Peter Wright’s article Don’t just do something, SIT THERE1 is nicely timed, because the question of being, all-too-often identified with crystal gazers, Mother-Gaia worshippers and astrologists, now has some science behind it to give it cred.
Two threads of research are now converging into a more compelling interpretation for the cognitive sciences:
● Neural plasticity2 and the role of experience in wiring the brain;
● DNA entanglement (nonlocality).
These are important developments, because the info-tech narrative that depicts the brain as a computer and DNA as analogous to computer software is not how things work in nature. By factoring in neural plasticity and DNA entanglement, however, we have a radically different way of interpreting life processes.
Sol Luckman3 provides one tidy, if gimmicky, little summary of how our understanding of the workings of DNA has changed over the years. And experimental evidence suggesting DNA entanglement has been around for a while, for example, in the work of Pizzi et al (2004)4.
[We should note that current narratives in neural plasticity and DNA entanglement are still in their infancy, and taken literally, they do not always concur with this author’s own interpretations. Gimmicks, like the Mother-Gaia narrative, are irritatingly persistent and refuse to die… hopefully, introducing these ideas into the manosphere will expand the narrative. Men have always played a fundamental role at the cutting edge of science, maybe we can prove that this remains unchanged]
We can now take being, as described in Peter’s article, more seriously. The question of being is not new, of course. It is often raised in different contexts across different cultures. Some of our own greatest philosophers have tackled the phenomenology of being at various times, and they’ve even given it fancy, proper names, like Dasein. But the life-science informing them was inconsistent with the way things worked in nature. Those of us with our ears to the ground, though, sense that there is now some change afoot.
Factoring in these most recent developments, the essential point about being is that every organism has to learn how to be. It has to experience its world in order to be able to interpret it and respond effectively within its ecosystem. This applies to all living organisms, including the neurons and cells that constitute your brain and body.
The principles of consciousness are simple… they have to be… even though they have not been clearly articulated in the mainstream. No human intervention is required to make consciousness. Consciousness happens all by itself, it’s been that way before humans even existed, and it will continue to be that way after we’ve long gone. By way of analogy, Isaac Newton’s laws of physics are also simple, because they have to be, and we can bear witness to these laws in the technologies of our time. In order to accomplish something as compelling for a science of being (life, consciousness) as what Newton provided for physics, we need to establish a couple of assumptions (axioms) first:
● The process of consciousness starts from the moment of conception;
● Experience begins at the moment of conception, such that the neuroplastic brain begins wiring itself up at the moment of conception (there is no genetic blueprint that maps the brain’s functional specializations);
● Nonlocality is crucial to explaining the binding problem. It explains how neurons (and other body cells) are entangled into a unity in a manner that is analogous to how people within a city are “entangled” through telecommunications and media.
The modern entangled city, from the perspective of systems theory, is a powerful metaphor for the binding problem. Telecommunications, in effect, simulates the binding problem by connecting everyone into a shared understanding of how to be that is instantaneous (well, almost). Every person is a neuron within a city-brain wiring itself up with cultural experience. And just as humans come in two forms, male and female, so too, the stuff between our ears comes in two forms… neurons and glia. And what might be the mechanism that “binds” neurons/glia? DNA entanglement would seem to be a good place to start looking.
Once we accept nonlocality as the all-pervasive given, the basic processes, based in semiotic theory, make perfect, easy sense (just briefly, semiotic theory relates to the fundamental properties of thought processes for all living entities – motivation, association and habituation). It all revolves around knowing how to be. These semiotic principles apply to all critters, including single cells and neurons. But nonlocality (entanglement, the binding problem) must be assumed to be essential to making it all work… if we can stomach this as an axiomatic given, then all the complexities of consciousness fall out into a much simpler, more logical framework.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE MYTH OF PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSION
It is now well established that, by far, most of a human brain’s wiring (its functional specializations) is accomplished within only the first few years of life. These are the years spent under the care of the primary nurturer. It is the primary nurturer, usually the mother, who first defines the things that matter… the things that first wire brains, to set the foundations for all that comes later. Momma knows what she wants her little man to be, and she knows what entitlements her little girl deserves. And whether or not she knows what she is doing (many don’t), she plays a direct role in how her dependents read her cues and how they grow up knowing what their place in society is to be. Children first learn how to be from their primary nurturer. It’s not rocket science to realize that The Matriarchy establishes the foundations in young minds upon which “The Patriarchy” (whatever feminists imagine that to be) is built.
Taken individually, The Matriarchy wields far greater power than The Patriarchy ever could. There is no such thing as a patriarchy that magically materializes on its own, from a vacuum, independently of The Matriarchy that nurtures and raises it, to then go on to oppress womankind.
Our interpretation provides a very different mechanism for cultural and behavioural inheritance. Of course genes and DNA remain important to all life processes, but the traditional reason for their importance, based in the genocentric paradigm, needs to be dispensed with. Cultural and behavioural inheritance is more likely to proceed along the following lines:
1) Children first learn from their primary nurturer the things that matter. For most children, this is likely to be the mother;
2) Based on the training and rewards that most children receive first from their mothers, boys become men who do women’s bidding, while girls become women who, feminist indoctrination notwithstanding, prioritize the raising of children;
3) As children grow into adolescence, the secondary nurturer, mostly the father, also begins to play an important role. For most boys in western culture, the father becomes a role model. In other cultures, at an appropriate time marked as “coming of age,” the boys’ fathers often remove them from the community and its matriarchal influences, to subject them to initiation rituals that inculcate into them the responsibilities of manhood. For most girls generally, the mother obviously continues to play a crucial role as a role model, but the father also plays an important role that will impact on what she will look for in men;
4) From a broader cultural-evolutionary perspective, how might we best describe the patriarchal role of men? If the matriarchal role of women is to define the things that matter (that we relate ultimately to cultural norms), then the role of men is to redefine and discover new things that matter… these are matters of transcendence, identity, self-reliance and purpose. When feminists assert the matriarchal role to be the more spiritual, as usual, they have no idea what they are talking about;
5) At this point we can begin to understand the source of hypergamy, and why women, so long as they have not been indoctrinated by feminism, were traditionally inclined to look to men as objects of respectability… they wanted to look up to men, they wanted men to initiate, to provide direction. Feminists detest this allocation of gender roles because they rationalize it as a patriarchal plot, a conspiracy to keep women down. They fail to understand that it is almost always the primary nurturer that sets the foundations for this kind of patriarchy narrative, both from the perspective of how she raises her children and the man she chooses to father them with (just to be clear for the knee-jerk crowd… no, we are not advocating for a return to “traditionalism”);
6) Boys become men who provide, and girls become women who are provided for (or, in the current affirmative-action zeitgeist, they might work so long as it does not impact too adversely on quality of life). Boys become the actors who first learned from their primary nurturer the visceral rewards that come from being an actor. And girls become the acted-upon, and it was from their primary nurturer that they first learned to expect the entitlements that come from being an acted-upon;
7) Every individual’s personality develops with their experiences within culture. Consistent with pragmatism, culture reaffirms in their mind the things that matter. Their personality becomes a manifestation of cultural personality. They acquire the same accent, the same priorities and motivations and the same fears and aversions that characterize the rest of their culture. Culture plays a central role in every man’s and woman’s knowing how to be;
8) Rinse, repeat… down on through the millennia, from mother and father to daughter and son.
This is how cultures evolve. Genes and DNA are especially important in biological processes, but they are least directly relevant to the mind-stuff. In this context, gynocentrism is pure mind-stuff… or to put it another way, nurture… the sex differences in behaviour are more accurately interpreted as coming from predispositions that impact on culture and not any kind of genetic blueprint. This explains culture’s predisposition to unbridled gynocentrism. This is why the mother’s role is not the trivial indulgence that feminists want to portray it to be.
IF MOMMA AIN’T HAPPY, AIN’T NOBODY HAPPY
Feminism’s obedient attack-dogs, like Steve Shives5 or Matt Binder,6 believe that they have it all sewn up. They can be counted on to respond on cue with the matriarchal indoctrination that they had inculcated into them from their infancy. They know their correct place as white knights saving damsels in distress. Without question, they lay their coats over puddles so that the li’l ladies won’t get their dainty feet wet. They have no idea of the matriarchal source that governs their blind obedience to their mistress. They don’t remember back when they used to have their cute little noses rubbed into their poo on the carpet, and spanked so that they never do it again. They don’t see that the principles that shape their behaviour and their reflexes are exactly the same principles that a lion tamer relies on to tame a lion that first learned obedience to humans as a cub.
We are not bashing mothers here, as dispensing discipline on infants and children is an imperfect science… but we should understand that it will often transition into child abuse. And we are not asking feminism’s attack-dogs to defy Momma… but everyone does need to understand where their auto-reflexes to do Momma’s bidding first come from. It’s an automatic Pavlovian reflex, and not a rational, logical act. So much of what we take for granted – the stuff that disappears into “just the way things are” – has its origins in those first few years of life under matriarchal dominance. That’s why child abuse, when Momma does it, so often passes under the radar. The matriarchal influence is so much a part of the neural wiring that we are unable to envisage what the world would be like in the absence of it. It’s like a fish, used to spending its whole life in water, having no conception of what “out of water” would be like.
Neural plasticity in conjunction with lived experiences, not “genetic programming,” is the key to understanding that what works in training dumb animals for circus acts also works in training dumb males as obedient lap-dogs for The Feminist Matriarchy, or as dumb providers who don’t question the provided-fors that spend their money. Feminism’s chumps retain no conscious memory of the indoctrination that provides the basis for their subconscious, reflexive motivations. And it’s the man-up crowd that are the biggest babies, dedicated as they are to doing women’s bidding, that are the least likely to question the basis for their reflexive, gynocentric impulses.
Before anyone can hope to transcend anything, they need to first transcend The Matriarchy.
 Wright, P., 2015. Don’t just do something, SIT THERE. A Voice for Men, June 7. [Online] Available at:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/dont-just-do-something-sit-there-2/ [Accessed June 9, 2015]
 Wesson, K., 2010. Neuroplasticity. Brainworld, August 26. [Online] Available at:
http://brainworldmagazine.com/neuroplasticity/ [Accessed June 9, 2015]
 Luckman, S., 2015. Three Perspectives on DNA. Consciousness life news, January 4. [Online] Available at: http://consciouslifenews.com/three-perspectives-dna/1179965/ [Accessed June 9, 2015]
 Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., Vescovi, A., 2004. Non-local correlations between separated neural networks. Quantum Information and Computation II. Ed. E. Donkor, A.R. Pirick, H.E. Brandt. Proceedings of SPIE 5436, 107-117. [Online] Available at:
http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf [Accessed June 9, 2015]
 AVfM Video Source, 2015. TL;DR – Steve Shives doesn’t understand the Men’s Rights Movement. A Voice for Men, June 7. [Online] Available at:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/tldr-steve-shives-doesnt-understand-the-mens-rights-movement/ [Accessed June 10, 2015]
 AVfM Video Source, 2014. #ShirtStorm proves Matt Binder both shallow and unfunny. A Voice for Men, December 7. [Online] Available at:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/shirtstorm-proves-matt-binder-both-shallow-and-unfunny/ [Accessed June 10, 2015]