, we might soon discover that the connection to the eternal, the divine, or the “perfect” is not so difficult as we are led to believe.  

*lost -- isn't it odd that when someone is extremely focused and concetrating, we call him "lost" in thought?  Is the pejorative "lost" an attempt to keep the minds eye on the material?

~ Whajonahle 7.2.2013

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Phi Ratio and Human Reproduction -- Part 3

Fibonacci Ages of Human Life

0-1      Conception to birth
1-1      Learn to walk
1-2      Learn to talk
2-3      By 3 have learned more than will learn rest of life
3-5      Personality develops
5-8      Reason develops
8-13    Genders diverge, Social roles and status realized
13-21  Female: Attract Best Mate, Nesting, Family, Motherhood begins, Marriage
13-21  Male: Avocational, Vocational foundation
21-34  Female: Mother, Educator, Most influential period
21-34  Male: Professional Achievement, Attract Best Mate, Marriage, Fatherhood
34-55  Female: Provides Wisdom to 2nd Generation, Wisdom to Community
34-55  Male: From Prince to King
55-89  Female: Elder Stateswoman
55-89  Male: Elder Statesman (though, sperm still viable if extremely successful)

*I'm having a tough time finding the time to finalize part 3.  So I've decided to post an excerpt for an idea of where it's going.

Part 3 – First Fruits, Shattered Flowers, and Broken Egos

Why shouldn't a Man at his most productive get the ripest berry? Conversely, why should the pip-squeak teenager, who's done nothing but crack wise in history class reap the finest crop?

On the female side, why, when a woman is at her most desirable, her finest hour, have to waste her time with the whiny little bench-warmers in the game of life? For her own sake, should she not be in the game of attracting the finest mate for her and her children's future when at her most competitive? Why should the best she have to offer a potential husband is whatever is left after years of bouncing from fraternity boy to grease monkey?

That's quite a wedding night for both, I'm sure.

In the long run, why shouldn't a woman have as many good, healthy, attractive, reproductive years with her husband, instead of a short window before her husband's attraction begins to wan along with her child-bearing capacity? Why should she wait until the doors of opportunity are closing to find stability in a man and family?

In the long run, why should a man marry a woman whose best years are behind her, only to find that soon after marriage, she looks more like his mother than a mate?

Could there be a correlation between the continually escalating divorce rates, broken families, domestic abuse, incest, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, suicide rate, adultery, pornography, homosensuality, poverty, laziness, welfare cases, and many other ills of society and the un-natural mate pairing of Kultamerica?

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Phi Ratio and Human Reproduction -- Part 2

Part 2 – Little Red Motherhood and the Teenage Wolf

My 13½ year-old son recently had his first real "girlfriend." It lasted about 2 weeks, until she decided she liked his best friend more. His best friend, a 15 year-old, was currently her best friend's boyfriend. So it goes in adolescent relationships today. When this was going on, my wife made a simple but profound statement: It must be a really difficult age for boys. Just what does a 13 year-old boy have to offer a 14 year-old girl? It was a rhetorical question because we both knew the answer – nothing! Girls of that age are much more mature than boys of the same age, and generally attracted to the older boys. Sure, they hook up and play at relationships, but that is only due to convenience. They simply don't belong together.

*As an update: the particular girl in the story soon worked her way from the 15 year-old "best friend" to a 16 year-old sophomore, then quickly on to a 17 year-old junior, once they were in "High" School.

Now here's a question for you, and if you are completely indoctrinated in Kultamerica, it's certain that you will not only have an Orwellian reaction to the mere phrase used, but a Pavlovian response to my answer, as well. The question is:

"Why do teenage girls get pregnant?"

The answer is:


Despite the fact that we've been continually bombarded with over 50 years of insidious propaganda that "teenage pregnancy" is some sort of horrific PROBLEM, all of humanity owes its existence to teenage pregnancy. Throughout most of human history people followed the natural biological patterns and rhythms that exist within our instincts, and most cultures that developed were in sync with our biological natures.

The fact that we now exist within a Kulture that is antithetical to our human nature doesn't mitigate the fact that human biology doesn't evolve just because someone, or a group of people, decides it should. Industry, feminism, corporatism, eugenics, etc., have coerced the general population to turn away from the natural order of human development and reproduction as a matter of Kulture, while our biological bodies and instincts remain steadfast and true to Nature.

So what is the REAL problem with teenage females getting pregnant in Kultamerica (aside from the contrived Kultural mores? THEY ARE USUALLY IMPREGNATED BY TEENAGE MALES!

"I'm, like, gonna be a dad?"

When the father is not a teenage male, in this Kulture he is often deemed a "sex offender." By LAW, we are NOT ALLOWED to procreate as the biology of the species dictates we should.


The Natural Human Development regarding Reproduction differs in AGE according to GENDER as expressed in Phi Ratio, Golden Mean, Fibonacci Whole Number approximations representing age, in years. It expresses as such in Phi Harmonics when the gender Fibonacci cycles are set to match at ages 13 Female and 21 Male.

*See Part 1 – Means and Harmonics for graphs and explanations of Phi Harmonics with the aforementioned offset.

What this implies is a socio-economic solution to many of the social ills of today, merely by following a more Natural Path in regard to human reproduction and gender roles.


Gender Roles

The primary role of a woman is Mother. The primary role of a man is Provider. It is only within the Industrial Paradigm that a Female can be “provider,” and even then, without the Male, at quite the cost to society. It must be an un-natural world in which the Female can be provider. However,our Biologies, our BODIES, come from the NATURAL world – Kulture has evolved in a direction away from Nature … to our own misfortune. Even if the biological goal was to evolve toward Androgyny, culture would evolve at a much faster rate (however, it is not biology’s goal to evolve toward androgyny; rather, biology has evolved away from asexual reproduction and become MORE specialized sexually). Fight biology as much as you want, Kulturally, but biology and Nature WILL eventually win out.

Our Kulture has become so removed from the natural world, that it has become quite easy to assume unnatural identities, oddities, and ludicrous beliefs (i.e., a third gender arising, gay "marriage," – propagandist poppycock to further the downward spiral). Despite the vain attempts of Kulture to change the natural order of things, Men will remain stronger, more adept at the physical rigors of survival, and will never be substitutes for a good Mother. Women will retain their Maternal instincts – however fiercely the Kulture tries to beat it out of them – and will remain irreplaceable if we are to survive as a species.

As it follows, Men, in order to be good providers, must have something to offer vis- a-vis provision and protection. A 27 year-old man, if he is not stuck in the altered state of protracted adolescence, will ALWAYS be a better mate for a woman than a 17 year-old boy. Assuming a natural course, the adolescent male must go out in the world and make something of himself before he takes a mate. In years past, this was not a question. A woman of child-bearing age would not give a boy the time of day, she would only consider a man of means, however meager the means.

As it stands today, the standard is a man of the same age. If this mating occurs when the two are both in the 13-21 Cycle, the Male is in no way fit to provide and protect, due partly to the lack of prefrontal cortex development. If this occurs later, with both in the 21-34 F Cycle, the woman is past the optimal time for becoming a mother, partly due to the full development of the prefrontal cortex.

The Piano Lesson

There are certain stages of development that certain things are easier, more natural, to master. A great example of this is learning to play the piano. It is generally accepted that kids learn to play the piano easiest if they start around 8 years old, and it becomes significantly harder after 12 years old (of course, there are exceptions, but this is the general rule). There are those numbers AGAIN!

"Piano For Kids"
  • "The best time to start piano lessons is generally between the ages of 6 and 10.  Most piano teachers consider the start of the second or third grade to be the optimum time to start lessons.  The children are mature enough and have learned enough about language and math to succeed as long as they are interested and have your support."
  • "This is not to say that your kid will be unsuccessful starting before or after this age range.  Some children start as early as 4 and some teenagers and many adults have begun the study of piano with great success. 
  • "The sooner your child starts piano after the age of 5 or 6, the better.  If you wait until after they turn 12 the brain has 'Hard-wired' to the point that progress is slower and is further complicated by the onset of puberty. Plus, an early start in music helps the brain develop in other ways. The American Music Conference says 'The news has been hard to miss: in study after study, scientists are finding correlations between music making and some of the deepest workings of the human brain.'"
"The timing of the start of piano lessons and the selection of a teacher that is right for your child are very important in the success of piano lessons."

"Public schools usually begin their instrumental programs around 3rd or 4th grade, when most children have reached a good place to learn music in their emotional, physical, and educational development. This is a reasonably safe time to start piano lessons for just about any child.
However, many children want to take lessons even earlier because of a favorite artist, an older sibling, or just a passion for music that they have. Many children are perfectly capable of starting private piano lessons even earlier than 3rd grade."

Now, the significance of this relating to this hypothesis is that there are certain age-specific times in human development at which learning to master a skill set is optimal. Why would it be any different when it comes to parenting? It is my contention that the optimal time for a Female to first become a Mother is during the 13-21 Fibonacci cycle. This has everything to do with 1) the ABILITY to conceive after the onset on menses, but, 2) before the full development of the prefrontal cortex. Like learning to play the piano well, learning to be a good Mother is much easier if done within this optimal age "window," before which, it is physically impossible, and after which, it is intellectually more difficult (this is assuming a Natural culture exists which is supportive of the teenage Mother; obviously, with the current Kultural stigma and socio-economic demands of Industry, the mental side of teenage pregnancy is skewed).

The Prefrontal Cortex

The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that assists in rational decision making. It becomes fully developed around 21 years old.
[*21 again. Now, it seems that there is some dispute over this. There was a time not long ago, that "scientists" thought the brain was fully developed at 14. Later, they found out about the development of the prefrontal cortex between 14 and 21 (hmmm ... there's that cycle again). Most recently, "scientists" are claiming that the prefrontal cortex continues to develop until the age of 25 ... now, this just happens to coincide with a time of extremely protracted adolescence due to Kulture. In my opinion, this is propaganda to further protract adolescence, and they are using the extremes to define the means. I think there is evidence to support this in the 2nd article quoted below, in which the title quote claims 25, but the very next paragraph indicates 21. It is quite possible that some, probably a very few, people don't have a fully developed prefrontal cortex until 25, but this number is negligible. Also, on the cognitive tests they used to formulate this theory, the fact that people answer the questions as if their brains aren't fully developed could be a direct result of the Kulture we live in. This is an argument for a different time. For the time being, I'll stick with 21.]

"The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is the anterior part of the frontal lobes of the brain, lying in front of the motor and premotor areas.
This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making and moderating social behavior.[1] The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.[2]
The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social "control" (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).
Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's personality and the functions of the prefrontal cortex."

Source: Wikipedia
 "Parents need to realize the rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so."
–Jana Martin, Ph.D., psychologist and spokeswoman for the American Psychological Association
"Science is unraveling the biological reasons that teens act like teens. Recent research has found adult and teen brains work differently. Their brains are wired in a way that floods them with emotional responses to external events. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part, but teens process information with the amygdala, the emotional part. The amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain, which is fully functioning and utilized by age 13-14 years. The prefrontal cortex fully develops between the ages of 18-21."


Just how would the development of the prefrontal cortex interfere with first becoming a mother? Look at the functions and results of the fully developed prefrontal cortex: orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with INTERNAL GOALS, PERSONALITY EXPRESSION, etc. In other words, a person is a more complete, defined INDIVIDUAL after the PFC is fully developed. So, after 21, we have an complete individual, whole unto herself, with goals and set personality. Once an individual is defined, most often in this Kulture in regard to lifestyle, employment, and social life, everything is SELF-oriented. The farther one gets from 21, the MORE DEFINED the individual becomes, set in her ways as being whole unto herself. The child introduced after this becomes, perhaps, an OBJECT outside herself to which she must adjust.

Juxtapose this Individual with the teenage brain which is highly emotional, who still internalizes external events, who is not set in personality or SELF, but open to being part of a greater whole. With the introduction of a child (and probably a man), which brain would be better suited to BOND with another for the first time? Motherhood, children, and possibly husband would ALL then become part of the WHOLE person she becomes when the PFC does develop. Her goals would then include FAMILY and Motherhood would be PART of her personality. The child introduced during this time becomes a PART of her.
I'm not saying that there aren't good Mothers who had their first children after 21. My wife is an example of one. What I am saying is that it is much more of a STRUGGLE to be a good Mother if the first child is born after 21, when it is much easier – if the culture is in line with Nature – if the first child is born between the ages of 13 and 21, 17 being the mean optimal age for first pregnancy.


... SLOW DOWN! I can hear the gears turning – what kind of twisted pedophile claims that 13 and 14 year-olds should be having children? Uhg! Children having children! (All Kultural meme responses) Not MY little girl!
What you have to understand is the importance of the Fibonacci Means and Bell Curve distribution. If you look at [Fig. 1], you will see the distribution around the F-Mean of 17 is 68%, meaning over two-thirds of the first pregnancies we are theorizing would be between the ages of 16 and 18, with a corresponding 14% between 18-19. A full 84% would occur at 16 and above, and 95% between the ages of 15 and 19.
[Fig. 1]

This is a perfect fit for the 13-21 Fibonacci cycle. If you put 17 years at 0, +1 becomes 18, and so on to +4 at 21. -1 is 16, -4 is 13, and ages in between fall on distribution points.

Even so, a the typical response from the typical person raised in this Kulture would believe that even this distribution is far too young for women to enter into Motherhood. This is most certainly due to mal-adapted gender roles created by the Artificial world of Industry imposed upon the populace, and it all starts in school.


The entire Educational System is based on it the Phi Ratio as expressed in Fibonacci whole numbers. This is not a coincidence, and as you will see, forces the majority into lop-sided pair bonding relationship patterns that directly conflict with Nature.

At (5*) our children are sent to institutionalized education. Kindergarten through 2nd grade are
designed as a colorful, playful introduction to school. In 3rd grade (8*) things change and become more serious ... you will find some of the bitchiest teachers in any school at the 3rd grade level, which begins a more rigorous academic agenda.  3rd-5th and 6th-8th are divided at the mean, with 6th-8th grades approaching a more “secondary school” atmosphere, changing classes and teachers more often.  These steps are built into the pedagogy. By the end of 8th grade, most students have turned 14, and thus ends/begins another FC 13 – 21.

Traditionally, most formal education ended at the completion of 8th grade (that is why High School is often still referred to as “secondary school"). Most women did not attend after 8th grade. Usually, affluent boys attended secondary school, with the other boys taking apprenticeships, laboring on family farms, or generally finding their ways in the world. Secondary school (High School) ends with graduation at a Fibonacci Mean age of 17/18. Some of the wealthy or very intelligent went on to college, which ends upon graduation at another Fibonacci age of (*21).

Now, as a matter of course, ALL young people enter High School, and MOST go to some form of college. Boys and girls, rich and poor. The relevance of this is that during this CRUCIAL developmental phase (13-21), males and females are pushed together in a sociological quagmire. At a time when the young woman's biological instinct is to look for a mate and start a family, she is force-fed a diet of boys who are critically incapable of fulfilling the role of Patriarch.

Phi-losophical Differences

As you can see, the Phi Ratio, or, Golden Mean, appears to be ubiquitous in human development. I'm certainly not the first person to recognize this, as it would appear that even the educational pedagogy follows this paradigm.

The only question is: how is this fact used or abused by Kulture to affect our experience of life?

Part 3 will delve into the Male role in reproduction and adverse effects of the similar-age pair-bonding in long-term relationships for both Males and Females.


Sunday, February 24, 2013

The Phi Ratio and Human Reproduction

The Phi ratio, or Golden Ratio, is expressed throughout the biological world, often expressed in whole number approximations.  It only follows that it would appear in the patterns of human development and reproduction.  By applying the Fibonacci series (a mathematical series that approximates the Phi ratio) to human age and gender development, specific patterns, means, and "harmonics" are evident.  Unfortunately, these discoveries relating the Phi ratio to human reproduction are in direct conflict with modern Kulture ("Kulture," as distinguished from "culture," is simply culture that conflicts with our biology).

Part 1 will illustrate the specific numbers, patterns, and "means and harmonics" that emerge when a Male/Female pair is offset at a rational point, that point being 21 and 13.  This hypothesis suggests that a Female human should begin reproduction during an earlier Fibonacci cycle (13-21) than a Male human (21-34), rather than the current Kultural pair bonding of similar-aged partners.  Part 2 will discuss the implications of the hypothesis versus the effects of the unnatural coupling that modern reproductive Kulture produces. 

Part 1 -- Means and Harmonics

Graph A

Graph A represents the Fibonacci numbers as they apply to human age "cycles," henceforth referred to as Fibonacci Cycles.  The Fibonacci series is as follows: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89, ... with each number correlating to age and the periods within representing distinct developmental periods in humans, male and female. The top section represents the female age and the bottom represents the male age when the cycles are offset at 13(F) and 21(M).  The shaded areas show the cycles in which the hypothesis suggests males and females would begin procreation.  The "means" of each cycle are represented as well, being of utmost importance.  For example, though 13(F) is the beginning of the cycle (and, not coincidentally, the average age of menarche), 21(F) is the end of the cycle, therefore 17(F) is the "mean," or "average" age of that particular cycle, and these means are of great significance.

*It is important to remember that when dealing with Fibonacci cycles, they are always approximations, just as the Fibonacci series only approximates Phi.  For example, 8-13 could be inclusive or exclusive ... is 34 the end of low-risk female fertility, or is 35 the beginning of high risk pregnancy?  The periods between cycles are somewhat elastic.


 Notes indicate the significance of Graph A as it relates to points in human development when the male and female is offset at 21 and 13, respectively, and touches on statistics as to why they should be.

Fibonacci Numbers:
8 -- early onset Menarche (first menses or period) is DEFINED as before 8 years old
13 -- the average age of Menarche; average age of growth spurt (14) in boys
21 -- prefrontal cortex fully developed
34 -- after which all pregnancies are considered "high risk"
55 -- the mode (most common age) on the list of oldest "natural" births

Fibonacci Means:
10.5 -- average age of Thelarche (breast development)
17 -- Definition of late onset Mencarche; average age of completion of growth in men
27.5 -- 2nd generation significance (next graph)
44.5 -- Mid 40s is average age of Perimenopause
72 -- average last year of life, male ... average age of death, male (73)

72(F) intersects 80(M) -- average ages of death, M - 73.2; F - 79.7

72(M) intersects 64(F)
44.5(M) intersects 36.5(F) ... the mean of 64 and 36.5 is 50.25 -- 51 is the avg. age menopause

72(M) intersects 64(F) ... the mean of 64 and 55 is 59.5 -- see below
63(M) intersects 55(F) ... the mean of 63 and 55 is 59 -- the oldest known natural birth

55(M) intersects 47(F) ...  the mean of 55 and 47 is 51 -- the average age of Menopause

17(M) intersects 9(F) ... 17+9=26, mean of 17 and 9 is 13 (Fibonacci #)

34(M) intersects 26(F) ... 26/2=13 (Fibonacci #)

The fact that by aligning the female 13 with the male 21 produces all these results is remarkable.  But by taking it a step farther, to the 2nd generation, will there be any of these Phi coincidences?

Graph B

 Graph B shows a Father who's daughter is born on the Cycle Mean of 27.5.  As it clearly shows, at his next Cycle Mean of 44.5, she is at her Cycle Mean of 17.  When he reaches the Fibonacci 55, she is at her Cycle Mean of 27.5, and when the Father at the approximate age of death for a male, the Cycle Mean of 72, she is at a cycle mean of 44.5, which is the average age of the onset of Perimenopause.  Let's take it to a third generation ...

Graph C

 This graph plots 3 generation of women, each daughter born on the Mother's Cycle Mean of 17.  We'll call the top Grandma, the middle Mama, and the bottom, Daughter (G,M,D, for short).  The first "meeting of the means" is between the Grandma and the mother, at G's 27.5 and M's 10.5.  The next has obvious significance, as G is reaching the age of high risk pregnancy, Fibonacci 34, M is at the Cycle Mean of 17, beginning reproduction.  When M hits Fibonacci 34, the same instance occurs for D, 17; however, at the same time, G is at 51, the average age of Menopause!  D hits 21 precisely at G's Fibonacci 55, and later, when M hits 55, G is at 72.  Again, 55 is the "mode" on the list of oldest known "natural" childbirths, and 72 is the average age of a male's death.

In Girls, Thelarche (8-13, avg. 10.5), Pubarche (8.5-13.5, avg. 11), Growth Spurt (10-12.5, avg. 11.23), and Menarche (10.5-14.5 avg. 12.5), all trend toward the 8-13 Fibonacci Cycle, and the conclusion that the average girl is biologically complete to begin reproduction during the 13-21 Fibonacci Cycle.

With Boys Pubarche (10-14, avg. 12), Growth Spurt (11-17, avg. 14), and Completion of Growth (15-20, avg. 17), all trend toward the Fibonacci Cycle of 13-21, making these still developmental years for males.

The hypothesis suggests that males and female cycles diverge in purpose, specifically during the 13-21 cycle.
The evidence in the means and harmonics of the resulting shift in Fibonacci Cycles supports this as being a natural function of human development.
As will be discussed in Part 2, there are natural reasons for this shift between male and female development due to the natural gender roles each must fulfill for the best propagation of the species, despite what the current Kultural paradigm promotes and perpetuates.


Friday, May 18, 2012

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Only Time to Yell, “Fire!” is in a crowded theater ...
Though I had planned on a different article being my second blog (working on it), a topic was brought up on “Inside the Eye” the other night that I had to briefly comment on …
During the show, someone said that without the right to freedom of speech/freedom of expression, we don’t have the basis for any other rights.  I couldn’t agree more. 
The US Supreme Court’s decision to limit free speech – the notable, “ … a person doesn’t have the right to falsely yell, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” – is one of the two WORST decisions ever made by the Court. 
1919 US Supreme Court
A Specious Metaphor
In the first place, what if the theater IS, in fact, on fire?  The case the court decided upon was NOT about “crowded theaters,” but POLITICALLY DANGEROUS SPEECH.  In such a case, WHO has the right to decided if the “theater” is truly on fire?  If the person expressing himself believes it burning, that person has not only the right, but the responsibility to yell, “Fire!”  This relates directly to the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY the author of the 1st Amendment expressed in the Declaration of Independence 11 years previous:
                “ …  whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  -- Thomas Jefferson,,The Declaration of Independence
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the “Fire!” opinion, later doubted his own decision, and voted AGAINST the application of the opinion in a similar case.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Secondly, it is not the speech or expression that should ever NEED to be limited.  To take the “crowded theater” metaphor literally, if a person were to yell, “Fire!” in a theater that was not ablaze, and people were injured as a result, it would be the reckless action of that person in totality, not the word or speech itself. The same malicious action could be taken by pulling a fire alarm, or lighting a smoke bomb in the theater, both more likely to get the desired reaction (a crowd frantically trying to exit a theater). By simply falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a theater, the crowd’s reaction could just as likely be, “Shut up!  I’m trying to watch the movie, you moron!” 
Irresponsible speech, such as “Fire!” should be equated more to “libel” or “slander.” Certainly, a person has the RIGHT to make libelous or slanderous statements, and the 1st Amendment rarely is invoked; rather, these cases are judged on the injuries and damages caused by the utilization of the right to speak freely.

However, if indeed the motivation to shout, “Fire!” is in to a political or social warning – which the theater metaphor was clearly used to represent -- the voracity of the warning call is an extremely grey area.  Unfortunately, the analogy endorsed by the Court could easily be used to silence speech which those with the power to do so deem dangerous.
Speech or expression of any kind should not be limited in any way, ever. The ONLY time to yell, “Fire!” is in a “crowded theater” because the biggest issues effect the most people.  And when the warning is needed, there is inevitably an opposition with both the cache and the cause to claim that nothing is burning. The Court’s decision to limit speech opened the door to the current environment of Political Correctness which is on the verge of absurd.      
This picture says it all, or doesn't, as it were. 
Three other quick thoughts on the 1st Amendment, while on the subject:
The current concept of “Bullying” is an extremely dangerous step toward indoctrinating the youth to the concept that they DON’T, in fact, have the right to free speech.  The term “Bullying” has been redefined to mean almost anything that hurts another’s feelings.  This is nothing more than an insidious attempt to control the expression of mindful perceptions and values. To this end (and for the purpose of artistic freedom), the wording of the 1st Amendment should include, “the RIGHT to OFFEND.”  This includes the right to be mean, hurtful, obnoxious, and insulting; sometimes the TRUTH is mean, hurtful, obnoxious, or insulting.  The efforts in regard to “Bullying” should be directed at learning how to deal with ideas and words that offend one’s sensibilities.  “Sticks and Stones,” man.
As you can see, the Noose on this Anti-Bullying propaganda campaign is composed of WORDS.  Bullying and “teasing” are not the same thing, never were.  It should be called and Anti-Teasing or Anti-Insult campaign, but that would expose the ridiculous nature of it.  No one wants to see anyone hurt themselves, and teaching oversensitivity to teasing and insults only CONTRIBUTES to the problem. 

In much the same way, the idea of “hate crime” is nothing more than punishing a person for his or her THOUGHTS.  The crime should be judged on the manner of the crime committed.  If someone is beaten to death, the motivation of such a beating is irrelevant.  To charge a person with a “hate crime” is essentially charging a person with THINKING a certain way.  If two similar offenses occur, and one deemed a “hate crime” carries a greater sentence, this additional time is added only for the thoughts in the person’s head when the crime was committed.  Ipso Facto, the charge of “hate crime” is a “thought crime.”

To illustrate how ignorant many people are about the concept of “Freedom of Religion”: A little over a decade ago, a radio personality was discussing a French court decision to ban Muslim headdress from public schools.  The female sidekick stated she was in full support of the decision because, “That’s what separation of Church and State means.” Ugh!  Quite the opposite, Separation of Church and State would imply that the school or court could NOT infringe upon the rights of the people whose religious beliefs required they wear a particular garment.  By “banning” this practice, the State infringed upon that person’s Freedom of Religion.  The idea that this idiot inverted the notion without being challenged or corrected by any of her cohorts (in fact, they AGREED with her perversion of the concept) on a radio show with a large market share in a city of 1.5 million has annoyed me to this day.

Speech is merely the verbal expression of the ideas, thoughts, and feelings inside a person’s mind.  The 1st Amendment addresses the most BASIC right: the right to express these ideas, thoughts, and feelings.  Without the right to expression, we CANNOT support any of the other Freedoms we are endowed with.  At this time in history, we must vehemently (and VOCALLY) oppose the insidious attempts to erode what Jefferson deemed worthy of #1 on his Top Ten list.