The Psychology That Explains How People Become Liberals

I’ve studied numerous psychologists, from Freud to Jung, and from Berne to Maslow, but one of the most interesting psychologists out there is Timothy Leary.

Despite being a Professor at Harvard in the early 1960’s, his seemingly stable position was completely pulled out from underneath him, due to his controversial work involving LSD. At one point, the US government even hated him so much that they gave him 30 years in prison for a minor possession of marijuana, which he claims they planted on him.

Leary, after years of extensive studies, research, and experimentation, developed a framework through which to understand the human mind: the 8 Circuits of Consciousness. The goal of this article is to better understand how leftists think, and what sort of childhood events would lead to such a vehement position on social justice. First, however, I will give a brief analysis of the 8 circuits.

The 8 Circuit Model Of Consciousness


A good introductory book to this theory, as I spoke about here, is Prometheus Rising by Dr. Robert Anton Wilson. Sadly the book is not in print anymore (it’s a hidden gem that not many people know about), but if you don’t feel like buying the kindle version you can check out an hour long YouTube video that I made about the 8 Circuit Model.

In a nutshell, the model claims that human beings have 8 circuits of consciousness, or 8 ways of interpreting external information. When a child is born, he only uses the first circuit. Then, as he gets older, he activates the second. Then, he activates the third, and the fourth.

Most human beings stop here; only a select few have ever activated the latter four. Buddha likely activated the 6th circuit, Jesus the 5th, and Beethoven the 7th.

Due to the complexity of the latter four circuits, I will not discuss them. I will, however focus heavily on the first four, because they have a massive impact in creating a liberal robot. Once a circuit is imprinted, it is extremely difficult to undo. This is why it is so god damn hard to convince liberals of their misguided ways. As I go through this psychological model, and explain why liberals believe what they do, you should start to see just how “robotized” some people really are.

Circuit 1: The Bio-Oral-Survival Circuit


This is what Carl Sagan would call the Reptilian brain and what Freud would call the oral imprint. This circuit is activated when a child is first born, and is imprinted all the way up until he becomes a toddler. This circuit interprets environmental stimulus in one of two ways: either it’s pleasurable, or painful. Good, or bad. Safe, or unsafe. Typically, the mother plays the integral role in imprinting this circuit.

If this circuit receives ample conditioning that the world is a good place, by receiving enough food, enough love, and enough pleasure, the child will grow up to believe that the world is generally a very safe place.

If this circuit receives ample conditioning that the world is a bad place, by being frequently hungry, not receiving enough love, and experiencing a large amount of pain, the child will grow up to believe that the world is generally a very unsafe place.

Liberals are almost always indefinitely imprinted with a negative world-view. This is why liberals, when they’re adults, tend to the view the world as being an unsafe place. They need “daddy government,” to take care of everything for them, because the world is scary.

They need the strong patriarchy to stop “hurting their feelings,” because the world is too scary for them to handle.

Circuit 2: The Anal-Emotional-Territorial Circuit


This is what Carl Sagan would call the mammalian brain and what Freud would call the anal imprint. This circuit is activated around the time that a child becomes a toddler, and is imprinted all the way up until around age 6 or 7. This circuit interprets relationships with other human beings in one of two ways: am I dominant, or submissive? Am I top-dog or bottom-dog? Am I alpha male, or beta male? Typically, the father plays an integral role in imprinting this circuit.

Have you ever wondered why toddlers are so god damn emotional? It’s because they’re starting to develop their ego—am I dominant (anger) or submissive (fear)? This is why toddlers typically go through a “mine” phase, as well. They’re “claiming their territory,” so to speak.

If a child’s father is a strong, masculine man who is a good role model, the child will model himself after his father and be dominant in most interactions. Not in an obtrusive, egotistical way, but rather he’ll view himself as an alpha male; as the leader.

If a child’s father is very weak and if that child’s mother runs the relationship, this child will inevitably have a “submissive,” imprint in this circuit. He will typically be bullied in grade school, because others can sense his weakness.

Every single leftist has this submissive imprint, which is almost always due to an overbearing mother. Conversely, sometimes it can also be caused by an abusive father; regardless, this is the psychology of a liberal. This is why liberals typically need “top dog” government to help them. They feel the need to be submissive, and rely on someone else to take the lead (in this case the government).

This is why liberals typically dislike masculine men; it points out their own submissiveness and inadequacies. It’s why leftists are typically very spineless and are afraid to stand up for anything that isn’t the norm. This is also why they typically have a “mother-boy” dynamic in their romantic relationships.

Have you ever seen hyper-liberals with their wives? They typically act like a little boy afraid of offending mommy and her feminist ideologies. This is why. They’re conditioned to be submissive from a young age, which allows a nanny state to easily come into play, breaks apart the family unit, and creates a man without a backbone.

Circuit 3: The Neuro-Semantic-Linguistic Circuit


This is what Carl Sagan would call the “human brain.” Interestingly enough, Freud skips over this one, likely because, like a fish surrounded by water, Freud is so surrounded by his ideology that he can’t even see it.

This circuit is typically imprinted from the ages of 7 to 13, when a child goes through rigorous schooling on how to write, how to read, etc. It’s concerned with creating a map to better understand reality; in other words, it’s your religion, your beliefs, your opinions, and your political ideology. It’s your general world-view put into words. This circuit is not binary (only A or B) like the previous ones; it can have an almost unlimited number of “imprints.”

The catch, however, is that because most people don’t use logic to understand reality, this circuit is typically just an extension of circuits 1 and 2. For example, as I said before, most liberals have a negative first and second circuit imprint: they believe the world is very unsafe, and that they’re bottom-dog/submissive. So, what do you think happens when they start to form a map of reality?

They become a socialist. Now, of course this belief stems from their deeply seeded feelings of inadequacy, fear, and weakness, which is why they want daddy government to take care of them, but they aren’t even aware of this.

Their third circuit will come up with all sorts of justifications and logical fallacies to explain away these gnawing feelings:

  • “Oh, but don’t you know? Socialist countries are the happiest in the world!”
  • “We need to help the poor! More welfare! It’s because I have empathy, unlike you, cis-scum!”
  • “Don’t hurt my feelings! No, you can’t say that! WH-WHAT? No, it isn’t because I’m a weak bitch! It’s because you’re just an asshole!”
  • “All men are assholes! That’s why the world is in need of feminism!”

Despite the obvious flaws within these statements, liberals literally cannot even comprehend why they’re wrong. As Roosh said before, it’s because liberals argue from emotion not from reason. In other words, their first and second circuits create the “reality map” that is their third circuit.

Their third circuit basically, then, does nothing but go back and justify their original imprints and emotions. They will selectively seek out information to confirm their biases, and ignore any and all information that contradicts them.

This is why hyper-liberals can claim that men are useless pigs, despite the fact that men are the very ones who are giving them the right to vote, protecting them in war, and paying taxes for their welfare. This is why Leftism is literally a mental disorder.

For the liberal, their third circuit is merely a logical extension and justification of their underlying fear, depression, feelings of inadequacy, and general victim-complex.

Circuit Four: Socio-Sexual Circuit


This is what Freud would call the sexual imprint. It’s much more than that, however—it’s when a child begins to develop deeper connections with those around him. This circuit is responsible for “tribal” information. What is the reality-tunnel that your local tribe, school, church, or community has?

This circuit is how religious beliefs, political beliefs, and other ideologies, are typically passed down from generation to generation. It’s a survival mechanism that ensures we are able to “fit in,” lest we be ostracized and end up starving to death.

This is why liberalism infecting our schools is so god damn insidious. Hyper-liberals take advantage of this critical period, when children are most vulnerable to being imprinted with various ideologies, norms, and sexual practices. It’s why homosexuality is practically the norm now, why transgenderism is on its way, and why pedophilia and zoophilia are next up.

Prior to the internet and media, it was the local high school, the neighbors, and the church that imprinted a child with various cultural beliefs. Now, however, the brainwashing box right in front of our noses has been tearing these strong pillars of culture down.

What a child is exposed to during this time period is of the utmost importance; it will, for the most part, determine his lifelong sexual interests and cultural beliefs. Most Leftists, during this time in their lives, are exposed to homosexuality, transgenderism, and cultural Marxism by their schoolteachers, their peers, and the media. This only exacerbates their previous imprinting (circuits 1-3).

This is why leftists become pan-sexual, or any other weird deviancy. They believe that there’s something fundamentally wrong with them; it goes so deep that it even changes their sexuality.

This is why once leftists grow up, they dye their hair and break social norms. They are so desperate to be bullied (and confirm their first circuit bias that the world is unsafe and their second circuit bias that they’re bottom dog) that they go out of their way to dress up in a bunch of weird shit that they know will get them made fun of.

This is why leftists preach equality and become political activists. They use this to meet other like-minded degenerates and can all hide their feelings of inadequacy and self-hatred by trying to bring others down.

Leftism Is Literally A Disease (How To Create A Leftist)


“Feminism is cancer.”

I realize that this is all very complex and nuanced, and can be difficult for a psychology newbie to understand, so I’ll give a brief recap.

During a leftist’s early childhood, his mother likely doesn’t pay enough attention to him. He’s frequently hungry, in pain, and deprived of love. This creates the foundation of leftism; that the world is generally unsafe.

So then, when the leftist becomes a toddler, he is plagued by a chronic fear. This leads others to pick on him, which only further reinforces his first circuit imprint that the world is unsafe, and creates a new imprint: that he’s bottom dog (second circuit binary imprint).

These two imprints create what is known as a victim complex. Victims typically view the world as being very unsafe, and they view themselves as being very weak, and not capable of protecting themselves from the perils that surround them. Does this not sound exactly like a liberal?

Then, when the liberal hits the age of cognition, when his neo-cortex starts to develop further, he enters into the third circuit imprinting period. Here he forms a number of beliefs that merely serve to justify his prior imprinting, such as:

  • The world is a very dangerous place!
  • I need others to help me!
  • I don’t have to step up to the plate; someone else will deal with the challenge or problem at hand.
  • Most people are evil!

From here, they start to enter the fourth circuit, primed and ready to fully accept liberal social principles. They often times take on a “deviant” sexual imprint, or they hate themselves so much that they can’t even bear their own gender, so their fourth circuit effectively becomes an extension of their first two circuits.

From here, they go out into the world and get involved in social media and political activism, by grouping up with other like-minded individuals. This surrounding of themselves by liberals only enforces their fourth circuit imprinting that homosexuality, transgenderism, pansexualism, and whatever-the-fuck-else-ism is normal.

So What’s The Cure?


It is extremely difficult to undo a liberal’s imprinting without using unethical methods (LSD re-imprinting, brainwashing them, controlling their food and water supply to revert them to a childlike state, etc.). And even if these things weren’t unethical, we don’t have the resources to do them.

So, what I propose, is that we simply become aware of this phenomena and work to stop it. I know this sounds so cliche, and I’ve said it a million times, but we NEED TO start creating more masculine men in the world. And it starts with our youth. It starts with you and me.

Take a martial art, work out, and get your finances in check. Slowly we will start to undo the monstrosity that is modern liberalism. The most important thing, however, is that we take action.

Don’t put up with your girlfriend treating you like shit. Instead, learn how to actually get girls, so that you aren’t afraid to leave her. Don’t accept bitchy excuses. Be a fucking man and do what you need to do to get what you want to have.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: Analyzing The 5 Main Alpha Archetypes

295 thoughts on “The Psychology That Explains How People Become Liberals”

    1. Yup. That’s why they attack the family unit. Once you break apart the family unit, literally 99% of children have this type of imprinting.

  1. What amount of bullshit. Shame on pseudo-sciences like psychology. And on the top of it, you include a damm image of an opportunistic “faggot” that is subverting the conservative movement. How old are you?

    1. Maybe by subverting the conservative movement the dangerous faggot Milo can set it right side up again. I happen to think it’s fabulous the way he offends the offensive liberals the way he does.

      1. The dangerous faggot cannot set up anything correct. His simple existence is thanks to social justice, for God’s sake. Do you imagine somebody like him addressing the conservative audience of ten/fifteen years ago? It is ridiculous. We completely lost the culture war against the left.

        1. If we have lost then we have nothing to lose. They always said politics makes strange bedfellows.

        2. With Bedfellows that can get you HIV, you can go worse than losing.

        3. Politics is not like sex. Milo and his ilk are the replacements for cucks like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their ilk. I’d rather get Milo’s cooties than their cooties. It’s easy for me to ignore Milo’s swishy ways because we agree on free speech and limited government and being against Marxist Progressivism. I’m willing to coalesce politically with anyone who opposes sincerely totalitarianism.

        4. He seems more like an artificial Breitbart character to update “conservatives” asses and maintain the two-party fraud.

        5. I think the DemonicRats tell the truth about the horrible things they want to do, whilst the Rechumplicans lie about what they intend to do. So our choices are support for the Globalist program, or completely ineffective opposition to the Globalist program.

        6. All the right people hate him, so why shouldn’t I love him? Who else is telling off the SJW’s the way he is? If there were more people doing what he does we wouldn’t need him. There ain’t so we need him.

  2. Interesting, but without further clarification, I do not see how this model aids your article in any way. To me, it sounds a bit like you are saying “There was a smart guy who wrote a book. He had this model. I apply my theory about weakling men to this model.”
    I bet there are million ways in which you can categorize human behavior and consciousness. Why is this one particularly useful in this context?
    It does intrigue me, however, those higher 4 levels. DNA consciousness. Heh. Really awesome, in a way. Care to give a tiny little overview over those? Sounds like something I’d like to reach.
    Aside from my criticism, you had me at “He was not liked for his LSD stuff”! Go figure. Psychedelics have played such a marvelous and important role in the past two years of my life … I don’t know where I’d be without them. And yeah, of course the government doesn’t like it. Cause it makes you aware that the government is just a bunch of scared petulant children who want to play hero.

    1. Similar opinion about why 4, 6 or 8 or whatever number of classifications. It reminds me of SJWs with their six-dimensional theory of sexuality. Fuck social “sciences”.

      1. People love to categorize that which is uncategorizable. It’s the same with “alpha”, “beta”, “delta”, “sigma”, “omega”.
        The point is, a categorization, as every abstraction, has to serve some kind of purpose.
        For instance, we use the categorization “furniture” and types of furniture for various objects. A “chair” is a type of “furniture”. Obviously, in reality, it is just an object made out of wood or metal or whatever. Why do we abstract its ineffable existence into “chair”? Because it is fucking useful to say “gimme a chair, bro, I wanna sit down”.

        1. Yup. By it’s very nature the mind is difficult to categorize, but the point is that we’re trying.
          Just because “the map is not the territory,” doesn’t mean that we can’t use it to navigate the territory.
          Same with psychological models. Yeah, they can’t ever fully explain the mind, but we can at least use them to understand it and traverse it.

        2. Furniture and chairs are not a theory, they don’t try to explain any phenomena. They are just labels and sets of objects that people agree to use to understand each other.

        3. Well, I’m not a big friend of “at least we’re trying”. It sounds a little desperate and aimless. As Albert Camus said (quoting without deeper knowledge though): “Hope equals resignation” If you catch my drift!
          If I am to use a map, I am going to choose how to design the map based on my needs.
          For instance, do I need a topographical or a meteorological map? Neither of both maps is perfect, they just both attempt to help answer very specific questions.

        4. Well, in a way, they do. They explain the ineffable object in terms of its usage.
          But yeah, as I said, we choose categorizations based on usefulness. If I wanted to make any causal observations, I would choose different categorizations and models than when I just want to sit down.

        5. Very true. Have you heard of reality selection? The idea that we can simply learn to accept and reject certain ideas that are helpful in a given scenario.
          There’s whole organizations and cults that supposedly teach how to do this, but they’re really selective with who they let in.

        6. Interesting. Actually, I think that this is what I instinctively do when I am not plagued by insecurity. Maybe it’s what we all do. The only problem comes in when I try to be coherent for the sake of pride in my coherence. But of course, I have no clue whether I mean the same thing they mean.
          Well, I wouldn’t want to be part of any cult anyway. I really love to figure things out for myself.

        7. An example may be how I treat certain people. Sometimes when somebody pisses me off, I fight them to give their ego a few knocks back. Other times, I am compassionate and have understanding for someone who attacks me. It’s not that I rationally choose to think about it one way or another. I would say that it is simply an intuitive mode that kicks in when the situation demands it, for whatever cosmic reason.

        8. Psychology is nothing but kike quackery invented by Freud the incestuous pervert in an attempt to apply the mental illness he was afflicted with to everyone else. Same as religion before that.

        9. Bu.. but how are you not a leftist since you had no father and were raised by an oerbearing bitch? You must be part of the bullshit 1% in this bullshit theory

        10. You intuitively are “compassionate/understanding” with only the people you realize could kick your ass.

        11. Hm. I used to be kinda leftist in my younger days and I do disagree with many ideas on this site. But I dont like to categorize myself as left or right. I choose ideas, not groups. If that is an answer.
          Oh, and, I was also raped, which contributes to a lot of trust issues, hence why I fuckin hate authority, I guess.

    2. Always a provider of great points, Tom.
      There are in fact many ways to understand human consciousness; many psychological models have their benefits.
      The reason why I prefer Leary’s, however, is that his model encompasses nearly every single other model into one comprehensive model.
      Check out the YouTube video – I spent a whole hour talking about the circuits and yeah man, the latter 4 are trippy as shit. I’ve activated each one of them for a split second on a few occasions. They’re not like the lower four where once you activate them they stay activated…only in a select few have the latter four circuits been permanently activated

      1. I am a web developer, by the way. There is this joke going around about “frameworks”. Frameworks are basically prepared source codes that are supposed to offer you “everything” to achieve “everything”. So, basically, programmers look at all the frameworks that exist and say: Meh, they are all not perfect. I am going to create the perfect one. And in the end, his own gets added to the list and the circle repeats itself. 😀
        This search for a “perfect system” is very peculiar and I think it is very typical especially in intelligent people. I know I chased this delusion for a long time myself. Like, when I was a little boy, I wanted to arrange all my electronics in the “perfect” way so that I would never again have to switch a cable or something. Never worked, of course!
        Yeah, sounds damn trippy. Reminds me of an experience I had where I felt that everything is just made up out of atoms, even all my emotions and that I am disintegrating into nothingness. Scared the shit out of me. I figure that was a kind of premonition to the ego death. Was not ready to let go yet.
        I’ll check out your video. Do you go into details about why you think Beethoven had 7 activated?

        1. Shit! That was a typo – Buddha likely activated the 7th and Beethoven the 6th.
          The 7th is what allows you to attain ego death (the meta-programming circuit). It’s basically when your mind programs your own mind.
          The 6th is the “neuro-genetic,” circuit which deals with epigenetics and knowledge/wisdom passed down from generation to generation inherent in your DNA.
          Leary, Dr. Robert Anton Wilson, and others, have speculated that Beethoven’s music is so revolutionary for its time, so filled with synchronicity, that he may have been trying to describe the feeling of the 6th circuit.
          I also like the comment about systems. Very true that there will never be a perfect system, but we must keep trudging along trying to edit our current models.

        2. Interesting.
          Here is a piece of music that gives me this feeling of being connected to my roots:

          Czech composer, and I have Czech roots.
          But interestingly, the more I meditate, the more I realize that even these cultural / ancestral ideas about myself and who I am, are just ego delusions that I can eventually let go of.

        3. Shit those are gorgeous. I noticed that you commented on my blog a few times, too – I checked out your blog, you’ve got some good shit to say man

        4. Get rid of too many delusions are you’re not left with much of a person. We’re not made to bear too much reality.

    3. DNA consciousness AKA race loyalty and recognition of the evolutionary benefits of eugenics

  3. After reaching level 8 i went nuts and started back at 1. I am currently back on track to reach 6 by next month.

  4. Ironically – since we’re dealing with the number eight – have you ever noticed that most liberal Western women utilize the following eight words and phrases as the mainstays of their vocabulary, and they utter these words and phrases in the exact same ways, using the exact same vocal inflections:
    1) Amazing (spoken as, uh-MAYYYYY-zing)
    2) Oh my god (spoken as, OHHHHH my god or OH. MY. GOD.)
    3) So good (spoken as, SOOOOO good, or SO. GOOD. – as in, “That chocolate dildo tasted – SO. GOOD. – right after I plowed my pussy with it.”)
    4) Thank you (spoken as, THANG-cue, or THANG-kuh you-UH)
    5) Like (typically utilized in conjunction with the other four words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was…SO. GOOD. It was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! THANG-cue.”)
    6) Really (spoken as, REEEEE-lee, and typically utilized in conjunction with the other five words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was…SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! THANG-cue.”)
    7) Right (spoken as, righ-EET?, and typically utilized in conjunction with the other six words and phrases above, such as in the following sentence, “OH. MY. GOD. – like, that orgasm was…SO. GOOD. It REEEEE-lee was uh-MAYYYYY-zing! Righ-EET? THANG-cue.”)
    8) No (spoken as, NO-wuh, and utilized far more often than the other seven words and phrases; such as in the following, extremely common man/woman exchange – Man: “Did you get gangbanged last night while you were supposedly visiting your sister, Sunshine?” – Woman: “NO-wuh.”)

    1. So annoying! The other day I was minding my own business, reading the newspaper at an esplanade, and 3 young women were “communicating” nearby. As soon as I was midsentence, one of those inflections came, loud and noisily, smashing my good mood to pieces. After an hour and a half, with my afternoon already ruined, I withdraw back home.

      1. Women are malleable robots. That makes them dangerous. I like shaved vaginas though…

        1. Let’s face it: the only circumstance you want to hear a woman breaking silence is when you’re doing her.
          Small talk realm, no thank you.

        2. I like my women like I like my television – waiting to be turned on, willing to show me exactly what I want to see, and sporting a mute button.

        3. I wish you a harem of hot-bodied mute girls, and may your days be filled with vaginal conquests…

        4. Well she means in terms of her views, and how she speaks, Tom. She speaks with such depth and such certainty and such clarity, like, you’ll never find another girl like her, righ-EET?

        5. Oh lord no. Don’t let that special snowflake get away…you might find 50 more just like her in that five-minute span, and then where would you be? “My vagina is made of PLATINUM and you’d better WISE UP”, etc. Yawn.

        1. Exactly like that! Now imagine 3 of them, “vocal frying” my ears (I think they overtone it even more, when they have an audience of their peers).
          Thanks for the video, I didn’t know this nuisance had a name.

        2. Cumdumpster voice. Trauma from hundreds of deep-throated penises battering the vocal cords via the esophagus. Science.

        3. Damn. I forgot to add CUE-wut, to the list. SO.CUE-wut.
          If this doesn’t prove that women are mentally ill, I don’t know what does. Frightening shit.

        4. It at least proves that they have an obsession with doing what is “trendy” rather than what they actually like.

      1. I had a high school teacher/football coach who would savage us in class if we used the word “like” improperly.
        He said if we wanted to talk like that, we “should go wear pink and play softball.”

        1. A good coach is a good man.
          Had a football coach who was the nicest, most soft-spoken man I’d ever met. But when a high-school track athlete ran over our water boy, it took all the other coaches to keep him from beating the shit out of the jerk.

        2. While I do find that kind of language silly, I also hate people who lecture others on how to speak. I mean, wth, what are you? A fucking English teacher? Grow up.

        3. I thought like you. However, since my days of school (in the 20th century), people who did it became considerably rarer. Now, we see the result of that.
          So… grammar nazis are welcome.
          *Oh, that and lack of vocabulary. Since when did Ogden’s Basic English replace standard English?

        4. That’s fantastic-I would have loved a teacher/coach like that. Reminds me of a soccer coach I had who would scream at us:
          ‘Don’t be a fucking soft cock!’ and ‘You go in hard or you fuck off home you limp-dicked poofters’ or ‘You want to be a man and destroy or some whiney little cunt?!’ Blunt but effective but could also motivate properly and imbue you with a real fighting spirit.

    2. #1 reminded me of that Archer episode with the dumb blond actress who turned out to be a double agent. If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about.

      1. Never saw it. It bugs the hell out of me when women in their 40’s and older, talk like high school fucktards. OH. MY. GOD. That is sooooooo cool, etc. The younger ones, okay, they have an excuse. The older ones, they’re just robots who think other people’s thoughts and don’t realize it. But then, all women are little children in adult suits, so hopefully I’ll get over it one day.

        1. Drives me crazy too. I put up with this one girl a couple years back who had a serious vocal fry, saying stuff like, “I’m soooooo bored…you knooow?” She was 22 and had a killer body, but she ate like shit. I give her 4 years before the cellulite takes over and ends her hotness. At least I had her young.

        2. Yeah you gotta jump on ’em early. They’re human train wrecks and they all hit the wall pretty damn quickly, due to the rabid liberal insanity from which they suffer…pump and dump.

        3. Yup, that’s the inflection. Kinda like listening to nails on a chalkboard, ain’t it…

        4. There is not much more pathetic than an older woman desperately clinging to relevance.

        5. It’s even more pathetic that they don’t realize they never were relevant to begin with…

        6. It is slightly more tolerable before their asses look like mashed potatoes and their tits look like 2 fried eggs nailed to their chests

        7. True. Once they hit the wall they should just switch tactics, and try being patient, sweet and charming, which would bag them a decent man; but no, it’s impossible for them to consider doing what needs to be done in order to get what they want…masochistic robots hell-bent on destruction.

    3. Are you from the UK Smith? Sounds like ALOT of the spoilt, cunty Chelsea/Richmond twats you find around London.
      I’d like to add you your list.
      – Ending every statement with a question mark?
      – Inappropriate use/overuse of the word “literally”
      – And the ability to say rapid combinations of “yah” and “no” in a split second.
      – The use of geed/gid instead of good
      Hallo, yah, no, yah my name is like… literally Chuck Fickens? yahyahyah-no-yah it’s gid yah-yah-no, really really gid.

        1. Lord, how could I forget that one…our dictionary is filling up fast. And don’t forget the interjection, “Ew”, usually spoken as, Ewwwwww. They use that while pretending to express displeasure over behaviors and practices in which they typically engage on the sly…like fucking dogs, blowing cab drivers to avoid paying cash, and smearing used tampons on public restroom walls.

        2. I don’t know when that happened but it is always a clear indicator or overweight, unhealthy and slutty.
          I think “yaaaassss” might actually be Japanese for “do not fuck the whales”

        3. I’ve been saying over and over women fake emotions, they are not emotional, they use emotions to try and deter people behavior or to try and avoid belonging in certain groups, when they cry most of the time fake
          There is a saying. When a man cries there’s a good reason for it

        4. Women are not like men. And I think it’s deeper, than in the most superficial, obvious ways. You are on to something, no doubt about it. I think women can mimic emotions, and they can feel them, to a point, but only if they are directly affected, and their narcissistic centers are threatened. I’ve had girlfriends tell me they thought they were weird, because they get more worked up about a total stranger being hurt, or in danger, than someone they know. Perhaps women are soulless. Maybe they are some sort of hologram that men misinterpret as being human, designed to destroy men. Whatever they are, they are fucking creepy at the core…

        5. “Don’t fuck the whales” is
          “Kujira o hamenaide kudasai!” ( 鯨を嵌めないで下さい!)
          in Japanese. I’m not sure, but I think I heard one of these British lardbergs yell something similar to me when I suggested she might be better off with a few pounds less around her waist.

      1. I’m in the Desert Southwest, USA…I think this proves Western women are all the same, no matter where they might reside. Which is depressing, or an opportunity, depending on how one looks at it. We could probably make a frickin’ dictionary of these words and phrases women use…but who would buy it? Men wouldn’t want it, and women already know every single word and phrase. Another idea down the drain…

        1. Haha. Women never say what they mean. And they never mean what they say. And they all want to be taken seriously. I’ll take them (seriously take them). But I won’t take them seriously…

        2. The Cookie Monster voice and the Hulk syntax is the best!!!
          That said, this is purple pill because even if it gives us cold hard facts in a funny manner, it still encourages us to give in to them… which we shouldn’t be doing.

        3. I am going to order me some hulk hands and bring them on out to the bar just incase from now on

      2. 1. Making every statement sound like a question is uptalk.
        2. Vocal fry-making once voice kind of groan at the end of a sentence…many young girls do it. I HATE it.

    4. Ahhhhhhhhh, I hate that UP-toning drivel. Nuff said.
      California is drowning in it, in fact I think California manufactured it for global consumption.

      1. You have a point. I remember Frank and Moon Unit Zappa’s scathing song “Valley Girl”, way back in 1982; Zappa recorded his songs in L.A. Part of the lyrics –
        So like I go into this like salon place?
        And I wanted like to get my toenails done?
        And the lady like goes, oh my God, your toenails
        Are like so GRODY
        It was like really embarrassing
        She’s like OH MY GOD, like BAG THOSE TOENAILS
        In the 1978 movie, “Halloween”, one of the female characters said, “Like, totally,” a few times in the film. That movie was set in a mythical California town and was produced in Tinsel Town.

    5. I’ll add that they inherently know their order at starbucks by heart. “Ummm… A mocha, locha, frappa, focha, with a shot of candy cane, a splash of milk, and a dash of jizz”… & this is who we’re supposed to cater to as a society…. smdh.

      1. And they say their order while simultaneously thumb-fucking their cell phone keyboards. All while wearing sweatpants and flip-flops. Classy shit. In Sicily, it’s well-known that you never let a woman go unsupervised. Because if she spends any time out and about on her own, she’ll wind up alone with a man, and she’s going to get her holes plowed, even if she’s married with three kids. Those Old School cultures really know their shit…

        1. What can you expect from the emotionally weaker sex? Sugar, as with dick, is irresistible to the female mind. Both cater to her innermost cravings, and unspoken desires. As is in their nature, they will gravitate to life’s little pleasures regardless of its consequences. In this case: obesity, toothloss, lockjaw, STDs, you get the point. They can’t be trusted to make the right choice given the opportunity.

        2. “Cut their vocal cords, lobotomize ’em, stick some breast implants in their chest, shave their landing strips, and toss ’em in the closet until needed.” (Crap, I must have been dreaming there, fell asleep briefly…)

    6. Like WOW, just WOW…. Valley girl vocal fry/speech patterns are grounds for capital punishment, especially now that “males” are adopting them

    7. I can’t stand to be around those liberal wind-up automaton cunts for long. After the proverbial money shot is finished im out the door faster than they can say my name.

    8. “amazing”- one of Donald Trump’s most frequently used words:
      “yesterday was amazing — 5 victories. Really amazing.”
      (on first time voters in their 60s) “That’s so amazing…it’s so amazing.”
      ( in response to applause from a Dallas rally audience) “Wow. Amazing. Amazing, thank you. So exciting.”
      (on next steps after winning the Nevada Caucus) “It’s going to be an amazing two months.”
      ‘The people of this country are amazing’
      ( from his Madison WI rally) “This is amazing. Amazing. I could listen to that music all day long, all day long. By the way, there’s 3,000 people waiting to get in. Should we start without ‘em? Yes. Yes! That’s amazing. So this is the biggest crowd of the political season by far. We have 30,000 people. 30,000. Amazing. 30,000 people.
      I want to thank the Benghazi guys, you met ’em, you saw ’em. So incredible. Guts. Courage. They know what happened. Amazing guys. I want to thank Mark and John for being here today. Amazing. Amazing.”
      Apparently Donald Trump is a liberal Western woman.

  5. BTW, if there is something that creates leftists during childhood is parental overprotection.

    1. Yup, that too.
      It can be understood from the 8 circuit model as the child learns to view the world as unsafe, because his mother is constantly over-protecting him from it.
      Then he views himself as inferior (second imprint), because his parents drilled it into his head that he isn’t capable of facing the world independently.
      Over-protection is perhaps one of the worst characteristics that any parent could have. Definitely a lot worse than under-protection.

      1. This is the problem with these kind of pseudo-science theories, they try to explain so much with so little effort (pathetic methods and zero rigor) that they are irrelevant.

        1. Could you further explain as to why this theory is irrelevant? I think that it’s quite useful in understanding peoples’ actions.

        2. Maybe what he means is that it is not very good at making concrete predictions.
          For instance, you can “understand” every action by saying “It is what God wanted to happen”.
          And it is not totally false.
          But it does not allow you to make any predictions.

        3. 100% predictions for sure, but I think that you can make generalized predictions that are more likely to be true than not.
          It isn’t as precise as statistics or anything like that, but I think that you can generally make predictions about what someone’s world-views will be like based off of their childhood.

    2. I would have agree a few days ago, but now after meeting a few specimens of this specie I’ve found out they were in fact parked into kindergarten all day long. Of course after ward the parent felt guilty and cover them with gifts…bigger gifts it it happened the parent where divorced 50% of time of course.

    3. It’s more likely parents allowing defenseless little kids to go off to play on their own because of the misconception that somehow if they are with their little friends they can avoid getting thrown in the back of a pedo van and not grow up to be faggots.

        1. My wrist is bigger than this bozo’s head and I have more hair on the back of my knuckles than the entirety of this stick figure’s carcass. What a sickening thing to look at.

        2. I have more hair on my back than he has on his head! top that!

        3. More hair on my left testicle than he’s ever had cut off. Best that if you can.

        1. I still don’t know what this Kratom is you speak of (being too lazy to look it up).
          Then I saw it at the local convenience store on a sign and realized it is not just a meme.
          Maybe I should look it up.

      1. Dude has a …yellow purse…also…and skinny jeans? Cripes…

  6. I can tell you for certain that I am conservative/libertarian because I had to learn to be independent at a young age. Most liberals I know had coddled lives where they never had to think about where money was coming from, how food was going to get on the table, or how other necessities of life would be provided.

    1. Exactly – it’s being coddled that leads someone to believe that the world is unsafe (1st imprint) and that they’re inferior (2nd imprint), because they have the idea that the world is a scary place that they need to be protected from hammered into their heads.

      1. Hang on a sec, shouldn’t it rather be that coddling IS necessary in the 1st imprint and maybe the 2nd one? And then by 3rd and 4th, the person should have the innate confidence to face the world and experience more things without fear and the need for coddling anymore?

    2. Isn’t this also what stephan molyneux calls r type and k type which is common in the animal world.
      i.e rabbits like animals due to them having unlimited resources and constantly living in fear of death simply reproduce exponentially without raising their young whilst wolves live in an inhospitable environment and reproduce at a much lower rate and have to take time to teach their young the skills to survive.
      Humans have both of these tendencies.

      1. Stefan has done a great work in exposing this basic concept of biology to the world.
        It’s interesting to me how modern psychological research leans on the bonobo monkey instead of the chimps or gorillas. Bonobos are matriarchal, cuckolded, free-loving monkeys that do not care for their young and survive primarily by abundance of natural resources and dearth of natural predators. Gorillas are patriarchal tribes that pair-bond, tend carefully to their young, and survive in substantially harsher environments.
        Perhaps, if gorillas try to live like bonobos, they develop the psychological problems we see more and more in the West.

      2. Actually that is bullshit. If you use the (now defunct) r/K Humans are the absolute epitome of K. Humans have some of the lowest birth rates of any species, some of the longest gestation as a fetus, some of the longest childhoods, and probably the least instinctive knowledge. It wouldn’t even be possible to bread at a rate near an R species as a human.

        1. You are extending it too widely, even if you have a point.
          Humans ALSO have monthly estrous cycles (one of the shortest within mammalians, and comparable to rabbits), the possibility of transgenerational reproduction (theoretically, a mother can even be impregnated by her own offspring, like typical r species) and much of the other things you referred are culturally biased (19th century catholics and muslims frequently had/have more than 7 children a couple)

          There is record of 5 y.o. pregnancies ( If you consider the life expectancy of rabbits and that of humans, the sexual reproductive years are roughly in scale.

        2. The things you mentioned are exactly why r/k isn’t used anymore, species have lots of variation from these 2 sets of r and k. 19th century Muslims and Catholics by the way, still have such a low birth rate compared to an r species. r species will have more than that 7 from one pregnancy, whereas humans are doing it over the course of several decades.
          As for Lina Medina, that was due to a condition where she started puberty very early after birth.

    3. “Most liberals I know had coddled lives where they never had to think about where money was coming from, how food was going to get on the table, or how other necessities of life would be provided.”
      Did you freaks even READ the article?? The author claimed that Liberals went hungry as children, were not given enough love as children, and as children received a large amount of pain.
      “If this circuit receives ample conditioning that the world is a bad place, by being frequently hungry, not receiving enough love, and experiencing a large amount of pain, the child will grow up to believe that the world is generally a very unsafe place.
      Liberals are almost always indefinitely imprinted with a negative world-view.”

  7. Great job on this article. This is one of my favorites on this site because I recognize all these symptoms among my classmates and friends that I grew up with who came from broken homes, or homes with a dominant mother. Glad we have somebody aboard who can write about psychology, a once masculine field now ruled by women and their feels.

    1. Yup – psychology has gotten such a bad rap that there’s even been some hate in the comments section here.
      Sorry to hear about your classmates/friends, man – sounds like you’re doing a lot better than them though. Best of luck

      1. There is nothing wrong with psychology as a discipline. The human mind is simultaneously exceedingly complex and reducible to a set of common rules and patterns. Finding the patterns and rules is a noble pursuit, and grants a great deal of personal and interpersonal power.
        The problem in psychology tends to stem from the people. Some try to reduce the pattern too far (as Freud did with his “It’s all about Sex” position), while some try to reject the concept of patterns altogether (as “special snowflake” people do). Then, there are the people with aberrant psychologies (read: insane) who project their conceptions of their own mental patterns onto others to create simply wrong patterns.
        I have learned a great deal about psychology from the people here and on other areas of the manosphere. The Red Pill exposes a great many truths to the light.

        1. the problem with psychology today is not in the science itself, but the fact it is often a soft science all about the feels filled with BS made up disorders and SJW justifications.
          ADHD is totally made up….in the 60s being gay was a disorder but not anymore. in otherwords what used to be a science about the mind and social world and how it affects the mind has been perverted and morphed into madness where transgender is a complete legit healthy state of mind but a boy playing cops and robbers is a mental disorder.
          thats why psychology gets blasted as terrible.
          and anyone that has been to a marriage counselor will also tell you that shit is a laughable joke that bashes men….its all his fault…if only he listened to her more often.

        2. Well answered. This is what I wanted to say, but I don’t have enough patience to write that much. Just take a look at any paper in psychology and check their statistic methods… (if any)

        3. thanks….i got a bachelors in psychology so I’ve seen said shady statistics. thankfully one of the few bright spots of college was my statistics teacher in retrospect i think he was red pill and was subtly feeding us truth beyond statistics. he recommended some book called “it aint neccessarily so”
          so I’ve seen the shady statistics.
          “lies, damned lies, and statistics” is all you really need to know.

        4. I thought this was well-worded…and I never quite considered the nuance as to how Freud was flawed by his super-reductionist trajectory, which makes him seem a bit frantic among the great psychologists. Probably why he wasn’t so jazzed about meeting up with Jung and the gang. Brilliant, but coiled a little too tightly.

        5. “and anyone that has been to a marriage counselor..”
          Yes. You pay some beta fag > $100 an hour to blow smoke up her ass and absolve her from old her obligations as a wife and mother and then proceed to tell hubbie he needs to stifle his demands/desires (ie. cook a meal, have sex, get a job, etc..) and “work harder on appeasing his wife’s feelings.” She feels vindicated and the husband knows he just got robbed as he, natch, had to pay the schmuck.

        6. The current model in modern psychology is about pushing a ‘theory’ & force feeding dubious ‘scientific’ findings as a foundation basis for justifying the theory.
          The classic inductive method of gathering data & forming postulation & theory only works if the findings & conclusion fits the Narrative.

        7. absolutely….all of science has fallen into this “how can we research in way to make sure we get the RIGHT conclusion” versus….lets just see what happens….its why before all the ethical committees that now have to approve everything first(read that has, is your study liberal enough for us?) were formed you got all these great psychological studies and theories before 1970 and since then nothing has really happened. hell in all my classes we always studied old stuff and almost never the new stuff with like one or two exceptions.
          you can take this logic the nearly any scientific field….not to have that debate, but take evolution vs creationism…even if science found 100% proof there is a God, they would reject it because it does not fit the narrative. science is very biased when it used to not be.

        8. yeah and the worst part is people don’t fucking understand this. unless you’ve found a unicorn in the marriage counselor field…..they will all behave this way. in case you’re curious why….I cant find the damn videos or remember what its called exactly….but basically this chick in the 1960s who i think is named elizabeth went to 3 different shrinks.
          1. hit on her
          2. tried to solve her problems
          3. listened to her and offered no advice
          because she absolutely LOVE number 3….all shrinks followed this model unlike before were they were in the business of fixing problems….now it’s pay me 200 bucks so you can vent and I’ll give you some drugs that may or may not work. and if you’re married….listen to your wife, shes always right you know.

  8. My theory is much simple: a “liberal” is a “conservative” who has not been mugged yet.

    1. I don’t know man. There was that woman in France (I think, some European country) who didn’t tell the police that her rapist was Muslim in an effort to thwart anti-Muslim sentiment. Sometimes there is no cure.

        1. and liberals are also irrational. liberalism is a womans philosophy….so you kind of have to count them

      1. Germany. Stupid bitch didn’t want to talk and when she did she started the hamster-wheel/mental gymnastics and continues to advocate on behalf of the rapefugees. You cannot make this shit up.

        1. Precisely. They have been brainwashed whereby any invocation of nationalism is tantamount to Nazism and by being patriotic they attempt to cow people into silence by bringing up the Nazi ghost. It is sickening.

  9. This article is so strange, flawed and confused that I’m not sure you even intend for it to be taken seriously. Perhaps you mean it to be a joke. Just in case that is so I will not spend too long analysing it and will just address the basics you give as handy bullet points.
    ‘The World is a very dangerous place’. Most left-wing people (although of course there is a wide range of socialist theory) don’t think this. If anything you could accuse them of the opposite, they are often passivists who believe in a weak military and that their nation’s enemies are essential good humans who can be brought to peace through talking and understanding. Domestically they are more likely to want lenient law and order and no death penalty as they believe that with care and understanding criminals can be rehabilitated. They are less likely that right wing people to believe in a concept of evil at all.
    ‘I need others to help me’. Most people who follow socialist theory are well educated and on a good income. They tend to be ‘do gooders’ who want to help everyone else even the arguably undeserving poor. They are willing to pay high taxes and to campaign for those less fortunate. All socialist revolutions have had their routes with the affluent and educated – the high achievers.
    ‘I don’t have to step up…etc’ see above, lefties are often very political active. You may disagree with them but surely you recognise that they are willing to put the hours in on the picket line to achieve their ends?
    ‘Most people are evil’. Nonsense. Most lefties are also for peace and love. They want everyone to get along and are often in favour of forgiveness of criminals. They believe in equality for all. They want a communal sharing style economy – you wouldn’t want that if you believed half your comrades were evil.
    I don’t think you understand socialism at all.

    1. Socialism (and Marxism) was hatched in a think-tank, financed by the uber-rich industrialists, many centuries ago. It was the spearhead in a devious weapon created by those same industrialists, who wanted to divide and conquer the proletariat – lest the Great Unwashed rise up and fight back against the ruling class. These are the very same industrialists who run the world today and they are the forebears of the original group that surreptitiously co-opted the news media, the arts and sciences, the political systems, the educational systems, and every other organization and institution in the world, in order to reduce human beings to yammering simps who parrot one ineffectual idea or another, all of which are ideas and notions that were deliberately put into their minds by those very same controllers in the first place. Class dismissed. Have a nice day…

    2. By your own description of what constitutes a leftist it sounds like one who has never touched base with reality. Some one who doesn’t accept the concept of evil, and denies it exists in humanity is delusional and in denial.
      There’s another name that comes to mind- dupes-for they’re duped accordingly by everyone- especially the global power brokers.
      No wonder the moniker of useful idiot is so liberally and sardonically applied to them- not that it would ever register that their hapless mindset is used against them. And they’re not better educated only better brainwashed.

      1. Evil DOESN’T exist outside of the very abstract. Nobody wakes up in the morning thinking “hahahaha, i’m gonna go be an arsehole today!”

        1. Here is an example: Stalin killing millions of people. He didn’t just think one day “hmmm, I should ruin millions and millions of lives, lets kill some people.” He actually thought what we was doing was going to help people and that he was killing off the bad people. Of course, we know that is bullshit, but he didn’t.

        2. The meaning of abstract is something that exists as a concept i.e. its not relatable. The action of murdering millions of people is an example of personal evil so I don’t understand your example which is fanciful and relies on your own suppositions.

        3. Of course he knew it was bulllshit, he was doing it to steal a coutry from it’s rightful inhabitants, just like his successors are doing in occupied Palestine

    3. I agree with your analysis of this article, but disagree with a few of your points. Namely, the idea that lefties are high achievers. Outwardly, perhaps, but they are generally coddled and have led fairly charmed lives. Their high education level and subsequent affluent income is usually more a product of being born into an advantaged position, rather than personal achievement. It’s easy to tell the world how to live when you’ve never struggled yourself. This also explains their political activism, to a degree. Conversely, there’s the lefties who take far more out of the system than they pay in. They naturally tend to want to spend freely with the public coffers. This article somewhat touched on this group, albeit with a backassward attempt at explaining the roots of their behavior. In any event there are varying camps/degrees of leftism. Being socially left leaning does not automatically translate to wanting liberal fiscal policies. I personally tend to be very socially liberal, but very fiscally conservative. My left wing ideals end when cheques need to be cashed lol! People, as far as I’m concerned, are free to live their lives as they choose, as long as it doesn’t cost me my hard earned money. Society of course isn’t that tidy, but I trust you take my point with respect to social vs fiscal liberal policies.

      1. “Their high education level and subsequent affluent income is usually more a product of being born into an advantaged position, rather than personal achievement.” Which is exactly why they support the policies they do. They recognize what has given them an advantage in life, so they want to give everyone that advantage.
        “I personally tend to be very socially liberal, but very fiscally conservative.” So basically you want to create Social Issues and then not clean them up. Nice.

        1. I see your point re wanting to give everyone that advantage, but conversely there is also a complete lack of understanding of the true costs of these policies. As for me, I have no interest in creating social issues. The older I get the less interested I am in changing the world. Basically: I don’t care who you fuck(as long as they are legal age), or what you smoke, as long as it doesn’t cost me money. The sheer amount of energy we as a society waste deciding whether a guy can legally smoke a joint, or marry his boyfriend, is ridiculous.

        2. “but conversely there is also a complete lack of understanding of the true costs of these policies.” Actually no, I have studied the policies I support very well, and they will either not cost as much as you think, or even save money. For example, the French Healthcare system costs half what the US system does, yet it gives better healthcare results? Wouldn’t you want to keep 4000 extra dollars in your pockets every year?
          “as long as it doesn’t cost me money.” But those things do cost you money. Immigration hurts the labour market, breakup of the traditional extended and nuclear family ultimately means you need childcare to take care of all these children, lower birth rates means Pension funding (also known as Social Security in the US) will go bankrupt, and et cetera.
          “The sheer amount of energy we as a society waste deciding whether a guy can legally smoke a joint, or marry his boyfriend, is ridiculous.” Well blame the founding fathers of the US and their shitty constitution that was designed just to do that.

        3. Ok ok, I see your point. You and I are actually more in agreement than we realise. Your example of public healthcare is excellent. I’m an American living in Canada, suffice to say our policies are waaaaay more socialist and waaaaay more costly. Unnecessary costs as well. Like a provincial government trying to implement free University education for low earning families—with no restriction on the type of education pursued—so a qualifying candidate could earn a philosophy degree on the taxpayer’s dime. That shit costs me money! Public healthcare, when managed properly, is not a NET cost. Not sure I agree with you that the bringing back the nuclear family/restricting immigration would make our economic woes disappear. We are comparing today’s world to a pre-globalization period. Manufacturing etc….would have gone third world with or without women in the workforce (which leads to kids in daycare etc…) Very diffacult for families go survive on 1 income these days.

    4. “If anything you could accuse them of the opposite, they are often passivists who believe in a weak military and that their nation’s enemies are essential good humans who can be brought to peace through talking and understanding.” Why has every other developed country on earth gone on just fine without a huge military? What country do you feel ever posed a threat to the US? Iraq? lol
      “They tend to be ‘do gooders’ who want to help everyone else even the arguably undeserving poor.” Why do you think the poor are undeserving?
      “Domestically they are more likely to want lenient law and order and no death penalty as they believe that with care and understanding criminals can be rehabilitated.” No, that isn’t the main reason at all. Well, I support rehabilitation, but I don’t support the death penalty because there is a chance you can execute someone who is innocent.
      “They believe in equality for all. They want a communal sharing style economy – you wouldn’t want that if you believed half your comrades were evil.I don’t think you understand socialism at all.” You seem to have a perception that everyone is either a full on communist or libertarian. Get your black and white head out of your arse.

      1. Point 1 – I wasn’t necessarily referring to the US. In my country it is the right wing not the left wing is in favour of high military spending because “The world is a very dangerous place”. The original article claims it is the left wing who see the world as scary and I have not witnessed this as being the case.
        Point 2 – I don’t think the poor are undeserving. In the UK it is a historical phrase. Poor laws used to divide the poor into ‘deserving’ (widows, orphans, disabled) and ‘undeserving’ (unemployed men, vagrants, border line criminals). Generous right wing people used to believe the first group should have help but that the second group were lost causes (this is a very basic explanation for brevity!) These days the concept still exists if not the law. So a right wing person might think a poor person who is poor because they became a drug addict and lost their job shouldn’t be given generous benefit whereas a leftie tends to think everyone deserves help regardless of background or past mistakes. So the leftie is more likely to believe in the inate goodness of humanity which goes against the original point that people on the left hate other people.
        Point 3 – You have your reason for opposing the death penalty. Left wing people are more likely to oppose it for the reasons I say and because of a belief that killing is always wrong.
        Point 4 – I don’t believe that as all. I believe the political spectrum is extremely complicated. I was answering in generalisations to match the style of the original article. Of course there are exceptions to all trends and a person’s political belief is often a mixture of left and right and central positions depending on specific policy they are considering.

        1. “I wasn’t necessarily referring to the US. In my country it is the right wing not the left wing is in favour of high military spending because ‘The world is a very dangerous place’.” Same here as the United States, and I just so happen to not be right wing.
          “The original article claims it is the left wing who see the world as scary and I have not witnessed this as being the case.” I agree with you on this. Both contemporary Rightists and Leftists hold this view, not just leftists.

        2. I don’t know if you’re left or right wing. I was commenting on the article not your politics.

        3. I am neither left nor right wing, I reject that model, however, I am was making a commentary on your commentary on the article.

  10. The easiest cure for feminism,liberalism and all forms of stupid behavior is end all free shit from the government. no welfare,food stamps, section 8 housing, child support etc.

      1. You would be amazed at how capable people get. An example would be women dating losers and bad boys.

      1. Capitalism would return to love and respect for the reliable working man. The guy you see(or can’t see) as the invisible creep gets real sexy.

  11. I have a caveat that may be helpful here. The article focuses on how deprivation of some things growing up leads to a negative worldview. Can the same thing happen if you get too much attention as a kid?
    It would help to explain why all of the snowflakes are coddled and triggered the way they are. They’ve never been told that they were wrong and have never had reality smack them in the face.
    On a side note, I’d say it’s stage 3 that’s the most important. I was a target of bullies growing up, I overcame that by fighting back and by realizing that I can only rely on myself. It’s these things that have shaped every part of my life since.

    1. Very much so. It certainly explains modern feminism, aka. “daddy’s special princess”.

      1. True true, but no matter what parents do, problems like this will persist, especially for women.
        Why? Because we live in the feminist-riddled west, where a woman who gets too much attention growing up from her parents becomes “daddy’s little girl” and demands attention like that from everyone, and one who doesn’t gets “daddy issues” and ends up getting fucked and chucked in a ghetto or trailer park.
        It’s basically a lose-lose situation.

    2. I guess there is a natural need for attention that a kid asks for. Eventually the kid develops personal boundaries and grows less dependent on it. When a parent prohibits the kid from developing personal boundaries through their “attention”, I guess this could be true. Kind of what happened to me.

      1. That’s kind of why I prefer the “throw them in the pit, give them the tools needed to climb out, and see if they climb out” approach.
        It forces kids to figure problems out themselves.

        1. A controlled pit.
          Classically, the Boy Scouts did exactly this. You give a bunch of boys some gear and basic knowledge, send them into the woods for a couple of days under loose supervision, and watch them learn to succeed.
          Until recently, when the parents decided to get way too involved.

        2. I remember in grade school, we had a vending machine that actually dispensed us soda (I went to catholic school, you didn’t get stuff like this at catholic grade school). And we had it from when I was in 4th grade up to 7th grade.
          Why did it go away? A fat kid’s mom caused a ruckus about it and strong-armed the PTA to get rid of it. Fast forward to now… that kids is 350+ in weight and has emotional issues from being raised predominantly by his mom and his girlfriend leaving him while we were in high school.
          He never really got over all of that stuff.

    3. When you realize the authorities don’t give a damn, you learn to depend on yourself and your tribe.
      I’ve got a Disney Princess sister. Parents coddled the shit out of her and let her get away with all kinds of nonsense that was inexcusable for me. I learned to depend on myself and take risks, while she’s getting eaten alive in the big, bad world.

    4. I was never bullied, yet I ultimately reached a position where I can handle opposition to my views and ideas.

    5. “..fighting back and by realizing that I can only rely on myself.”
      That is definitely one of the biggest stepping stones on the way to becoming a man. I grew up in a mixed working class neighborhood in the 70s and fighting is something you learned early as to keep your lunch money. That was actually a minor problem as it got sorted eventually. The real anxiety for alot of kids in school were for a multitude of reasons (parents lost their jobs, got divorced, dad in jail, mom ran off, etc…) and you realize in terms of financial and emotional terms that there is not an abundance that will always be there for you early on. You must achieve that on your own and build the relationships that maintain you.

    6. Same with me-and from the age of 10 I railed against the education system which was beginning its slide into indoctrination and feminism; I would guffaw loudly at the mind control they were trying to disseminate and would frequently be reprimanded or get in trouble for calling out things for how they were up to and including my disgust for normalising homosexuality and other deviant behaviour.

  12. r/k explains it better. Liberals never develop problem solving brains because of over abundance of resources. They don’t have any of the wiring necessary to understand cause and effect, nor an ability to perceive that surplus is caused by work.
    Like locusts in their aggressive phase, they are nature’s response to over-abundance.

    1. Agreed. They respond with emotion and vitriol, just as programmed. They glean their knowledge from the TV and the educational institutions. If it’s found at one of those venues, it has to be true…

      1. This is right on. I can’t tell you how many times I set in with a liberal to challenge what they were taught in schools and then their response is something like, “nuh uh nobody believes that, that’s not in the text books!” Sometimes they’ll send me links to institutional resources!

        1. If it comes out of the TV, or it’s printed in a textbook, it’s the fucking gospel to these people. Although, calling them subhuman, or robots, even, would be more appropriate.

        2. But for the grace of God, there go I. I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.

      2. all memorized bullet points…I call it “Powerpoint Brain”.

      3. “They respond with emotion and vitriol, just as programmed. ”
        Yeah, like that Liberal named Mark Levin who is infamous for his hyper-emotionalism and his vitriolic rants. And all those “Tea Party” patriots at the healthcare town halls who were so wrought with emotion and vitriolic. What a bunch of LIBruls.
        And let us not leave out the way that Liberals responding in such an EMOTIONAL manner to 9/11 and the way that Liberals were so vitriolic towards Muslims following 9/11.
        It’s so easy to own the ever-livin’-fuck out of the commenters here.

    2. “Liberals never develop problem solving brains because of over abundance of resources. ”
      But the article to which you are responding claimed the exact opposite- that Liberals are Liberals because they didn’t receive enough food or receive enough resources.
      Not only is the article repeatedly self-contradictory but the comments to the article that think they are in agreement with the article actually contradict the assertions and claims made in the article.
      You guys are a complete mess. And you just talk sheer nonsense.

      1. I can’t speak for the author of the article. R/K is a theory observed in animals that is assumed by people of a postmodern religious bent to not apply to humans because we are magic and made in the image of Marx or whatever.
        Anyway, an unseen factor in all this is that actual “infinite resources” is not necessary– only your brain has to THINK it is. Thus, a person on food stamps simply sees “food available without effort = infinite resources.” Even if their conscious brain is aware of shortage, the unconscious has already made the decision for them.

  13. A quick fact on Leary: he was not a govt opposition leader, he was an fbi informant and CIA operative. Don’t be fooled otherwise

  14. You have to go through quite a bit of darkness until you can build your masculinity on solid foundations. It’s what Beethoven meant by describing that great joy over the wall of all our past sufferings and injustices.
    Good article btw.

  15. Reminds me about the study of chakras, from many mythologies, I think we can learn alot about human behaviors from researching chakras.

    1. I don’t put a lot of stock in chakras as a mystical phenomenon, but it is an excellent mechanism to approach psychology.
      It continues to fascinate me how very wise the ancients were.

      1. What’s “mystical” anyway? Just a word used to describe that which is not yet understood?
        There was a time when fire would have seemed mystical.
        And when you think of it… fire kinda is mystical, despite being “understood”. Watch fire on psychedelics … quite a sight.

        1. True enough.
          I do not reject the supernatural out of hand, but not all such things are true or real. I don’t believe in the body’s currents of chi, but I do notice that many of those lines match the lymphatic lines in the human body or the key electrical circuits of the nervous system.
          Perhaps I am wrong about chakras, but my experiments therein have so far given me no reason to assume that.
          (The Dan Tien – sea of qi in the belly, however, seems real enough. Practicing the Wim Hof breathing routine has brought me to understand the parallels between that supposedly mystic phenomenon and a real physical phenomenon).

        2. Supernatural is, by definition, something other than the natural. It can never be explained by scientific means, because it is not bound to the only realm in which science can be practiced. In theory, God and Demons would be supernatural. So, too, are energies like qi and chakras often understood.
          The mystic is usually the philosophical conception of the supernatural and how it may be related to. Meditation has a strong mystical component in most contexts, which the physiological components may relate to without overlap. Chakras, as well, are supernatural phenomena (so far as we are currently aware) which can be manipulated to a degree through mechanisms of living and certain disciplines.
          Sometimes we find that what we think supernatural is natural, but not easily understood. Qi appears to be this way, as research has demonstrated a host of natural phenomena that produce the effects attributed to it – phenomena which are produced primarily by the presumed mystic practices of its adherents. We have no evidence of qi affecting anything outside the body, but those qi effects in the body are increasingly well understood.
          I do not deny the psychological impacts of certain mystical disciplines, nor the impacts of that inward psychology on the outward world. However, I am not predisposed to assume it is anything more than this.

        3. Heh. You may like this page:

          The guy has a couple of free, very well-designed eBooks. He says he is the reincarnation of Nikola Tesla. One of his books is about Qi. You may like that. It was too much for me to understand on first glance, but maybe that’s your thing.

  16. Not sure what Robert Anton Wilson would think of this. Fans of Wilson tend to a leftist viewpoint, to judge from the content and comments at, a hipster hangout where Wilson has attained a god-like status. Prometheus Rising gives me a headache, but I’m familiar enough with it to recognize that Wilson frequently used the ideas contained in it to ridicule human behavior; specifically, to heap scorn on those Wilson perceived to be “stuck” on one or another of the Circuit levels. For example, Wilson once remarked that Nixon’s development reflected that of a domestic animal: when a dog reaches puberty, it is all it is ever going to be. So with Nixon: the world as it looked when he received his sexual imprint was the only one he was capable of seeing.
    These kinds of cheap shots (in the case of Nixon, a tilt against a social conservative) are an abuse of Leary’s model, but inevitable given Wilson’s impish sense of humor and playful disposition. It’s still just beating people over the head with advanced voodoo, though, and Wilson, a skilful magician, can more or less get away with it. This article lets rip against sensitive types. That people will take anything, even an evolutionary model of human potential, and devolve it into politics is typical primate behavior, Wilson observed. This insight is to me the essential take-home from his writings.

  17. Leary was a leader in the hippie movement, and instrumental in destroying America and its cultural traditions and institutions.
    Not a good example of someone who should be listened to, except to study his methods and tactics and learn how to counter the counter culture movement.

    1. Did the hippies really do that though? Hippies just happened to coincide with the destruction of America, I don’t think they are anywhere near the root.

  18. I think the writer didnt include the last four steps because they are quackery:
    By the 8th step, we are getting into astral projection. Moreover, the author finds it necessary to use smart-sounding language to impress the easily impressionable.
    Ill stick with psychology thay doesnt involve astral projection or other medical quackery.

    1. the entire theory reeks of a mix of smart sounding notions with only some accidentally sense making elements and a lot of make believe that borders on new age style fluff

  19. Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson back in the 1970’s both predicted that they would have become “physically immortal” by now, anticipating the nonsense spouted by today’s transhumanists.
    How has that “immortality” worked out for them lately?
    Think of them as Tim LaHaye who tripped on acid instead of obsessively reading the bible.

  20. To quote Starship Troopers:
    “To defeat the bug! We must understand the bug!”
    *replace bug with liberal

  21. What we are witnessing is a culling of the herd. Those too weak of mind to reproduce will die off, leaving those best fitted for the job thus “survival of the fittest”, those who best fit into their ecological niche. Whether it be Alpha-type men or high-level Beta boys. Omegas will be effectively stomped out because the genetic factors that contribute to the behaviors simply will cease to exist.
    Elementary evolution theory.

    1. Except that the evolution you are talking about is just promoting redundant, useless futures at this point.

    2. Is a guy who manages to impregnate 50-100 women with no way to pay for them any better than the guy who cant stomach the idea of doing that for moral or good logical reasons?
      All men and all women deserve the chance to reproduce this alpha,beta,omega crap should be left in the past or in nature where it belongs.

      1. No, it shouldn’t.
        Because natural selection has been effectively removed from our society, the mundane and unenlightened have been able to reproduce and add to the increasing carbon footprint plaguing the world today. There is no science behind the idea of “all men and women deserve the chance to reproduce”; on the contrary, in a state of nature not all men and women reproduced, only those who were able to survive and benefit their tribe were able to.
        I’ve seen too many cars on the road to believe that reproduction should be a right. Lanes need to start opening up, and the best way for that to happen is to control reproduction. I say, good for women in vetting the males they decide to fuck.

    3. It’s a working mechanism, but I wonder if our Western civilization will last long enough to verify that. Evolution would require at least one generation to start to operate, and more than 4 generations to start having a considerable impact (roughly the time required to replace the entire population). 4 generations correspond to a century, maybe more, as people are now taking more time to reproduce (starting at their 20s, but some only close to their late 30s).
      This specific “culling of the herd” started at one of these points: 1. after the “hippie” movement, in ’68/the ’70s;
      2. after the Soviet Union fell, in the early ’90s;
      3. with the beginning of the age of “diversity and terrorism”, after the 9/11 event.
      Considering any of these points, you’d need this state of decay to be maintained at least until 2070. I doubt the EU will last more than 20 years (as it is now), and with its fall, international order will be radically changed. Even if it doesn’t, around 2050, the world will be faced with the first signs of energy sources’ scarcity
      and much of the illusions of our civilization (eternal economic growth, unlimited resources + unlimited technological development, human rights and equality, etc) will be “clubbed to death” by then. This, if simple automatization of the industries and the collapse of social security systems don’t tear the system down even before that.

      1. Predicting the future is tenebrous at best. Just look at what people in the 50s were thinking about 2016. But eventually, there will be a “collapse”. But it won’t be the catastrophic doomsday. It will be so slow that only in retrospect will we see it.

        1. Yes, I have the same view on this. There won’t be a “doomsday” per se, but rather a slow, complex decline, which will be (it is, already!) felt in economies, ethics, politics, societies and culture(s), at different levels and in different time frames.
          As you have (rightly) written, retrospective views are the most accurate. We can easily observe this phoenomenon in the financial field (where crisis are becoming more and more frequent and merging in a general domino effect), and with some intellectual rigour, in the human aspects of economy (unemployment, purchasing power, trends of economical diversification, resilience of industries, etc.).
          The ethical, political and cultural aspects are more subjective. However, a sharp user of the media can notice headlines and opinionmakers/humourists already crying about a “crazed world”, and how “populists/extremists” are so much more visible and popular than they were before. People are changing their minds. Unfortunately, that’s only a reflex of the lives they’re being offered, and not a fruit of new demotic consciences.

        2. Ah, good ol’ internet. It gives everyone a voice. However, there are some people that don’t know when to shut up. Like those purportedly oppressed minorities.

  22. Robert Anton Wilson also wrote a great little book called “Quantum Psychology”, it blew my mind when I read it.

  23. I disagree with the characterization that liberals want the government to take care of them, in general Republicans want freedom with their money, but gov to control social behavior, and Dems, want freedom in their social behavior, but have gov control money. They both want gov, but for it to control different aspects. And in general I would say liberals want tribal society, whereas Conservatives want farming society, the two are different as night and day. Oddly few want freedom in social behavior AND in their money(libertarian), and everyone chafes under Autocratic rule(no freedom in money or social behavior).

    1. Nonsense. Republicans want the government to get out of our lives, both social and financial. Republicans don’t want to encourage or promote social decadence; they don’t stop anyone from being socially demented.

      1. Oh I believe they say they want small government, except that small government never actually happens when they are in power. So you’re saying Republicans are ok with gays, flag burning, abortion, single mothers, etc? I’m not familiar with THAT republican party.

        1. Abortion comes down to people (myself included) thinking it’s murder. It has nothing to do with “controlling your body”. If I didn’t think it was Murder, I would be fine with it, if you thought it was murder, I assure you, you would not be fine with it.

    2. I disagree. Democrats don’t like Tribalism, they want to destroy any tribal loyalty. Republicans on the other hand, neither support nor dislike tribalism.
      I also disagree with your perspective of a four square political system. Not all Control is in the same direct, for example, Republicans don’t want Gay Marriage, but Democrats want to force you to make the wedding cake, those are both Social control, but just different. Also, the world isn’t black and white, there are lots of shades of grey, some people lean right on certain issues and some people lean left. I however, completely reject the idea of a left right political spectrum.

      1. Well its like anything when we make models, they are never perfect models, but if they are done well they help us to understand a dynamic. If they are done badly they only further confuse the issue. Democrats are all about Tribalism(Hillary’s book: It takes a village). This is why they are pro-LGBWTDS-they can’t put enough acronym in there because everyone is accepted and you can’t criticize anyone who has had it bad. If you actually go to a native tribe several things will stand out-you insult one of them you insult all of them, they lie and have no qualms about lying, they are emotionally volatile, they are generally lazy except when it comes to sex in which no hold are barred, including incest and pedophilia, men have a much much higher rate of homo and bisexuality, around 15%(compared to a 3% rate in westernized countries). Sounds like the Democratic Party that I know.

    3. Gun control is a biggie you’ve left out for the left. You are right on republicans…anybody that tells you on here that it ain’t maybe should analyze the party’s revent behavior. War on drugs and homosexuals, defenders of guns until a black person uses one, etc.
      I don’t disagree that the feminization of men is ruining our country, but I also believe people should have all the rope the want to hang themselves, which is a classic republican or now a libertarian position.

      1. Yeah I tend to think of it like Alan Greenspan where we were going to have no more recessions-the result? The Great Recession. Or the tree huggers preventing logging, so instead of some selected trees getting culled(which normally happened with regular small fires), we get these huge forest fires that kill every tree. If anything, if you learn to be a masculine man, it makes you that much RARER, and there are more than a few women who respond to it instinctively and seek it out.

  24. Check out the poses after the debates of Repubs vs Democrats. The democrats are grinning monkeys(I want to appease you) covering their privates so as to be less threatening. Republicans have minimalistic smiles, if any, and look determined. Note the Dems that failed were the ones not covering their privates, and the Repubs that failed were the ones smiling.

  25. This is a great article simply because I believe it echoed the reasons why most people here started to swallow the redpill, especially myself.
    I had leftist beliefs as a young teenager, coupled with a fascination with equality, feminist beliefs etc; I was a textbook definition blue-pill. I believe, from my own personal experience in college, that the only way to undo most of these imprints is through sheer suffering and a non-stop barrage of trials which bring many failures, along with a small but increasing number of successes the more one conforms to reality.
    That is at least what I went through during college, trial and error were my daily bread, and I ate well. I believe that something akin to this “shock” is needed to turn most “men” back into men. The problem is that most people, especially “oven”-middle class shitlibs, live in what is essentially a bubble that holds them cradle-to-grave.
    They all live in whitetopias, or insulated college campuses, and will never see or feel the effects of leftist politics hit them as directly as those policies hit the lower (and increasingly nationalistic) classes.
    This, however, can only last so long. As Western states continue to crumble under the onslaught of the third-world, more and more men will be painfully “re-imprinted” with views that better reflect reality.

    1. Exactly. Their policies have very real unintended consequences. They never put a face to it. Example, I got into a disagreement with one who believed private property should be abolished. I said, “alright, let’s start with YOUR parents, YOUR grandparents, and YOUR friends that own private land. Kick ’em all off.” And, “you know, if you can’t afford property like these people you are so jealous of there’s nothing stopping you from banding together with other individuals and buying property akin to the Amish/hippie communes/etc”
      Well, cognitive dissonance is a bitch, man. I don’t even think it registered.

      1. Leftism is a treasure trove of contradictions.
        I remember being acquainted with a hot turkish piece of ass in college. At the time I was always so hot, that a woman’s political leanings had no influence on my decision of whether or not to bang her.
        Anywho, this was the archetype of leftism. Anti-zionist, leading the burka burka flag every Spring when the SJW crowd held their anti-occupation rallies.
        This bitch would post on the evils of capitalism on Facebook, whilst working as a sales clerk at a makeup kiosk at a department store. Her income was based off commission from her ability to be good salesperson.
        That was a few years ago.
        Today she works for a bank, handling loans. She’s only 26 but making considerably more in the banking industry than most of her peers. I’ve called her out on her bullshit, but never can materialize a good reason why she remains so hard on her leftist indoctrination despite benefiting from capitalism, in perhaps one of it’s more prominent fields.

        1. Show her the situation in Venezuela. Those people literally say fuck years of socialism, we want capitalism and have stores with actual food on their shelves.

        2. In a nutshell you’ve summarized soacialism.
          They, socilists, always want measures like increased small or corporate business taxes and regulation that don’t effect them.
          I bet she’d against increased payroll taxes to pay for Bamacare or more due dilligence on her “shady” loan practices.
          Sounds lke a total c**t..

    2. Yeah pretty much this.
      In some cases the blow is also softened to the point where all the failures don’t even register. A single, over 30, post-wall, unlikable bitch can tell herself that her government job is hugely important and her cats love her more than any child ever could.

      1. Im not even sure I like my cat. I roll over in bed, and sometimes he stares at me with those unblinking eyes.

    3. “As Western states continue to crumble under the onslaught of the third-world,”
      Um, expressing a fear of your own is not exactly a good way to go about evidencing that claim that Liberals are more fearful and more have a negative view of the world.
      In fact, you kinda negated the author’s claim that Liberals more see the world as scary than do Conservatives.
      When not blasting Liberals as being naive to the grave threats that exist in the world Conservatives claim that Liberals more see the world as a scary place than do Conservatives. And then it’s right back to saying that Liberals are woefully naive as to how scary and dangerous is the world.

  26. Quality piece…well done. Among the particulars, any grateful men who inwardly felt like thanking their dads (all over again) after reading this article might sense what it’s like to have dodged a bullet or won the grand lottery of life by getting the right kind of father. Excellent masculine values and skills delivered by a loving father (or father figure, older brother, uncle, etc., wherever a kid can get it) — rarely do you find such harmony in the natural order of things than at those moments. Because there is some randomness at play, I have empathy and no ill will toward men who didn’t get that balance in the parenting. But on the sociopolitical level, they’re still on another wavelength, and the sub-group that’s living in the magical SJW Twilight Zone is “lost at sea” in all the ways pointed out in the article above…
    The 8 Circuit Model Of Consciousness is an elegantly-condensed way of understanding the learning ladder, and a fascinating way to ponder what it means to truly be alive.

  27. High quality article. I like the way the key points were summarized at the end. Just an excellent, simple to grasp nutshell piece explaining quite convincingly the mechanisms behind the idiocy ideology of our times.

  28. My college psychology teacher was pretty good at his job and one day he asked the class what is the most interesting form of psychology and I quickly raised my hand and told him parapsychology to which he had no reply.
    His dad was a chemist for DuPont back in the day and he seemed pretty smart so it would have been great to hear his personal opinion on the paranormal aspects of the subject.
    I’m sure he would not have told me anyways as he was running a counseling business as well as teaching.

  29. By the way on his chart I am at 6 and 7 but I do not consider myself to be cosmic level, that would make me good at math in ways I could only dream of right now.
    Pre-cognitive dreaming is possible for anyone without bad wiring I believe.
    If you begin to practice dream control it eventually becomes wired in that way and you also have to use the shit out of your imagination as visualization of all manners will beef up your brains ability to build ever more complex and accurate dream environments.
    Then at some point your brain begins to astral travel, and then perhaps your brain will become so good at this that your dreaming mind becomes a very powerful tool.
    By the way I did lsd (10 paper square hits) at around 15 years old at the same time and at age 20 I did a small dose mushrooms that was pretty pleasurable but not so intense.
    Had my first bong hit at 3 years old but did not touch it again until about 14 and loved it ever since.
    Lsd defintely was more intense to where trees looked like fractals through a kaleidoscope. Whether the drugs helped or not I don’t know but I can say that I did not start pre-cognitive dreaming before that time period for sure.
    One example of how this is useful is knowing where you will deploy and what can and will happen.
    Interestingly knowing the future does leave room for free will and unexpected variables.
    I astral traveled and experienced my deployment to Africa in great detail and that allowed me to modify the outcome when a mechanic and I became stranded in Ethiopia Near Dire Dawa.

  30. I don’t think these leftists had parents that didn’t get attention. Leftists are raised up in a very protective home in privileged neighborhoods without any worry on what adults do as a result they are so pampered and made to feel like a princess that they become shocked at just how harsh the real world really is need to create the world as their safe space. Liberals want to turn the whole nation into a safe space where people are policed ruthlessly for bad behavior and match it into the world they grew up in under their mommy or daddy’s dress

  31. Very interesting article! I have seen some videos of Leary doing talk shows on acid… Interesting guy.

    1. Some very interesting new studies about LSD and consciousness – micro dosing etc, but what’s your take on this presentation? :

  32. Another good article, young squire.
    ” we NEED TO start creating more masculine men in the world. And it starts with our youth. It starts with you and me”
    I never had kids because even way back when before the internet and the manosphere, I always suspected that marriage was chump’s game for men, yet pay dirt for women; fuck that. But as an older guy in my 40’s I have noticed that my fatherly instincts, which I thought I never had are becoming evident. I find myself being a bit of a mentor to young people in an effort to guide them in the right direction and encourage their ability to have common sense, etc. It may not be much but I would encourage all of us more senior red pill dogs to do the same – little by little. You’d be surprised just how much young men who, deep down in their psyche, realize something is not correct in the grande scheme of things, will lookup to you for straightforward, non bullshit advice.

    1. Ikr. It’s because from his own admission he can get away with it and it totally baffles the SJW narrative when they can’t accuse him of being a hateful homophobic racist misoginistic cis-gendered old white male. OK he’s actually white but he sucks black D.

      1. Maybe disqus messed up or you replied to the wrong comment. I’m not sure what you’re referencing.

  33. Always blows my mind how an effiminate, gay man is leading the campaign against all this nonsense. Good on yer, Milo.

    1. He’s not.
      It’s assumed by the kosher media that he is but he’s playing along being a good sayan.

    2. Milo may be a homo, but he’s more alpha than any of the girly-armed leftists he aims at.

  34. Most leftists were probably stuck in a daycare as infants and “cared for” by minimum wage affirmative action hires. That’s the source of their hatred of the traditional family and gender roles.

    1. I never understood the idea of having children then having strangers raise them and paying for the “privilege.”

  35. Haven’t had time to complete this article yet, or weigh up the claims about leftists. Just from quickly reading around though, it looks like Leary’s work should be situated in descent from the occult spirituality of the century preceding. The focus on higher levels of consciousness is something of a repeating motif – something that I’m always a little bit unsure of. Some of this reminds me – perhaps the resemblance is only superficial – of the projects of Gurdijeff (and Ouspensky). Seems Leary was also a Crowley disciple to some degree and a big believer in the idea of ‘do what thou wilt’ which some say he re-packaged for the flower power youth as ‘do your own thing’.

    1. I can assure you that the paranormal aspect to our percieved reality is real but like every other phenomena it varies in degrees.

  36. I have kids in private school.
    Full of feminist, SJW, social-Marxist weirdos, slowly but surely indoctrinating them into the “causes”…
    There is no avoiding it…

    1. How dare them. You pay good money for private education. I think the best education was in turn of the century public schooling (19th-20th century) which was segregated on race and sex. Many boys only public schools produced presidents, leaders and pioneers of the 20th century. Military academies were all male as well.

    2. Home school
      Your far better off
      It’s easy with PC programs today
      Tim Tebow was home schooled FYI as are over 1 million kids today. Their scores are much higher, they are more mature and no indictrination

  37. A liberal is simply a conservative in the making that hasn’t been mugged by negros or had Jewish business partners

  38. Quack psychology at it’s finest. Freud, Jung, Berne, Maslow, the Triune model of MacLean and worst of all Leary, really??
    This is why Psychology is often not taken seriously, due to quacks inside the field and even bigger quacks outside of it.
    Of those, some could consider Maslow the only decent psychologist, but even his hierarchy of needs have been proven incorrect, no wonder, he pull that out of his ass without proper scientific research. There’s an anecdote of Leon Festinger commenting about Maslow: “His ideas are so bad they are not even wrong”.

  39. Interesting read. I’ve also pondered this myself at times – wondering just how the hell someone (especially men) gravitate toward leftist ideology. As I have grown up into a mature adult male, it is just SO tragic (and sad) watching these effeminate males literally every. Almost EVERY TV anchor is a little beta bitch. And movies… where the HELL are the John Waynes and the Clint Eastwoods? Where’s a Slim pickens? Where’s a Dean Martin? To observe real men in movies and TV, you pretty much have to break out your old collections.

  40. Great info Jon and good insight into the reptillian brain in your video. Some simple minded women never evolve past the reptillian stage. They’re simple scared worrisome cats that live in a cat box and if you frighten them or try to pull them out of their cat frame, they knee jerk call out the manginas on you. A fully doveloped mind is a gem and must be shielded from the reptoid brained schmucks. They’ll eat you alive in their first fit of reptoid reflex. You don’t want to end up as reptoid ‘reflux’. That’s why every great minded man needs to learn how ‘ROPE AND WRANGLE’ the ‘toids’ (toids is derogatory slang for ‘reptoids’).
    Also on the ‘robot’ phenomenon where people become stupid tools of the system, the robotic state is maintained by a controlled ‘hog feed’ diet of HFCS, sodium, hydrogenated vegetable oils, red40, MSG and stimulants like caffeine or amphetamine based psychotropics like ritalin. The combination works synergetically and dulls the third eye while raising the blood pressure, thus animating and motivating the ‘working robot’. Look at all the 5x lard ass state snitches that work at their terminals and the roided out mutant jack boot enforcers. All of them pumped with pharmaceuticals. And the fit and trim spies and sweet talking system swindlers. Any of them clean 7th level with vibratory spirit control that can levitate? Hmmm? Hell no! The system wogs and their sick dying armies of sjw’s all pump the pharmaco mainline as they eat the dead food and nitrated pink slime. They let their assholes be used as target practice for the pharmaco bazookas loaded with the newest trial suppositories. ”BLAM BLAM BLAM! In your ass you stupid obedient robots. You dumb effers.”
    You think they won’t snitch, that they won’t turn you in just to be safe? Over a fluke or a simple misunderstanding? Robots are mindless robots plain and simple. An ascending and improving man must incorporate and integrate into his regular strengthening and lifting routines ROPING AND WRANGLING and containment of the robot zot bot zombies. It’s getting to be like swimming in a shark cage these days. You have to learn how to effectively and safely beat them back.

  41. Disagree about first stage. The liberals I know weren’t deprived or neglected. On the contrary. They were overindulged and protected. They see the world through rose colored glasses. They have an unrealistic world view where they regard suffering, deprivation or social rejection as unacceptable. They want the government to provide them the same security their parents provided them as children. They are conformists and expect others to embrace the same values they hold.

  42. Timothy Leary, PhD is a saint! Not all ‘hippies’ are the same species, mayhaps some of folks lurking ought to take a hint from Sturgill Simpson… giordano bruno was burned at the stake, galileo was put on house arrest, and leary was busted for weed! He was also escaped out of jail and went on the run, a legendary tale for those who are curious!

  43. Jon Anthony, love the article bro, especially the Robert Anton Wilson/ Leary reference, hidden gems for sure, usually only psychedelic inclined folk know of their work, it was a surprise to see a reference here, but not really considering what they are all about and some of the basic motivations of this community (self improvement, critical thinking…) . I just found this insane story, point in case: a lesbian woman was convicted of faking her own hate attack , Jim Goad is funny and intelligently critical, I found the story on his website ,

  44. A ridiculous article.
    Countless studies evidence that politically Conservative individuals are more fearful people than are politically Liberal individuals. And you don’t have to go by the findings of any study or even by what I say in this comment for evidence of that. Conservatives evidence it in what they say, how they behave, and in their policy positions.
    “If this circuit receives ample conditioning that the world is a bad place, by being frequently hungry, not receiving enough love, and experiencing a large amount of pain, the child will grow up to believe that the world is generally a very unsafe place.
    Liberals are almost always indefinitely imprinted with a negative world-view. This is why liberals, when they’re adults, tend to the view the world as being an unsafe place.”
    It is inarguable that Conservatives view the world as an unsafe place. It is why they so often focus upon threats to America and so worry about possible “American weakness”. It is why they own firearms for personal protection. It is why they advocate for walls to protect us and it is why they applaud enthusiastically when a Donald Trump warns of Mexican rapists and murderers.
    But what about this notion that Liberals more view the world as unsafe than do Conservatives and a reason for that is that Liberals did not receive enough love from their mothers? If that is the case, then why are Conservatives frequently labeling Liberals as “mama’s boys” who were coddled and spoiled by a mother?
    How is it that Liberals both went hungry as children and were spoiled to the point of being without want? How is it that Liberals both went without love from a mother and were coddled by their mothers, petted and stroked by their mothers, over-protected by their loving mothers, and so over-loved as to have mothers that demanded their child receive a trophy merely for having participated??
    Let’s look at various issues in terms of who is more fearful, Liberals or Conservatives…
    Who is more fearful of Muslim immigrants, Liberals or Conservatives? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more afraid of illegal immigrants? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more likely to own a firearm as a result of fear of crime? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more afraid of centralized government and more afraid that individual rights will be trampled by an out of control federal government? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more fearful of a “one world government” and more afraid of “globalism”? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more fearful for Germany and the whole of Europe because of Muslim immigration? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more afraid to live in big cities with a large Black population? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more afraid of socialism and more afraid of Communism? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more fearful in regard to acceptance of homosexuality and more fearful regarding erosion of the traditional family unit? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more afraid of those unlike themselves? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more fearful that there will be a global economic collapse? Answer: Conservatives
    Who is more fearful that a race-war will take place in the U.S.? Answer: Conservatives
    Who more practices fear-mongering and more seeks to promote fear, Liberal media or Conservative media? Answer: Conservative media.
    Who more practices fear-mongering and more seeks to promote fear, Liberal politicians or Conservative politicians? Answer: Conservative politicians.
    Who is more afraid of being a ‘wimp’, more afraid of lacking manliness, more afraid of their female traits, and more fearful of not being an “Alpha male”, Liberal males or Conservative males? Answer: Conservative males. And that is the irony of this website, a website with a theme motivated by fear, claiming that it is Liberals who are more fearful. This entire “Alpha male” nonsense is a result of INSECURITY and FEARFULNESS.
    A man who is unafraid does not need to proclaim his manliness or label himself an “Alpha male”.

Comments are closed.