human embryo cell illustration

The most important experiment ever undertaken

The Nazis were renowned for their famous but useless experiments on human beings. We, however, are much more fortunate, for we now have the results of a much more important experiment on humans, and from which we can draw powerful, practical inferences. Of course this experiment, as any experiment conducted on humans that results in the trashing or loss of lives, has come at great cost. But I think it’s been worth it, and I think you will agree.

It’s a conversation with the universe that we had to have… should it culminate in our extinction, may something of what we’ve learned pass on to the greater unified whole. And well it should, for there are lessons here that are relevant to every culture that can possibly exist across the width and span of the universe.

Wars come and go. Every culture has them, and most every culture pretends to learn from them with their sanctimonious appeals to “learn from history.” And in spite of their repetitious, inane blather, every culture continues to repeat the same mistakes. Such is the human condition, with wars being their most predictable outcome.

But the experiment that I am referring to is a one-off. It probably won’t be repeated, at least in our corner of our galaxy, and at our global scale. But this experiment is different to all the others, because it takes us beyond the human condition, to confront something more profound. For we must now ask ourselves, in what ways are we different to the animals? This experiment that I am referring to goes some way to addressing the following questions:

1) Is human behavior programmed into the genetic code, or is it cultural?

2) Does the genetic code wire the brain, or is it experience that wires the brain?

3) What is the relationship between biology and culture?

4) What happens if we tweak biology? What happens if we tamper with it, and change the nature of experience? What happens if we introduce new experiences and new choices, and what if these radically different options “wire the brain” in new ways, ways that are alien to what we’ve ever understood and assumed about “the human condition?”

5)  What are the repercussions of tampering with biology? What sorts of predictions can we make?

The experiment that I am referring to is the introduction and normalization of our contraceptive technologies into mainstream cultures… that is, cultures comprised of human brains.

We are living in an era of emerging awareness of how brains work. Norman Doidge (2008) has provided a compelling analysis with clinical examples, showing us that the brain rewires itself with experience. These ideas have important implications for the role of culture in rewiring human brains, for ultimately almost all human experience is derived within the context of culture:


So a neuroplastically informed view of culture and the brain implies a two-way street: the brain and genetics produce culture, but culture also shapes the brain. Sometimes these changes can be dramatic.

(Doidge, 2008, p. 288)

There is little in this dry, concise summary of Doidge’s principle theme to really fire us up, but its implications are fundamentally paradigm-busting. Because men and women make different choices from their culture, these ideas have important implications for the evolution of gender roles within culture, and how men’s and women’s brains are wired. For example, men’s predisposition to favor analytical/spatial oriented activities, like map-reading, and women’s predisposition to favor communication oriented activities relating to language use, impact on how the brain is wired and how functional specializations develop within the brain.

This is supported in studies such as that of Haier et al (2005), where it is was found that men’s and women’s brains differ in the distribution of white (glial) and grey (neural) matter, with intelligence tests showing that on average, men used 6.5 times as much grey matter as women did, but that women used 9 times as much white matter as men did.

From the perspective of the point being made in this post, it is important to emphasize that this glial/neural wiring does not “determine” gender differences in behavior, but evolves as a two-way interplay between male/female biology and culture. By way of example, think of your brain as a colony of neurons and glia, and then think of how a termite colony or a city evolves. The functional divisions in the city (industrial zones, commercial districts, class-differentiated residential zones, etc) evolve more by way of interactions with the environment than by interventions from town-planners.

Throughout his Appendix 1, Doidge (2008) provides a rounded, well-paced introduction to this neuroplastically informed view of culture, and his reference to Michael Merzenich, from an interview by Stefanie Olsen (2005), provides a clearer appreciation of the relevance of his thesis to the modern context:


The Internet is just one of those things that contemporary humans can spend millions of ‘practice’ events at, that the average human a thousand years ago had absolutely no exposure to. Our brains are massively remodeled by this exposure–but so, too, by reading, by television, by video games, by modern electronics, by contemporary music, by contemporary ‘tools,’ etc.

(Doidge, 2008, p. 306)

Of course our contraceptive devices must surely be factored in with the modern technology in respect of which Merzenich is quoted. And how our contraceptive technologies are implemented is differentiated according to sex and gender. So what might some of the implications be?

Clearly, the choices to which we have been exposed over the past 50 years are unlike anything that has ever gone before. Chateau Heartiste (CH) (2012) agrees, and makes his point with reference to an excerpt from paragraph 17 of the Encyclical Letter of his Holiness Pope Paul VI:


Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men — especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point — have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

(Pope Paul VI, 1968, par. 17)

CH makes the following important observations:

  • Just as contraceptives predispose men to devaluing women, so too, they predispose women to devaluing men – CH takes pains, however, to emphasize that it’s beta men that are being devalued when women exercise their preferences for “risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make.” As we shall soon see, CH’s beta qualifier is problematic;
  • CH guesstimates that his aggregate sexual experiences would have amounted to about one tenth of his actual record, were it not for the ready availability of reliable contraception;
  • CH’s eminently sensible inference is that, in the absence of reliable contraception:


A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself. I imagine I’d have to *gasp* start promising marriage or some such claptrap to any woman I wanted to bang, just to loosen her up enough to unhook her bra.

In other words, the ready availability of reliable contraceptive technologies throughout culture impacts directly on the choices that men and women make… and therefore, on how men’s and women’s brains are wired. That CH’s sexual exploits would have been truncated by 90%, by his estimate, implies a serious variation in lifestyle attributable to the contraceptive pill.

Of course CH’s anecdotal opinion does not constitute the sort of empirical verification we require of falsifiable science, but what we are discussing is not amenable to traditional analytical methods. Because the subject matter has such serious implications, however, these questions do need to be addressed. We can’t put them to the side while we wait for genocentric science to “catch up.”

Let us review. By diminishing the inconvenience of ill-timed pregnancy to almost zero, the contraceptive pill impacts on cultural logic principally in the following ways:

  • The commoditization of sex. Sex has been removed from its principle role relating to reproduction. Rather, sex has become mainstreamed as a leisure activity, a commodity, a form of entertainment, something with value to which a price can be attributed. In the space of less than a couple of decades, the porn industry has progressed to now providing easy access to cheap porn online. This relentless immersion in a sea of pornographic images, online, on billboards, in newsagents, continues to remind men of their “needs,” rewiring the brains of men who become ever-more convinced of the “needs” that are said to be programmed into their DNA. And it continues to rewire the brains of women who come to believe that all men are rutting, drooling hound-dogs who are only ever after one thing. And as the rewiring proceeds, we forget that women also have within them the capacity for overwhelming sexual arousal that is in no way less than the primal motivations of men. All this, ultimately, thanks to our contraceptive technologies;
  • With sex having become a leisure commodity with a price, the manner of sexual transactions has been radically transformed. Shysters, conmen, prostitutes and gold-diggers increasingly influence the cultural playing-field and new cultural options become validated. A line is crossed. What was previously forbidden by culture becomes a cultural norm. Culture is a whole, and it adapts. The trickle becomes a flood, and groupthink, with its obsession with fads, idolatry and hedonism, becomes the new norm. With new cultural benchmarks, peer pressure replaces family values. Game becomes the province of shysters and conmen along with the needy and the desperate, while hypergamy takes on many of the characteristics of prostitution in its opportunism, crassness and arbitrariness. As culture transforms to the new standard, its character changes, and opportunism based in self-interest would seem to be its most enduring feature;
  • As a commodity with both monetary and cultural value, sex as a leisure activity, kick-started during the sexual revolution, played a crucial role in the rise of feminism. The relationship between the success of feminism and the rise of our contraceptive technologies is not an accident. By commoditizing sex, feminism mobilized chivalry and prostitution in new ways. Feminism is both chivalry and prostitution, in that it depends on female sexuality to get its way. Feminism is chivalry in that it is simply a restatement of our established tradition of pedestalizing women and it is prostitution in that it relies on chivalry to extract freebies for women at the expense of men.

If we have our reservations about religion, with its abstract, otherworldly references to impractical concepts like heaven and hell, then what we are witnessing today is the transformation of culture to a kind of hell on earth. You cannot get more hands-on than that.

Cultural wholes

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss cultural wholes in detail. Nonetheless, these are important ideas that we need to at least touch on. We need to understand that every culture is a whole in the sense that every culture stands for something. What the culture stands for is what gives it its “flavor”. Throughout history, people have tried to provide an interpretation along these lines, trying to provide a definition of cultural essence.

Elias Cannetti’s (1973) discussion of national crowd symbols is about as sophisticated an interpretation that we might hope for, given the dominance of our genocentric paradigm. He provides compelling examples in his descriptions of national crowd symbols as they apply to English, Dutch, German, French, Swiss, Spanish, Italian and Jewish cultures.

What a culture stands for, what gives it its flavor, is its history. This includes its interactions with its environment, for example, the meanings attributed to the sea that surrounds a culture (as in Canetti’s portrayal of the English crowd symbol), or the forests that define its order (Canetti’s portrayal of the German crowd symbol).

Applying Canetti’s idea of national crowd symbols to the United States, we find that the American founding fathers and the US Constitution, slavery, the abolition of slavery, immigration, religious values, idealism, falsifiable science (and the genocentrism that is its legacy), idealism and so on, all came together to account for a flavor that is readily identifiable in mid-twentieth century America and the American flag. This America we might associate with individualism, innovation and standing up for what you believe in.

Feminism, liberalism and its associated groupthink all came together by the twenty-first century to transform America to something unrecognizable from what it once was. This contemporary America of today we are more likely to now associate with groupthink, self-interest (as opposed to individualism) and supplicating acquiescence. These transformations are taking place throughout most of the western world… pretty much every culture is in the process of being transformed into a new whole that is increasingly unrecognizable to what the culture once stood for.

Cultural transformations blend the old with the new. For example, the undercurrents of collectivism, authoritarianism, acquiescence to authority, misogyny and misandry that characterized Australia at its inception are alive and well today. Indeed, the current leftist paradigm that is sweeping the world resonates with something from Australia’s authoritarian, collectivist past of which both dominant political parties in Australia (Labor and conservative-Liberal) are manifestations. Australia provides rich, fertile soil for the feminist agenda, regardless of which party is ascendant – one in the context of Marxist feminism, the other in the context of conservative chivalry with a collectivist bent.

Every normal, well-adjusted person in a culture accepts what their culture stands for. They embrace their cultural identity and if they did not, then they would not be “normal” as their culture defines “normal”. A culture that accepts feminism and incorporates it into its legal and social structures stands for a collective ideal. That collective ideal we might interpret as liberalism. Every normal, well-adjusted person in a liberal culture incorporates liberalism into their identity. They “like” being liberals. They speak like liberals, in the accent of liberals.

Of course there comes a point of cultural absurdity where people begin to question their cultural norms. What was once blindly accepted as normal becomes absurd, and those ingesting the red pill begin to realize that the old normal becomes the new insane.

Enter AVfM, stage right.

So what does all this have to do with our contraceptive technologies, the sexual revolution and cultural decay? Let us take a look at the alpha/beta distinction that is routinely being played out at the House of Chateau.

Alpha/beta unity

The alpha/beta distinction is one that does not apply as a universal across all cultures. There are cultures where the image of the strutting alpha versus supplicating beta really doesn’t resonate in the same way that it does in the secular Anglosphere. During the European Renaissance, for example, we doubt that the dominant alpha deriving his sense of worth from how often he gets laid would have much staying power.

In fact, truth be told, the classic PUA-guru stereotype, average in stature, appearance, purpose and ambition, would probably have Renaissance-Euros scratching their heads in bemusement, wondering what all the fuss was about. Digging a bit deeper, we would find that legends like Giacomo Casanova(Wikipedia, 2012) would probably have borne little resemblance to our contemporary ideal of the exciting, bad-boy alpha. Why? Because they come from cultures that stand for concepts that are entirely alien to the genocentric/ materialistic/ hedonistic/ secular paradigm that currently dominates mainstream thought.

For example, of Casanova’s time studying law at university, Wikipedia observes “…he had become something of a dandy—tall and dark, his long hair powdered, scented, and elaborately curled.” We get the impression that Casanova was an exceptional individual, one who Wikipedia describes as “[having] an intense appetite for knowledge, and a perpetually inquisitive mind… valued intelligence in a woman… a man of far-ranging intellect and curiosity.” With his training in law and his connections among the powerful and the elite, he probably had more characteristics in common with the gayest in our gay communities rather than bearing any resemblance to the rebellious, bad-boy reprobate/frat-boy that characterizes contemporary hookup culture.

The fictional operatic character, Don Juan/ Don Giovanni (Wikipedia, 2012), typically portrayed as a “young, arrogant, sexually promiscuous nobleman” predisposed to duels and to networking with the rich and famous, is similarly quite alien to the PUA stereotype. As a fictional character, he may bear little resemblance to the reality, but he would certainly be a manifestation of the cultural values aspired to at the time.

No matter which character we analyze from centuries ago, fictional or otherwise, one is left with the impression that they tend to exceptional individuals that stood for higher values, holding to notions of courage, guts and honour – they were a very different breed to today’s paper-Lothario/court-jester whose validation is contingent on obtaining sex from women by performing tricks. One famous PUA-guru reminds me of my accountant. Another reminds me of my car mechanic. Both are about as formidable as Wayne (from the movie Wayne’s World).

Casanova’s chronicled lifetime exploits, numbering anything between 122 and 200 (as variously reported), pale to insignificance in comparison to the thousands that some contemporary movie and rock legends, like Jack Nicholson, Mick Jagger or Warren Beatty, are said to lay claim to. If we accept these sorts of figures as reasonable, it does raise the question… how can you become a proficient, talented performer when you must, on average, be fucking a different woman most every other day of the week, at a minimum (divide 5000 by 365 over, say, 20 years of productivity)?

Why bother? Doesn’t it get old? At what point does the whiff of yet another vajayjay make you want to retch? How many coyote moments must you chew through? How can one even be bothered to clutter his life with the menagerie of mediocrity that a different woman every other day of the week would seem to imply? After all, they cannot all be “nines” and “tens” because one city – nay, ten cities – only has so many “hot” women. What’s the significance of a culture predisposed to accepting these legendary tallies and touting them as achievements? What exactly is the nature of this obsession with quantity that we might ultimately attribute to our contraceptive technologies?

Having clarified my scepticism, I should add that during my time playing in a band, we were followed around by a smattering of groupies. Women would make themselves available, and those in our band that would regularly partake of what was on offer frequently enjoyed a brief, animalistic release that was more of an obligatory drill than an exciting thrill.

Driving back home one night after a gig, for example, I parked our car on the side of the highway to rest, when our guitarist would unceremoniously drag his compliant groupie from the back seat, without conversation, and take her to a nearby bush and dump his load into her. A few miles down the road, we’d drop her off, and none of us would hear from her again. Very Bang Bus, to say the least, only it was no act. In her compliance and his indifference, it wasn’t rape, but it certainly was not something to write home about, nor share with her grand-children in her old age. What did she get out of it? Boasting rights?

She laid a band guitarist, of course! A very average base guitarist, I might add. But more authentic rock legends surely have an easier time of it, given their frequent, fleeting stays in accessible hotel rooms with bevies of women queued up for their chance to sample fame, and for them there is no shortage of opportunity. Sure, for the most conspicuous among alpha rock legends, the thousands are easily achievable… but from our perspective… why bother?

And when his thousands of copulations become something of an undifferentiated blur, it’s hard to imagine anything coming close, for a woman, to an exciting rape fantasy being realized. But maybe herein lies the typical groupie’s cognitive dissonance. Perhaps what she is secretly hoping for, in her attempt to realize her rape fantasy, is that she alone, from among all his conquests numbering in the thousands, is so desirable that he becomes overwhelmed in his passion to the extent that he cannot help but ravish her. Yeah, right. In her dreams.

Novelty and excitement amid a sea of mediocrity

If we accept the thesis that central to female sexual arousal is the thrill of the forbidden (meaning the cultural forbidden, where it is culture that establishes what is known and permissible about the world), then whence do women have this need met? Can an aging rock legend, or any other uber-alpha tallying 5000 paramours or more, make a woman feel like she’s doing something novel, exciting and forbidden? Can he fulfil her rape fantasies? Or will the cold, clinical and indifferent approach of someone who’s had thousands before her leave her feeling anything but sexually violated and aroused?

Well, she may feel violated, but perhaps it’s not quite what she had in mind. Her fantasy of being ravished by a high-voltage rock legend craving release for his uncontrollable urges will more likely fall flat. Her post-copulatory experience will likely leave her feeling more like a used tampon or a mechanic’s oil-soaked rag tossed in the corner than a desirable beauty spent after a torrid ravishing.

She might be able to claim bragging rights, but at what point does the excitement of what she had imagined in her rape fantasies kick in? We can only imagine that her experience would be one of disappointment… bragging rights notwithstanding.

Perhaps the solution to her impending disappointment is not an uber-alpha with the predictable grind of thousands of paramours, but an uber-thug predisposed to unpredictable mood swings and maybe even denied access to any paramours at all. Much has been written about women’s attraction to dangerous criminals and rapists who have been convicted, and the word to describe this proclivity is hybristophilia.

Julie Bindel’s (2012) thesis is that the women who fall for convicted criminals are, contrary to media portrayals of them as unhinged, “… well adjusted, with good social skills.” Among her examples, she cites the story of “bright, articulate and immediately likeable” socialite Rosalie, who had gone on from her marriage to socialite lawyer Victor Martinez, to marry convicted rapist and serial killer of women, Oscar Bolin. A contrasting turn of events to say the least, given that in her second marriage, any thought of throwing parties for politicians and celebrities was no longer an indulgence that she would have access to.

Bindel quotes from her conversation with Dr Lorraine Sheridan, a forensic psychologist with the Sellenger Centre for Research in Law, Justice and Social Change at Australia’s Edith Cowan University:


Women who get into relationships with death row prisoners often have much in common with those who spend their lives creating shrines to and writing to celebrities […] These women have a relationship, in their perception, with an exciting, high-status person […] The death row romances take this a step further, in that they are able to have a reciprocal ‘celebrity’ relationship. There’s also the factor of having nabbed an ultra alpha male, one who has carried out the greatest of violent acts.

At one level, all this seems to corroborate the alpha/beta dichotomy that the PUA community takes for granted. But at another level, there seems to be something missing from this picture. The incarcerated criminal of Rosalie’s second marriage is not strutting about like a conquering alpha. Rather, he is rotting in a cell, his spirit bowed and subdued. Psychically, he must surely be a castrato, and his wife would seem to have him right where she wants him, under her control in a prison cell – writes Bindel:


Yet there is something grotesque about the way they objectify these men in cages and are able to exercise absolute control over them.

Who would have thought? Is there something about our zeitgeist that is leaving women somehow unfulfilled? One thing we can say for certain… Rosalie’s incarcerated alpha Oscar Bindel is no dandy Giacomo Casanova.

From a broader perspective, our inferences are consistent with those of Otto Weininger (1906), who observed a relationship between criminality and prostitution. The shared principle being that there is something about female sexuality that in moral conduct is drawn to the formidable and the possible in man, but in immoral conduct is drawn to the dangerous and the degenerate. Thus the thrill of the forbidden is related to the thrill of throwing it away.


There is a wealth of inferences that can be made from an in-depth analysis of the experiment that is our contraceptive industry and its impact on culture. Such an analysis, were it to be conducted by a reputable academia with due rigor, has within it the potential to seed an entirely new paradigm. Obviously we cannot but scratch the surface here. So we’ll conclude this post with a point-form summary.

  • Our contraceptive technologies are responsible for options that were never available prior the sexual revolution. As a consequence of these new options, our brains are wired in new ways to account for new desires and motivations that never existed before;
  • Our contraceptive technologies, as derivatives of the genocentric paradigm, are an integral component of the sexual revolution. There can be no sexual revolution without some form of reliable contraceptive technology;
  • Feminism is an integral component of the sexual revolution. There can be no sexual revolution without some form of feminism. Why? Because the sexual revolution is driven by primal impulses that shift the balance of power. Men, as the source of contrived, market-driven demand, have “needs” that must be met, while women, as the source of supply, can only respond to so many needs, there are only so many women to go around. The thrill of the forbidden provides the basis for these primal impulses, and when women no longer experience the thrill of the forbidden, that is, when the forbidden becomes mundane and men become undifferentiated, always-available drones that inspire neither passion nor fantasy, women will hold the balance of power in their control of supply.  Feminism represents the power vacuum into which those who are in control of supply will drift;
  • But isn’t it possible at all to have a sexual revolution… in the sense of the promiscuity and the porn industry characterizing our zeitgeist… in the absence of the sort toxic hatred exemplified in feminism? No, I would argue that it is not. In the context of any form of sexual permissiveness, the primal motivations of the human sex drive will always provide the basis for self-interest and the pecking orders that are destined to crystallize out of them. For example, the alpha/beta distinction held by PUAs is false and has no basis in objective reality. Such distinctions are an inevitable outcome of self-interest;
  • Our contemporary experience of feminism and its relationship to our contraceptive industry provides tangible evidence of the reality of hell. It takes vague, abstract, religious references alluding to angels, God and Satan to provide a hands-on interpretation of heaven and hell in the context of cultural health and well-being and cultural decline. There are indeed consequences for tampering with natural law, and consequences for bad choices;
  • Abortion has progressed from being an option of last resort to an instrument of convenience that provides everyone with greater agency over their lifestyle choices. This amps the dumb materialism of the west to new highs. Irrespective of what beliefs we might hold as to when life begins or even the morality of snuffing it out, that a mother would kill her own crosses a line. Irrespective of whether life is deemed to start at 5 hours or 5 weeks or 5 months of gestation, what kind of love can a woman who would kill her growing fetus in the interests of lifestyle choice have for her offspring? Just because our cultures have incorporated abortion as mainstream does not make it right – our cultures are the experiment, and our indifference is a part of what we are investigating. Yet, for all our comfortable acceptance of it, it is well documented that psychological sequelae can persist for years following an abortion (Mail Online, 2005). As they say in the movies, the first time you kill someone is the hardest, and it gets easier as you go along. But just because it gets easier, just because your neural wiring adapts to enable you to accept it, does not mean that you’re going to get away with it scot-free;
  • The Nazis loved their children and their opposite sex. Pictures of Hitler abound where he is in the company of fawning women and their beaming children. Communists and Stalinists loved their children and their opposite sex, as did North Koreans, or pretty much any other totalitarian regime that understood the importance of investing in their children’s futures. Even racist fringe-dwellers like the Ku Klux Klan were capable of loving their own kind. Only feminists can incorporate the hatred of their children and their own kind into their ideology. Only feminism, as a totalitarian ideology, is willing to routinely harm its sons, husbands, fathers, brothers and uncles, disadvantage them, put them down and deny them opportunities at every turn. Feminism is a viciously toxic, hateful and ugly ideology that does not refrain from negativity of the most damaging kind;
  • Our experiment establishes that when nature removes the consequences of childbirth from women’s choices, their choices will retreat from the formidable and the respectable towards the mundane and the desperate. Proximity and arbitrariness rather than quality and agency become the primary variables impacting on choice, with shallowness displacing authenticity in both men and women. Social proof, negs and cocky one-liners become the PUA tactics of choice that have women, if not swoon, then at least enter into the proximity wherein they might realize their arbitrary, dumb choices. The dudes of Wayne’s World are now in the running, they stand a chance, while less shallow men, disinclined to compete against the tiresome Garths and Waynes of our zeitgeist, might prefer the solace of going their own way. The exceptionalism that distinguished Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan from the masses becomes a distant memory. Quantity trumps quality. Mediocrity becomes the new standard-bearer and groupthink the source of motivation;
  • It is according to the above terms that human brains are now being wired, and human motivations are now being formed. Welcome to hell on earth, the hell of which feminism is an integral part. The first word that comes to mind… holocaust.


Bindel, J., 2012. In love with a death row dandy. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].

Canetti, E., 1973. Crowds and power. Aylesbury(Bucks): Penguin Books.

Chateau Heartiste, 2012. Pope Paul VI On Birth Control Externalities. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].

Doidge, N., 2008. The Brain that Changes Itself. Melbourne: Scribe Publications.

Doidge, N., 2012. The brain that changes itself official website. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].

Haier, R. J. et al., 2005. The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: sex matters. NeuroImage, 25, 320-327.. NeuroImage, Volume 25, pp. 320-327.

Mail Online, 2005. Abortion trauma ‘can last for years’. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 8 December 2012].

Olsen, S., 2005. Newsmaker: Are we getting smarter or dumber?. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 12 2012].

Pope Paul VI, 1968. Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Human Births), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 4 December 2012].

Weininger, O., 1906. Sex and character. Translated from the 6th German edition ed. London: William Heinemann. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Weininger, O. & Solway, K., n.d. Sex and character, by Otto Weininger. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 10 December 2012].

Wikipedia, 2012. Don Giovanni. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].

Wikipedia, 2012. Giacomo Casanova. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].


About Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster)

With his interests in science and philosophy, Codebuster's practical interpretations of theory provide fresh perspectives to contemporary problems. Necessity is the mother of invention, and Codebuster foresees that in men's rights we have the new necessity for maybe a whole new paradigm.

View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Kimski

    “Quantity trumps quality. Mediocrity becomes the new standard-bearer and groupthink the source of motivation.”

    It applies to almost every aspect of modern life, and not just sexual relations. Welcome to the brave new world, where stupid is the new smart, and popularity trumps rational decision making.

    • Ray

      …but, but, but what about the map gap? How’s an American supposed to know geography if poor people in places like Africa, or China don’t know that, or can’t understand, and I can’t have those maps too? Like how man? Answer that, will ya? :-/ This G-string is so tight it’s cutting off circulation to my brain! Someone get me a Diet-Pepsi please!!! Do I have to do everything myself? But seriously, what about world peace?

    • Codebuster

      but… but… she’s so pretty!

      … when pretty is the new ugly

  • James Huff

    This is a masterpiece. I have waited months for this article to come out,as I well remember the conversation I had with Codebuster so long ago concerning the trouble he was having putting this together. Codebuster, I think you have hit the nail on the head with this piece. Thank you.

    • Paul Elam

      Could not agree more, Mr. Huff.

      I always knew that if a place were provided, for men to speak up and to further intelligent counter-theory in these god awful times, that it would happen.

      What I could not have predicted was that we would eventually create a chronicle of some of the greatest thinkers in modern times.

      I just spend a few minutes going through the history of articles for this site. There is literally nothing else like it anywhere, and it just keeps getting better.

      Codebuster, thanks for another grand shot directly over the center field fence.

    • JJ

      I agree; as long as it is I could not stop reading it.

      The women in prisons are no different than the Roman women who frequented the slaves in the coliseums; I wonder if they told their husbands they were “going to market”?

      Also, the part on CH was undeniable. I use to be a PUA, and a pretty damn good one. I guess it just got old; I won’t reveal my notch count. It is nothing I am proud of now. I realize that without feminism, I could never of had it. Yet when I started what I really wanted was a wife, kids, good job or business, and the respect of my community. After a few years on the dating scene something was amiss; and I discovered game. I became nightmare; but eventually I wanted out and failed to realize I had lost the very thing tat would have guaranteed my marriage if I had one; innocence. I lost it, and the dudes over there who can sleep with married women, something I adamantly avoided, do so like it is the cuckold’s fault for not keeping her interested and marrying her in the first place. They are not responsible.

      Reminds me of another “gender warrior” type I am aware of.

      Overall, this article is exceptional. Its scope and authenticity, plus the sources is high quality for the internet.

      In some ways I favor the male birth control options; in others I fear if it won’t complete the cycle rather than just continue it?

      • The Observer

        My general line of thought is that even if Male BC doesn’t help fix the problem, it’ll help bring everything down even faster and we can start rebuilding sooner. Whatever the case, men controlling their own fertility can only be a good thing for us (not so for our opponents, of course).

        I’m still waiting for news of Gandarusa after the Nov 2 announcement that the research team submitted their findings to the Indonesian government. Indinesia is about as far as one can get from the usual forces arrayed against male BC, but I still worry about the silence.

        • JJ

          If you saw that video from the Brazilian doctor who pushed his cotton drawn version in the eighties; you will hear him say that Betty Friedan had a crew that followed him all over the world.

          My page on the topic:

          Also, the FDA has had numerous drugs given to it; and then nothing is heard from them again. I strongly suspect that feminists and their sponsors keep track of it because it will not produce money for Big Pharma, and feminists will lose their monopoly on reproductive rights.

          These two things, coupled with their hidden tax Ponzi scheme called Social Security are inseparably linked.

          If the Men’s Movement gets to prominence; the consumer economy goes bye bye, and women will have to contend with the stiff opposition of men who have been brutalized by their system who want to compete fairly and truth. Thereby kicking women out of most spheres and social benefits; simultaneously being unwilling to marry them for fear of their incessant and dogmatic gender warrior nature.

          The Male Birth Control Option is to the gender war, what a LENR device that works would be to the world’s energy needs; a complete overhaul to an oppressive system. Oppressive by design; ready, and ripe for the picking.

          This is why I suspect the opposition to us is going to get brutal in a way that feminists never had to deal with; they were sponsored in my opinion because they sponsored big government. We wish to limit it, or leave it completely. Uncle Sam will not part from his taxes! Cohabitation agreements, or MGTOWers be damned. He will get his; even if he has to take it out of our hides.

          The Army released their strategy for they believe by 2016 their maybe an “issue with right wing groups” specifically white people. Our government is up to something, and it does not look good:

          Sorry about the link, but read it anyways if you don’t believe me, then find the US Army manual from 2010-2028. It is not a good thing for them to be thinking about war on our own citizens. Overseas the Army is our prison guards, the Air Force air security; as the Navy and Marines usually have already done the heavy lifting. In this case, this si the army putting the smack down on a intent opposition of “white tea partiers” they claim might try something like this in NC where the scenario is staged.

          Wonderful times indeed if true! Simply wonderful; now lets give praise to our glorious leader as I heard he raised our chocolate rations by an ounce. See you at the two minute hate! Yayyyyyyyyyy!

          • Dean Esmay

            I have always been highly skeptical about that Brazlian doctor’s story and I would caution others to be as well. Whether you like Betty Friedan or not, this is one guy with an uncorroborated anecdotal story (uncorroborated so far as I can see) and there is reason if you look to think that the oil he’s talking up so much can actually cause permanent sterility and other issues. Beware of hanging onto one story like that.

            Even if you think Friedan was evil incarnate, if someone said “she drank baby blood and was into clown sex” I’d have to ask “where did you get that?”

            Just sayin’, I don’t know how seriously we should treat that one story. I do agree with you that if the governments of the world took as much interest in men’s health as they do women’s… hell, if they had a quarter as much interest in it.. things would be very different.

            Of course our libertarian friends will say there should be no such government spending at all, not all that interested in debating that point, just saying, if there WERE government interest, you’re probably right.

          • JJ


            I have tried very hard to find information, and out of the thirty articles I read through from the year 2000 to present 2012; all of them had one of two things or both in common. A. Only five years out and waiting for approval to proceed to phase three human trials. B. They were very far along in their respective country, India to Israel, China to Brazil.

            Nothing here though; strange.

            That video you may be right; you may be wrong. However there was no firestorm about it.

        • JJ

          My thoughts on that here:

          Honestly, the feminists and big Pharma are not going to let that go. Our version would be cheap, and not purchased enough. Also, it does not bring the needed clout in DC as we are not supporters of big government.

          Wonderful. I did another comment but it did not go through?

    • Codebuster

      Thanks James. All that stuff we talked about regarding the US Constitution and principles applies here, too, so the brush that I paint with is much wider than one post can accommodate.

      • JJ

        Nice brush strokes in the painting so far Picasso; how long you been painting that one? Honestly, I think you kept the detail just fine. Looking forward to your POV on the Constitution, even though that document might be used for confetti come the next Congressional session?

  • ronwisegamgee

    As I read this article, I got to thinking about the outrage that a lot of pro-choice folk had when laws were proposed in certain states where a woman who wanted an abortion had to undergo a mandatory ultra-sound before going through with the abortion. While some may call this a stifling of the abortion process (even though no mention of abortion-halting was even mentioned), this seems to actually serve as a reality check for women who want to utilize abortion as birth control for casual sex: the consequences of their actions/inactions (not taking birth control pills or morning-after pills) will cause the death of a human being should they proceed to go through with the abortion.

    I highly doubt that, had the male birth control pill come out first, men would be as irresponsible as the single mothers who “forgot” to take their birth control pills, at least not to that degree.

  • TPH

    Codebuster, very well researched article. Here is an article in Scientific American on the way Birth control affects women’s taste in men:

  • The Observer


    It’s hard to feel anything but utter, crushing despair after having read an article like this, something I’m feeling more and more often. Some days it gets to the point where I wonder that we’re turning into something akin to lions en masse, where most males don’t have the chance to reproduce and are kicked out from the pride at majority to fight other males for the privilege of mating, and when another alpha male takes over the pride, all cubs are killed and pregnant lionesses will absorb/miscarry their fetuses just so they can mate with the new alpha.

    And the questions keep circling: where do we go from here? What can we do? CAN something be done? Do we let Rome burn and try to build again from the ashes, or do we try to put out the fire? Would it be better to let humanity reduce itself to a few pieces of plastic in the Burgess Shale, and hope that whatever species comes after us has a better go at it than we did?

    It’s these questions that keep me awake at night.

    • James Huff

      Our first mission is to Educate. This includes everything from current events, to theory, to preparedness. Our secondary and tertiary missions are to Support others and Change the culture through direct activism.

      We can make predictions of the future all day long, and those predictions may be very bleak, but it does not alter the fact that we have a moral obligation to fulfill these missions. Even if it all comes crumbling down, we still have to be personally responsible for the type of environment we create afterward.

      Many would love to set down this heavy weight that tries to crush our minds. It is a significant burden to know how reality really operates. Some would like to Unknow and Unsee because the knowledge automatically creates a sense of personal accountability for how they use it and spend their lives. It becomes intrusive to some, as they had always been taught that what really is oughtn’t get in the way of what they really want. Being brought up with subjective ideas has created a harder road for them as our entire knowledge base is forged from objectivity.

      In the end though, there is no room for despair. I have found great comfort along the way to fulfill our missions. Each person I talk to about the truth, each idea that is spread from one to another, each solution set to paper and discussed, and each plan made to rebuild from the ashes of a fallen civilization have all contributed to a sense of self that only comes when doing your utmost to fulfill our missions. I can look in the mirror at the end of day and actually know what love is. I can see the small ripples that I create both inside and outside our community of learned and determined people, and know that if we all do this that those ripples will become waves.

      I know that for every person we reach that we are still creating a brighter future, even after a Great Fall, and what we offer in the end far outweighs any sense of despair some of us may have. We offer Hope.

      • JJ

        Yeah, I agree. Civilizations have known for a very long time that degenerates come; and then abruptly disappear. Often, it takes a major catastrophe for these degenerates to be discovered when they fail in their incompetence.

        Most of the people running the show get positions of influence that pay high salaries before they go back to work in government making policies that only they capitalize on! Those in power now are there solely for themselves; and the ones who make them richer.

        Rahm Emmanuel had a nice cushy advisory job where he did not work much; but got paid huge at Goldman Sachs before Obama won in 2008. Michele had several positions like this around Chicago where she had a ridiculous six figure salary to not even show up. In other words; her family, political connections garnered her payment and all it needed was a title to legitimate the bribe.

        The Bush dynasty does the same thing; it is not what you know but who you know. You honestly think McCain is that dynamic of a politician? Of course not; neither was Bush Jr. Bush Sr IOW was no joke. He “worked well” behind the scenes. Yet after Noriega and PGW1 he had outlived his usefulness; another more degenerate manager was needed. One who could really “handle the staff” in the White House.

        It is all a show; but eventually their corruption bears fruit of indebtedness; and they have to fork over the cash for their failures. Then out they go.

        The key is being positioned correctly to take advantage however, as a believer of an NWO working behind the scenes I just think this whole thing is man made, and new tools will come into power for them But that is just me, I have my tin foil cone hats in a large dispenser just in case.

        It is a cycle, and a game that is played to convince us our vote matters. Feminism is just one distraction; sadly, it is one that kills in the tens of millions if you don’t agree with abortion. Then just the millions upon millions if you do. Male suicide, teen rape, murder, school shootings; basically all the intangibles that offshoot from it but don’t get counted.

        End Feminism and the Fed and we are our own nation again. Keep it, and we might all be working brothels in China.

  • Autcel

    Male contraception would be a must if we want to break this over and create a new sexual revolution that cleanse the messes of the previous one, even if that means there will be people who abuse it.

  • Skeptic

    This is an excellent, very hot article, thank you Codebuster.
    Reading it I have several thoughts jostling in my head.
    You talk of a holocaust. Precisely the word which comes to mind when I think about the number of pre-borns aborted since Roe vs Wade. It makes the number of folks slaughtered under Nazism pale by comparison.
    This leads me to another thought.
    You talk of women’s immense power. In the reproductive sense due to contraception and abortion I think it can be said women are a kind of modern day deities in that they literally hold the power of life or death over pre-borns at their whim. Incidentally that may go some way to explain why with such immense power some of them will do such terrible things as frequent a daytime TV show and en masse, on air for the world to see, laugh openly about a man having his penis severed off and thrown into a garbage disposal.
    Such imagery turns my stomach, and would leave me despondent about relations between the sexes were it not for certain other considerations.
    I think it’s true to say as you do that in the current climate we are in a kind of hellish condition.
    Such is the short game of feminism.
    Yet there is a longer game I see gradually unfolding which in turn must be the terror of many a feminist who has had the gumption to think about it. They certainly aren’t discussing it as far as I can tell.
    Imagine 5 years from now.
    Information technology processing power due to Moore’s law ( Moore’s law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years) has more than quadruppled from what it is today.
    In such a situation virtually (no pun intended!) everyone in the developed AND developing world at that time has at least what we now call a top of the range 4G smartphone. Most people have twice the computing power of that!
    The instant, widespread, easy dissemination of information AND it’s exponential growth is staggering! Here it becomes impossible to stifle ideas.
    You think we’re making an impact now, just wait!
    At this future time news of Japan’s Grass Eating men and Western MGTOWs rejection of traditional provider-protector disposable object role has some time ago filtered through to men everywhere.
    Men at this time have acquired various forms of reversible birth control methods themselves too which we might for the sake of brevity lump together and call the male birth control pill.
    Now, under such conditions the sexual market value of men sky rockets as sperm changes from being easy for women to acquire to an item of immense scarcity.
    See where this is leading?
    Newer technology trumping old technology (the male birth control pill trumps the female birth control pill) leading once again to another rewiring of our plastic brains.
    So, I envisage a not too distant future in which MALE sexual value is hugely increased, as many women will still want to fulfill maternal instincts, and the reproductive boot will by then be on the other foot (men’s) by then.
    Parthenogenesis of two female eggs to date won’t work – too many offspring die.
    Under such conditions men will be able to be much more choosey over when, where, and with which female they allow to have their sperm for the purpose of reproduction. Men will start to lay down conditions for reproduction (You wanna play with me? Then you have to play nice sister) – changes to laws surrounding their relationships with women: marriage and reproductive law, domestic violence law, sexual violation law AND changes to conditions and conventions within the relationships themselves.
    Along this line I can easily imagine little by little it will be women’s turn to have to court men, impressing them with their ability to provide (maybe an underlying reason why so many young women are desperate to get higher education); impress men with their ability to be pleasant, helpful, humane, compassionate.
    AND men, in a sense the powerful root of fertility, will with consummate ease be able to use staggering information technology to network, sifting and sorting the female wheat from the chaff (imagine hundreds, perhaps thousands of A Voice for Men type websites globally with the capacity to translate instantly and deeply, and so ‘talk’ to one another exposing female immorality just for starters).
    We MRA are living in interesting times.

    • Codebuster

      “We MRA are living in interesting times.”

      Indeed we are. I get the feeling that we are seeing history being made, from so many initiatives coming from this very site.

  • bowspearer

    This article shouldn’t be commented on. Commenting on it implies something can be added to the argument it presents. In this case there is simply nothing further which could be added to this deep, profound and insightful article. Well done.

  • Dr. F


    I am knock-able with a feather. This opus is remarkable.

    Thank you.

    • Codebuster

      But I don’t know that Loy Finley or the crowd at Monash would approve :(

  • faroefaxi

    Hi Codebuster

    I just want to say this is a masterpiece.

    and I was wondering if it would be ok, if I could take this article and use it. I’m studying atm to become a pedagogue. and this article has a lot of points in it that I have being wondering about lately but haven’t been able to put into words and I wood love to show this article to my professors . :-)

    And as always sharing the love the Viking way 😛

  • scatmaster

    OT: But important IMO

    major league pitcher victim of sexual assault by 13 year old baby sitter.

  • Mr. J

    WOW, brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

  • Aimee McGee

    Mr Codebuster,

    Thank you so much for this. I’ve been wrestling for a “handle” for my next article and your article has helped me work out what it is!

  • Codebuster

    Nice to get back from a crazy-busy day to find all these great comments. Thanks for the comments everyone. I’ve been banging this drum for a looooong time now. You try different forums, different contexts, science, politics, etc, and you wonder if what you are saying is making an impact. Sometimes there are signs that you are, but you can never be sure, so feedback is important. What people need is something to resonate with, and I immediately identified Chateau Heartiste’s post as something that can provide that.

    I’ve made numerous attempts to start another book, but it’s not going to work. A whole book covers too much ground. You want to give people bite-sized, easily digestible chunks of Goldiloks size, just right, that brings key concepts together in one delivery. Too much, and they’ll get lost in forest. Too little, and it won’t make an impact. I think that the internet is the ideal venue for these reasons. So I think I’ll give the idea of a book a pass. Thanks to Paul and crew of AVFM for providing a voice for our ideas. AVFM is home base.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, and in men’s and women’s rights we have the necessity for inventing a new paradigm.

    • Skeptic

      Please reconsider the idea of a book.
      I think you are too humble. Your writing is cutting edge, of very high quality and worthy of being turned into a book.
      You can always have those bite sized pieces you talk of as short chapters in any case.
      I remember reading a book formatted like that by Jack Kammer – “If men have all the power, how come women make the rules?”
      Lots of bite sized chunks in it.

      For anyone interested it can be freely downloaded as a PDF document here –

  • Ivo Vos

    One more excellent, I mean really excellent, article. Patience is the way to go when new paradigms have to be communicated. Piece by piece so the fuses of the audience are not blown. Although it might not be a bad idea to collect your ideas over time, think about binding them all together (probably takes a couple of years) in a sort of overview, a book.
    One more thing, this paradigm shift will probably and unavoidable lead to a slow and painfull destruction of the current destructors who are busy creating a hell on earth. Despite of all of our attempts to avoid this. It’s soul wrenching, but there it is.

  • Xevaster

    Excellent article.
    You mention hell on earth in the current social clime. This made me wonder about the future of the family in our culture. When a reliable universal male contraceptive is available and sperm becomes a valuable commodity, will women be forced to grow up? When a man can no longer be trapped by an accidental pregnancy, will we see a resurgence of the nuclear family? Not a return to the Ward and June Cleaver paradigm, but as men gain ground in reproduction will more women be willing to once again be part of a full family unit?
    I am a firm believer that a strong family is the basis for a strong culture. Men and women working together to support, love and guide their children to be strong, caring, independent, hard working,honest people. Once that happens I can see a Renaissance happen and our culture can move forward and we can create a world of true universal equality filled with strong, loving, helpful men and women. This is what I think our ultimate goal is. Equality for All.

    • Europa Phoenix

      I share your belief. A strong family is the basis of a strong culture (and a strong society).

      But… I’m sorry to inform you that biologists all around the world are working on a new technology that could enable the creation of babies with 2 eggs (and no sperm cells).
      Sooner or later, we will see the birth of the very first baby girl with 2 biological mothers … and no father. (no male can be produced with this method : women don’t have a Y chromosome).

      I also heard of a method who works with 1 eggs and an another cell from any part of the body :

      Women won’t need men to have babies. They’ll need money.

      • Skeptic

        Europa Phoenix,
        the article from the BBC you linked to was from 2001!
        It’s simply a misandric feminist pipe dream.
        Since then it’s ideas have been disproved.
        As I said earlier in the thread parthenogenesis of two ovum won’t work. Go ahead and google it.
        Asexual production doesn’t allow any room for variation in genetics. The results even if they were viable: scary thought in many cases – think of the rampant spread of Fannypad: FNPD – Feminist Narcissistic Personality Disorder for a start!…….. Jeeze what a nightmare!
        Primer – there’s an idea for a dystopian science fiction story for you.
        Could be a big money earner!

        Read more:

        Seems nature really is a bitch when it comes to the idea of two lesbians gettin’ their thang on in a petri-dish!
        Offspring need to have the male Y chromosome to have both genetic differentiation and resistance to certain diseases.
        So not only do we men drive technology and culture forward as history shows, but we are a vital per-requisit to the development of the whole species genetically too.
        Of course if you want to go all feminist and carry on regardless, hey knock yourself out (genetically speaking)

        • Europa Phoenix

          Thank you for the links. They are very interesting.

          So it seems that Nature doesn’t like cheaters. Human beings have to follow her rules… I won’t complain.
          A baby created with 2 ovum was a scary thought.

          But, I’m sure there will be more tries to realise this non-sense. There is a market (and an ideological backgound) for it.
          The fact that such children would be a dead-end for our species won’t stop the research.

          “Asexual production doesn’t allow any room for variation in genetics” : I guess they don’t really care about variation in genetics. They already have a lot of problems to tolerate sexual differences (according to the Feminist ideogues, we don’t have a sex, we have a gender. Males and Females are the same, differences are just a social constuction). The less variations, the better… their dream is a 100% Female world.

  • Verdad

    I am speechless, because you just blasted my brain with a shotgun of words.

    Well done, well said, and thank you for this informative article.

  • Manifold

    I hate ideologists and the way they twist science to fit their ideology. There is no pragmatism or science or falsiability in this article, save the few studies you quote soundbites from. Which you then dismiss by qualifying science as “genocentric”. Funny. The only thing here is a serious confirmation bias.