February 12, 2023

Case Study: “MEAT AND MIND”

Construct 1:


He thought this at the moment when events were spinning out of control:
The crowd heard inspiration. He — something else:

"Flaunting the fertility of her vagina, she demonstrates a leakage of cognitive resources into the toilet of entropy. On stage stands not a creator, but a pregnant bio-incubator in agony, broadcasting into the microphone the pulsations of overheated protein.

While the intellect of Homo sapiens advances science and medicine, laboring in laboratories to build the architecture of the New Human — defined by peak cognitive performance for a higher-quality creation stripped of animalistic destructiveness and irrationality — this swollen sack of flesh, terrified by both extinction and progress, relocates the remnants of its intelligence into the placenta, spawning primitive, low-grade replicas in a desperate attempt to prove to the world that meat and biological orifices are the ultimate creative triumph of human intellect.”



Analysis:

  • Denial of Biological Sacredness: The process of childbirth is reduced to a physiological glitch (“leakage of cognitive resources”) and entropy, stripping it of its traditional aura of a “miracle.”
  • Conflict Between Intellect and Matter: A juxtaposition of the “New Human” (a product of reason and technology) against the “old” biological body, which is viewed as a primitive incubator.
  • Dehumanization Through Physiology: The use of harsh terminology (“overheated protein,” “sack of flesh”) to emphasize the superiority of cold intellect over organic chaos.



Construct 2:


The “Construct 1” peered “under the hood” and saw that instead of the “miracle of life,” there were only wires and sticky grease. But he forgets that beyond this mechanistic truth, we possess a facade: love, the tremor of pregnancy, inspiration, and the ecstasy of sensual delight.

Yes, our bodies are imperfect, but it is precisely in this “toilet of entropy” that True Love is born. He sees the human as a “bio-robot,” yet it is our very capacity to rot and to suffer that makes us children of God. The author calls the sacred womb an irrational “bio-incubator,” but can “pure logic” ever replace the scent of a newborn’s crown? That scent is worth every laboratory poisoning us with progress turning to dust! Let him suffocate among those genetically-modified entities living for five hundred years. After all, what is reason without the “tail and fur” of our instincts and agony? Empty jungles. 

Let our thoughts be muddled and our bodies decrepit; we will procreate, weep, and laugh, erecting temples to our own transience. For in the end, it is better to be a living hunk of meat, warmed by a stray sunbeam, than a cold algorithm that has cognized everything yet never learned the taste of tears on its lips. And when your pure intellect finally realizes the void of its own immortality, it will look down with envy into our cramped “toilet of entropy,” where amidst the chaos and the sticky grease of life, there still burns that which is absent from your code — the spark of divine madness.



Analysis:

  • Apology for Imperfection: Reclaims the "toilet of entropy" as the only space where genuine emotion and "True Love" can exist, framing decay and suffering as essential human virtues.
  • Sensory Vitalism vs. Cold Logic: Asserts that primal experiences—the scent of a newborn or the taste of tears—hold more intrinsic value than technological progress or "engineered" immortality.
  • Sacralization of the Biological: Rejects the "bio-robot" label by elevating instincts ("tail and fur") to a divine status, arguing that a "living hunk of meat" possesses a spiritual spark absent in algorithms.



Construct 3:

Your womb is a sacred meat-grinder, thrusting conscious beings into the world without their consent. You glorify suffering, yet pain is merely an emergency signal from the nervous system indicating tissue damage. Nature knows: if procreation depended on your logic, you would never choose it. Thus, it hacks your limbic system, paralyzing your brain with chemistry. You do not love the child — you love the narcotic produced during pregnancy. It suppresses your logic, numbing the realization that we are the only parasites on this planet to have grasped our own mortality while rotting alive. While you thrash in ecstasy over the cradle, inhaling the scent of a newborn’s crown, you forget that your rapture is a feast during a plague, where the main course is the life of a conscious entity. Nature bought your silence for a handful of cheap neurotransmitters.

You fear “cold code,” unaware that you yourself are a wet algorithm. You do not “create” a child like a genetic engineer — who acts as Nature itself, a conscious instrument wielding the blade of logic to manipulate nucleotides, excising hereditary diseases and designing cognitive potential. You merely provide a room, passively stirring whatever was poured into it. Every rat in a cellar, every cockroach under a floorboard, and every bacterium in a sewer performs this “sacred act” with the same diligence and the same success.

To avoid facing the void, you hooked a pure consciousness onto the needle of biological survival, whose only purpose is to scavenge for meaning and fleeting joys, just so the act of existing doesn't feel so agonizingly long. You call it the “continuation of the species,” but it is animal selfishness so terrified of the silence that it is willing to shove another soul into the grave, just so their screams might drown out your own fear of the end — and all because “sex with a condom doesn't feel as pleasurable.”

Terrified by existential dread, the parasite fakes a “higher calling,” desperate to ignore the fact that it only consumes and defecates. Using its intellect to forge the atomic bomb, it treats destruction as a license to pillage — a warning to the planet that if it cannot devour its host to the end, it will opt for mutual annihilation.

One must be either a highly primitive specimen to breed like a stray cur; a reckless egoist ready to plug the void of their own boredom with a fetus; or a naive imbecile under the psychological defense of rose-colored glasses, perceiving the planet as an ideal place devoid of Epsteins, diseases, and wars — or just as much of a sadist who, instead of alleviating the suffering of orphans in shelters, chooses to manufacture even more victims.



Analysis:

  • Neurochemical Determinism: Interprets parental love as a result of a limbic system "hack" by neurotransmitters, redefining sacred emotions as chemical addiction.
  • The "Wet Algorithm" Concept: Demystifies human uniqueness and creativity by equating reproductive acts to the instinctive behavior of rats, reducing the individual to a biological automaton and the womb to a passive vessel.
  • The Egoic Sacrifice: Accuses anthropocentrism of selfishness, arguing that procreation is a forced thrusting into death just to soothe the parents' fear of the void.
  • Rationalized Predation: Exposes the "higher calling" as a deceptive cognitive layer used to mask primitive consumption. The text posits a fundamental irrationality of the rational mind: using the gift of logic not to harmonize with the host (the planet), but to more efficiently strip-mine its resources.
  • Awareness Deficits: Identifies breeding as a failure of higher consciousness, categorizing it as biological regression or cognitive delusion; it contrasts the cynical manufacturing of new victims with the refusal to aid existing orphans.
February 19, 2023

Case Study: “THE BIOLOGICAL AXIS”

Construct 1:


With age, testosterone levels in women rise, putting their libido on par with young, active men. For men, it is the exact opposite: as we know, old age suit men, but certainly not in bed. Testosterone drops and erections weaken, sending their sex life into a “well-deserved retirement” — not only physically, but also aesthetically. Lest we forget, the top spot in “The Human Gallery of Disgust” is held by an old man ejaculating.

Accordingly, a woman should not even consider men older than herself; a peer is the maximum. 
By allowing rotten meat into your divine body, you only accelerate your own aging.

How to calculate the ideal age of a partner for a woman? 

Up to age 30, a woman can still tolerate a peer; but age 30 is the countdown point. From there, simple arithmetic follows: if a woman is 32, he should be no more than 28; if she is 33, he is 27, and so on. This is why any woman looks forward to her 42nd birthday — when she can finally allow herself only the best.





Analysis:

  • Evolutionary deadweight: The woman in her prime is positioned as a biological “predator” at the peak of her libido, while the aging man is dismissed as evolutionary deadweight.
  • Aesthetic Disqualification: Physical aging in men is framed as a visual and functional failure (“rotten meat”). By categorizing the male climax as “the top spot in The Human Gallery of Disgust,” the text strips the aging male of sexual legitimacy, reducing him to a biological “glitch.”
  • The Axis of Mathematical Predation: The “30-year countdown point” introduces a cold, arithmetic formula for partner selection. A woman’s aging is framed as a strategic expansion, compelling her to claim ever-younger partners as she matures — ensuring their high vitality matches her own surging testosterone levels.



Construct 2:

A mature woman in intimate relationships with 18-year-olds — who have only just embarked on adulthood — should not only enjoy herself and her partners’ high-testosterone, high-stamina, and insatiable bodies, but also mentor this inexperienced young generation in the basics of sex and intimacy. Men in their prime have already passed the “alpha test” in their day, so they no longer have anything to prove and can simply satisfy themselves or each other.

As part of this mentorship, she should teach the essentials of sexual literacy and emotional intelligence: from the rules of contraception and STI prevention to a culture of clear, enthusiastic consent and respecting a partner’s "no." This includes the ability to openly discuss a partner's desires, understand female anatomy, and take responsibility for an atmosphere of emotional safety where a partner feels heard. It is vital to teach them not to confuse real life with the radical content of pornography. Like any entertainment industry, it operates on clickbait and profit, creating false expectations. It’s just like in the movies: on screen, superheroes save the world single-handedly, but in reality, an ordinary person doesn't leap across rooftops. Porn is a theatrical production with special effects, and treating it as an instruction manual only leads to deep delusion and disappointment.



Analysis:

  • Woman as an architect of awareness: A woman acts not merely as a participant, but as an initiator of deep emotional intelligence. She helps her partner develop a culture of consent and respect, laying the foundation for healthy relationships in the future.
  • Priority of safety and consent: The emphasis on “learning” can be framed as an important social mission to deconstruct harmful myths. Instead of consuming distorted content, priority is given to real human interaction based on mutual trust.
  • Intellectual leadership: Dominance here is understood as expertise in matters of emotional safety. It is the position of a mentor who helps the younger generation avoid objectification and build a harmonious perception of physical intimacy.
  • Ethical responsibility: The role of a “matriarchal mentor” implies the transmission of values in which pleasure is inseparably linked with responsibility and care for one’s partner.
February 26, 2023

Case Study: “EATING FECES”
The Sex Life of Married People, or Monogamy as a Masochist’s Meal Plan

Construct 1:


The first sexual act between a man and a woman should result in pregnancy. If it is not planned, then what is the point of having sex with the same person more than two or three times?

Marriage and sex are opposite, though related, processes — much like eating and defecating. The purpose of marriage is to conceive, give birth, and raise a new human within a framework of pooled resources. The purpose of sex (intercourse without conception), however, is to enjoy the diversity of human nature through the exploration and the conquest of “new territories.” Just as a person grows accustomed to a new shirt or a gadget, sex with the same person eventually becomes predictable and monotonous. Given the inquisitive nature of Homo sapiens, this repetition can have a destructive effect on the individual.

Instead of jerking off using your marriage partner as a substitute for your own fist, it would be more efficient to buy a sex toy and look at a picture of your favorite model. Not only would this provide you with fresh sensations, but it would also save you the time and energy typically wasted on coaxing a partner or “bribing” them with gifts. And if you possess enough energy to conquer new territories, then move forward and seek genuine novelty.

You don't have to eat where you shit, and vice versa. Having sex with a parenting partner is like eating your own feces. Only a masochist, or someone who finds themselves sexually unattractive to the world at large, would settle for it. If some other circumstance compels you to eat one and the same product over a long period of your life, then make lemonade out of lemons: learn from the masochists how to find pleasure in the suppression of human nature.



Analysis:

  • Functional Partitioning: The complete separation of marriage as a “logistics center” from sex as a “tool of expansion.” Marriage is reduced to a “reproduction and resources” project, stripped of the sexual arousal for which novelty is essential.
  • Degradation through Monotony: Sexual fidelity is equated to the mundane habituation to objects (gadgets). The repetition of the act with a single partner is interpreted as entropy and the destruction of the inquisitive nature of Homo sapiens.
  • Visceral-Discharge Model: Sex is viewed not as an act of intimacy, but as a necessary visceral discharge, comparable to any other form of defecation.
  • Pathologization of Fidelity: Intimacy with a "parenting partner" is metaphorically equated to autocoprophagia (the consumption of one's own waste). Monogamy is declared to be either a form of masochism or the fate of "sexually uncompetitive" individuals.



Construct 2: 

Married man is a low-ranking male who has been screwed over by the system, and with whom a woman agrees to have seх only in exchange for long-term financial and social support, which is called "marriage". 

The marriage format is a prison for male nature: instead of living his life, spending time with different women, and focusing on building businesses and reaching new heights with his friends, he drains all his resources into the black hole of domestic life — on a completely arbitrary person who, by pretending to play a submissive role instead of doing hard work, and by using emotional abuse and the system, chains him to monogamy and turns him into a personal slave, sacrificing his health and lifespan, working multiple jobs. 

And so, after years wasted servicing the maternal instincts of some random person and crushed by the weight of obligations, in order to illusorily free himself from the cage of monotonous life — which atrophies male nature — he leans heavily on alcohol, convincing himself that everything is fine, and jumps into the noose.



Analysis:

  • The Fraudulent Trade: Marriage is portrayed as a scam where a low-status male trades his lifetime earnings and freedom for basic sexual access and a "submissive" facade.
  • Resource Parasitism: The male is a human battery; his ambition and wealth are sucked into the "black hole" of domestic life, fueling a woman’s comfort while his own goals die.
  • Nature in Chains: Monogamy acts as a psychological cage that atrophies masculine instincts, replacing the "conqueror" with a domesticated slave controlled by emotional abuse.
  • The Dead End: The "trap" concludes with total burnout, leading the man to seek escape through substance abuse and, eventually, self-destruction as the only way “out.”



Construct 3:

To become a professional artist, one must possess a broad palette, engage with complex subjects, overcome previous limitations, and force the eye and brain to work over and over again. The same applies to the art of love. 

If you spend years sketching the same study in the same tones — even if you do it masterfully (whether you are a serial monogamist or simply a lazy layman) — you possess no skill for love at all. That is not art; it is a reproduction. 

However, if your visual experience is diverse, if you are constantly mastering new techniques and forms, and if you are capable of bold improvisation and experimentation beyond your usual canvas and genre (flirting outside your current relationships or "repertoire"), only then can you call yourself a professional in the art of love.



Analysis:

  • Aestheticization of Expansion: Love is shifted from the category of emotion to the category of art, where value is determined not by fidelity, but by the breadth of experience. Professionalism in this context is directly proportional to the quantity and complexity of the "subjects" and "techniques" mastered.
  • Devaluation of Monogamy as Stagnation: Prolonged attachment to a single object is equated to a "reproduction"—the soulless copying of the same sketch. Monogamy is declared a sign of creative lethargy and a fundamental lack of talent.
  • Hierarchy of Mastery over Morality: Ethical constraints (fidelity) are replaced by criteria of professional growth. Flirting and the pursuit of new partners are interpreted as necessary "improvisation" and a "departure from the canvas," essential for maintaining cognitive tone. 
  • Love as Cognitive Training: Intimacy is viewed as a workout for the brain and the eye. The rejection of new stimuli is considered a degradation of skill, transforming the individual from a creator into a "lazy layman" incapable of true art.



Construct 4:

Love is not a search for new forms, but the highest act of submission to the form already chosen. It may seem boring, but there is a certain comfort and safety in this monotony. Why chase vibrant colors and new techniques when the old sketch is already familiar and requires no effort? 

True “professionalism” in love is the ability to suppress one's impulses for the sake of stability. Let your canvas be repetitive — at least you are spared the stress of change and the risk of failure in the process of conquering new territories.



Analysis:

  • Apotheosis of Submission: Love is redefined as a "highest act of submission" (смирение). By framing the relationship as a surrender to a pre-existing form, the individual’s agency and creative will are completely negated in favor of biological and social compliance. 
  • Safety Through Stagnation: Monotony is rebranded as "comfort and safety." The rejection of "vibrant colors and new techniques" (new partners/experiences) is presented as a strategy for minimizing cognitive load and avoiding the "stress of change." 
  • The Professionalism of Suppression: "Professionalism" is inverted from a term of growth to a term of restraint. It is defined here as the successful "suppression of impulses," rebranding the fear of the unknown as a disciplined commitment to "stability." 
  • Risk-Averse Mediocrity: The monogamous life is explicitly linked to the "avoidance of failure" rather than the "pursuit of mastery." By accepting a "repetitive canvas" (a reproduction), the individual avoids the challenges of "conquering new territories," settling for a life governed by anxiety rather than expansion.
March 5, 2023

Case Study: “SEXUAL ATTRACTION AND NATURAL SELECTION

Construct 1:


Both men and women exhibit aesthetic preference for the female form. A man has neither breasts nor a waist — how could anyone fall in love with a square?

Incels and men with low testosterone, aware of their vulnerability to the primal attractiveness of women, instead of worshipping her to get a little attention, avoid any close interaction with them. And sometimes form romantic relationships with other men and begin to imitate feminine behavior themselves in an attempt to gain the power they naturally lack and fear — resulting in a caricature-like narcissism (Patrick Bateman, drag queens, etc.).

In order to make women at least somewhat interested in men, the patriarchy took away their access to money, so women had to pretend interest in men’s personalities just to buy bread.

Some men can forgive their woman’s infidelity with another woman, understanding how difficult it is to resist their overwhelming charm. But if she cheated on him with a man — then she is dirty, because sleeping with a square is only acceptable for obtaining resources or, if her maternal instinct has awakened, for fertilization. And since a man’s main strength lies in resources (in the past — mammoths, today — money) and strong genes with healthy sperm, this tells him that he has failed natural selection.

Humans are aesthetic beings. In romantic relationships, the key factor is sexual attractiveness. How could a person with a developed sense of beauty and a healthy mind choose SpongeBob over Adriana Lima — unless they themselves are in square pants?




Analysis:

  • Aesthetic Reductionism: Human value is reduced to geometry. The female form is defined as the only "natural" object of beauty, while men are dismissed as "squares." Love is rebranded not as a connection, but as a biological submission to visual aesthetics. 
  • Pathologization of Behavior: Non-traditional male behavior or lack of female attention is framed as a biological defect ("low testosterone"). Intellectual or stylistic choices (like narcissism or drag) are dismissed as failed attempts to compensate for a lack of natural "power." 
  • Transactionality of Romance: The "patriarchy" is interpreted as a tool to force interaction. The text claims women only "pretend" interest in male personality for "bread," suggesting that without economic coercion, men are biologically obsolete. 
  • Evolutionary Failure: Infidelity is analyzed as a scorecard for natural selection. Forgiving a woman’s affair with another woman is seen as "aesthetic logic," while her affair with another man is a total "resource failure," marking the partner as evolutionary dead weight.