Words

The word has an emotional trigger.
Pop-Culture cultivates the imagery, sensation, emotions to be associated with specific words - Pavlovian psychological training.
Words no longer relate to reality, but refer to emotions, specific images, feelings....
It's all feminized.
Try discussing anything rationally with a feminine psychology?
Every words triggers feelings, secret meanings, insinuations...

Language is a tool...a technique/technology.
A tool to deal with world - a weapon is also a tool.
A tool to manipulate world - a hammer and nails are tools.
A tool to harvest resources from world - a sickle is a tool.

Tools are artifacts. Humans create them. They have an aesthetic appeal - they are art.
Tools are the externalization of an esoteric abstraction....an idea materialized via a medium.
A hammer has a specific use. It can be used for specific tasks.
Words have specific utilities.

Tools can be used as toys.
When the work is done, a hammer can be sued as a toy.
It can be used to symbolize a motorcycle, or something more abstract like power.
in times of peace tools and weapons are converted to toys.
Same thing happen with words.
When the mind lives in sheltering safety words become toys.

A boy can use the tool broom, as a magical flying device....and justify intricate narratives to justify this.
does a boy fly on a broom made to sweep?
Only in his mind.
Words can also be used in this fantastic manner.
What happens when tools are only used as toys?
Floors get dirty, houses are not built, civilization reverts to dirt and jungle.
Children ought to play with toys...for a while. Improvising and converting tools into toys is creative and imaginative.
Mistaking the tool for a toy, or forgetting the tools original use, is a recipe for degeneration.
It is preferable to play than to oil....but if play is all you do, then you will suffer the consequences.

You can use words as metaphors, twisting them into fantastic narratives but if this game goes on for too long, and sheltering is taken for granted, then the child loses contact with reality.
But, what if the parent that loves the child was replaced by an impersonal system that wanted the child to remain child-like, not because it loved it, but because ti wanted to exploit its retarded state indefinitely?
The child would be content playing with its toys, protected from reality, constructing fantastic alternative realities where it is a hero, a god, a king... whatever.
a child, like that, would support the 'benevolent' sheltering that permitted it to remain a child, playing with its toys, manipulating words, converting tools into toys.

What does your use of language reveal, other than how you relate to reality?
What does a language, emerging from a particular population, evolved in a particular environment, with particular historical shared past, reveal about them?
Their attitude, their psychological reactions to the environment, and every events they experienced.

Use cryptic language and it isn't you revealing a hidden world, but you hiding from world, or you hiding world from yourself.

Orwell said as much using fantasy narratives.
Eliminate a word from a people's vocabulary and they have no way of conceptualizing the idea.
This has implications.
The way you define words exposes intent.
If you want to engage reality, see it for what it is, you use language to facilitate this objective.
If the objective is to escape world, by confusing yourself, by using rhetoric to hide within, then the language you use, and how you apply words will reveal your intent.
If your intent is to manipulate, to exploit, to impress, to construct a favourable image of yourself in the other's mind, then the language you use and how you apply words will expose your intent.
If you want to pretend that you are seeking 'truth' when, in fact, you want to evade it, then how you define words will reveal your intent.

The use of words is not arbitrary, nor subjective.
There's a basic triangulation, reflecting the use of judgment and the evaluation of other.
Dictionary, refer sot convention that facilitates communication and reflects a historical relationship with world; vocalization, application, writing, exposes the neurological conduit connecting this past with the present; projection into future, idealization, the intended objective, finalized the triad.
This can remain theoretical, as it often does in philosophy, or it can be applied, resulting in indisputable consequences of cost/benefit, that can either be mis-evaluated, or ignored, repeating the same errors, or they can be taken into account to adjust and repeat the process of triangulation.
This is the process of judging, and of evaluating the consequences in relation to the intended goal. This is called consciousness, and its gradual sophistication is called intelligence.

Orgasm

οργω - extreme desire.
οργασμος - orgasm.
οργη - rage.

Through the extreme desire I accumulate excess energies, storing them, and keeping them on stand-by.
The storage itself requires effort - control, stress.
Nervous energies, kept in-the-ready, by the nervous system for the fight/flight mechanism.
Rage and sexual ecstasy closely related.
The release is the returning of what is stored back to world as (inter)activity.
It is accompanied by spasms, hyperventilation, or to muscle movement, converting the energies to action.    
The organism is triggered by a stimulation to begin the process of releasing the accumulated energies.

We see here the relationship between 'need' (lack), and, 'desire' (excess), as one indicating success, or virility in relation to world.
The organism accumulates and stores energies only if it is successful in appropriating to deal with attrition produced by (inter)action (Flux).
Eros/Thymos = the creative force of (inter)action (repulsion/attraction).

Eros relates to momentum – cosmic vibration.
The ancients conceived of eros as the striking of a cauldron, where cauldron is cosmos and eros the force that produces the process of (inter)activity – vibrations/oscillations. The ‘at work’ of energy εν-εργεια.
Similarity of orgy and ergo, is hard to miss.
The letters comprising the words are not accidental.
ΕΡΓΩ - ergo begins with the open ended epsilon and concludes with the omega indicating a towards an end, a conclusion, an objective. The omega is also open ended, from bottom/up. An expanding o.
ΟΡΓΗ - orgy begins with the omicron and ends with a upsilon. An accumulated whole enclosed, leading through a vibrating tongue and a clenched throat to a long release.

What is logos?
Ideas given to music - externalized as sound.
It is art.
The Christian 'god' could only have been logos - the abstraction expressed and in its externalization given form.....made 'real'.
'First came the 'word'....
The Abrahamic God could only exist as word - as logos.
Rationalized using words referring to other words.

Language, art, made this nonsensical 'god' sensual.
Art as God. God as Art.

The course towards subjective solipsism was laid down with 'good intentions'.
Man's mind became 'God' worshipping itself, through an other, at first....then directly - self-worshipping.
Man sanctified his mind.
Beginning with detaching it from the body.
Consciousness was divine...mysterious.

Logos made the world a mythos, and itself its creator.

How did the noumenon dominate in the minds of some tribes, evolving into absolutes, and monotheism?

How easy it is to take the abstraction literally?
How comforting the way we can manipulate it, just using our thinking - just willing it?
Like gods we feel.
At first we think of ourselves as conduits of an external consciousness.
It's been described as a stage in the evolution of self-consciousness, by Jaynes...calling it the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Essentially the individual, when faced with an uncertain, unknown, threatening, world of phenomena, flees inward, in the mind full of noumena...like an artist preferring the art-piece depicting the lion prefers it to the actual lion.
It does not stand and fight....it flees, sometimes physically but much easier to flee mentally....in your head. To cover yourself in thought, in symbols, in worlds, convinced the world will not find you - believing you are immune, buried in your words, in your thoughts...some pulling, erotically, some pushing, thymotically.  

How man could externalize his abstractions, his esoteric noumena, must have seemed magical to him....and those who could do it, artists, magical beings, with mysterious powers.
Where were these images coming from?
As if from nowhere....they spontaneously emerged in the mind of the thinker.

How easy it is to invert reality in our mind?
We take the experienced and reverse it, and then we represent this reversal using art....language.
No, not art...fArt.
Like mystical talismans that could ward off the evilness of existence.

Body<>Nervous System<>Mind ...severed along the nervous system, in brain, form where mind is extended into future...into space/time.

Mind becomes the desirable, the malleable....the magical.
It is unhindered by natural order, like the body is. It can ignore natural laws, time itself.
Mind became God.    
First an external 'Mind' out-the, beyond...then brought down to earth, in the forever immanent future.
From spiritual nihilism to secular nihilism.
The noumenon nullified the phenomenon...in theory.
How amazing is that?!
How easily you can fantasize your way out of prison, slavery, death, a problem...anything.
In your mind you can be anything, at any time.  
Minimal effort.
This is subjectivity, denying the objective world....slandering it as being an 'absolute' because such minds can only think in absolutes.....only existing in the mind = ideas.

Everything has to be of the mind....noetic.
How easy it is to cope with it, then?
Everything is in your mind....change your mind and you've changed reality.
A God...on earth.

What is the Abrahamic God...the mono-god?
The human mind placed on a pedestal.
Made into a communal creation, using a unifying symbol....like the cross, or a word.
Then the hared esoteric symbol, is 'externalized'.
A universal mind.
Unbound by time/space....immortal, as long as there remains one believer - church.

Dumbing-Down corrupts the utility of language, internalizing it.
Retardation of spirit.

Dumbing-Down shames the mind for perceiving patterns, and for thinking them relevant.
Dumbing-Down makes the individual doubt his own senses.
Regression of mind.

The method associates perception with a negative emotion, sensation.

For example, if you perceive differences, and do not dismiss them as irrelevant, but as extremely relevant, then shame, guilt, is associated with this, connecting ti to violence, hatred etc.

If you perceive patterns, behavioural traits associated with the different, then, again, guilt and shame are used to discredit your awareness.
Not reason, not arguments, but emotions.
This is systematic, until it becomes ingrained as a automatic repulsion to perceiving divergence and associating ti with specific behavioural patterns - patterns in the patterns = understanding.
you are forced to regress, to retard yourself, only perceiving data = knowledge.

A community of individual that knows many things but cannot make sense of anything, without permission.
Meaning, to the data, understanding the data, is provided by the institution.
A new form of human husbandry.

Symbols/words are sails on the perpetual fluctuating seas of space/time.
Their definitions are not 'declarative' nor arbitrary, nor subjective.

They connect past, in dictionary, representing precedent, history, the relationship of a people with a specific environment, and through the speaker/writer, the individual applying them, they connect to the interactive present, which is independent from all minds....and then it dares to project, from that foundation, towards the future.

The wrong use of sails gets you stranded on islands, or sailing in circles going nowhere, or thrown against rocky shores where you drown.  
You don't create the winds, not the sea's currents, nor the geography you sail upon. You navigate it using tools.
Language is a technology...a tool.

Absence of Integrity
A dishonest spirit, will intentionally adopt a definition, or define a concept in a way that will make it impossible to find it in the world.
You can give them all the definitions and rationalizations you want, and he will not be swayed; you can place the standard outside your and his mind and he will not be convinced.

He hides from himself his true intent and uses the definition of the word, referring to the concept, as an excuse.
He is not really interested in seeing world, as it is, in engaging world directly, with actions, or indirectly, using language. That's just his cover.  
The real intent is to discredit the word, and through the word to escape the concept that connects him to a world he is terrified by.
Even when you begin the definition from the empirical, attaching the word to an activity a behaviour independent from personal desires and upbringing and subjectivity and emotions, even when you begin from the Bottom<>Up, from the interaction, the activity itself, from the phenomenon....he will not budge.

Language has become a life-raft, on a sea he fears will drown him...will pull him into its abyss.
He uses them to pretend there's no water beneath the inflated balloon he is clutching.
The idea of swimming, of getting wet, of entering the sea, is beyond his ability to humour.
With every breath he mouths the words to expel more hot-air into the inflatable boat. He does not even dare look into the water, fearing he may catch a glimpse of some dark shadow - he lies on his back, staring upward, calling it his freedom, his enlightenment, into the facade of a blue sky....But when night comes the below will not be so different from the above.
Then, in what direction will he turn to flee, but inward?
Closing his eyes to the world, inside his own mind he will find temporary refuge, hoping the tides will be kind and, while he sleeps. he will be gently carried towards salvation.

Other than the necessity of communication, word definitions expose the intent of the speaker/writer.
Dictionary - symbol/word - Reference

The last part of the triad reveals the user's intent.
Dictionary is the past, the historical context, the symbol/word is in the present expressed and externalized as symbol or as spoken, and the reference is the direction the motive.
Past <> Present <> Future

The motive is to return inside the mind, and not to refer to a phenomenon outside the mind, connecting it to an abstraction, sensation, feeling, emotion.
Moderns prefer this, calling it subjectivity.
The mental map does not refer to a geography, but returns and connects to another mental map, which may be in another mind, or in text, such as Scripture, completely avoiding the experienced world.
Abstractions referring to more abstractions - noumena referring to more noumena...in a circular linguistic Gordian Knots, immersing consciousness in word-porn, linguistic fetishism, sadomasochistic verbiage, hedonism.
Validity judged accordingly....how does it feel - pain/pleasure becoming gauges of 'truth'.

Protected by our skulls, the protection of our minds, all theories achieve parity, as equally 'perfect' in theory and equally inapplicable, pragmatically.
All externalized with semiotics, never to be soiled, never to be tested against an uncompromising and indifferent reality.

But, if you apply them, then which is superior is made clear by the consequences.
How long can we blame the world for not being just to our 'perfect' theories, or ourselves for not applying them perfectly before we are honest enough to admit that it was the theory that was at fault?
For most, never.
The idea(l) is holy.
Like the Abrahamic god.
Always the world is to blame, humans too unsophisticated to appreciate and apply it as it should, as it was meant to be.
If not perfect in theory then all must be imperfect...in theory.
By all means preserve the perfect ideal of perfect parity.

If not absolute good, then absolute evil....if not one then nil.
All must be levelled down, one way or another.
Gradations will be too hurtful, too hard to take.
We succeed together or fail as one - the counter-evolutionary rebelliousness.  
If the world cannot accommodate our perfect, just, good theories, then to hell with the world!!!

Ha!!!

Sure, there's another method of testing a theory. One that sacrifices a degree of certainty for an avoidance of the risks and costs of application, but that requires a level of intellectual integrity these Moderns cannot hope to attain.

Choices made, from the pool of options, reveal an intent, in relation to a past made present, as world.
How can it be any different when it comes to our choice of words, from the pool of conventions, relating to history and context?
The words we use and how we define them reveals our motives and our relationship to an uncompromising, relentless world.

The world is unaffected by the choice so the only thing revealed is our secret and our hope.

Established concepts will be refurbished and resold as innovative, revolutionary, insights; old thinkers will be re-translated to fit into current needs, and fashions; the subjective, the esoteric, the occult will justify any ambiguity pretending to be profound.

In times of degeneracy there are no rules, no principles, no integrity, no decency, no pride, no shame, to hold the sickly spirit back.
There is no standard, because there is no acceptable indifferent world to threaten any desperate, internal desire.
What measures is effect upon humanity. Massive appeal, the ability to exploit and manipulate idiocy, illness, ego.

Humanity = World.
World = Humanity.

Changing the 'world' means changing humanity.
Controlling the world, means controlling humanity.

Worlds is all you need, and the ability to shamelessly find and exploit human weakness.

When we understand, not know, what language is, and what words are, then we realize that all apply art in their daily life - all are artist of some sort.
What does an artist express through his art, whether it be as imitation or as a genuine expression, is his/her relationship with the world, his/her reactions to a shared reality.
We can say that everyone is a philosopher, of varying degrees of quality, because all love wisdom and seek it for their own reasons.
It is in these reasons, these motives, where philosophers, as hybrids of scientist/artist, where things differentiate, and the populist fArtist differentiates himself/herself, from the true artist; the sycophant, and pretentious emoter, differentiates from the genuine honest thinker, and like in all forms of art, the philosopher distinguishes himself not only by intent and method, but through his talent, measured against a shared world that is aesthetically experienced.
The artist, and the philosopher, is evaluated on the basis of how his/her interpretation, representation corresponds to the real, or, in the more feminine types, how well he/she expresses a shared reaction, impression, of the real.

Animals can only be philosophical to the degree that they cannot externalize their noetic interpretations and reactions to the world.
Art is an externalization, through a different medium from the one used to internalize the perceived phenomenon.
The mind has to be able to translate/interpret the world outside its mind, and then return it back, modified by its reactions, emotions being a reaction, or synthesis with other abstractions.

The painter uses light, and how it interacts with other phenomena, and then converts it to paint on a canvas.
The musician uses atmospheric vibrations and how they interacts with other phenomena to return them via an instrument in a refined, purified form, accentuating the product with his own reactions.
Visual interactivity, texture, any sensation can be converted, translated, to vibration, or to form.
The thinker/artist is the conduit through which the conversion is directed, from outside inward and then back outward, modified, purified and idealized.  
To put it another way, the interpreting perspective of the subject, translates the objective world into a new synthesis, directed by its motive, an intent. Phenomenon interpreted, through a medium, and combined with noumenon, to then be shared through a different medium, slightly altered by the process.

Philosophy converts the data, into words...symbols.
Philosophical motive can only be clarity; an honest and direct relationship with world, not affected too much by the thinker's own private desires and preferences, otherwise it cannot be called philosophy but should be named by another art-style governed by a different motive: politics, religion, psychology, marketing, perhaps, but not philosophy.
This produces a mistaken identity.
The common mind cannot account for how another mind can step-aside, and make of himself a pure lens reflecting the world back, as clearly and un-corrupted by ego, and need. The conversion is assumed to be a synthesis that is dominated by the thinker's private desires and anxieties, an expression of his reaction, rather than a pure conversion of the perceived into words.

To more accurately define, for example, identity, the insufferable 'I'.....one must base this definition, not on whim, not on intent, but on precedent, on the worldly, the experienced, and not offer a absolute, final definition, but an incomplete ongoing most probable process of discovery.

My definition begins with the difference between life and the non-living, it begins with memory, whether you call it empirically experienced or DNA.
Memory is the differentiating element in a cosmos of no absolutes, but only processes.
From this I conclude that 'self', the 'I', is not an absolute but an ongoing process, referring to a chain of events connected by memory.  
With no such connecting chain there is no self, and no life.

When one is born into this world, thrown into it, he is not cut-off from his past...the umbilical cord displays this connection.
Snip, snip, but the DNA remains to direct, suing precedent, the organism to grow towards a prescribed form.
It's agreement or awareness is not required. It can be born brain-dead and the process of recalling would proceed genetically.
What we call identity, us corrupted degenerate moderns, is awareness of self - ego.
If we cannot accept or know, past we prefer to dismiss it.
Ego is a poor guide, as it is the lucid part of self, engaged with a world that is indifferent.
It begins to discover self in relation to other, and it may not like what it is awakening to.

The self is reflected back in a mirror. It is apparent, and fluctuating, changing.
It is the sum of all past ....nature is the sum of all previous nurturing, establishing not a certainty but a probability within the possibilities, called potential.
What you see, if it is interpreted honestly, with attention to detail is the essence of who you are. It is a process of self-discovery, because it is changing, and the past is always unknown, even if it is immutable.
Know Thyself is a lifetime.
Self-flattery, dismissals, fanciful interpretations of the apparent, self-deception, is easier. So easy nobody can resit the temptation.
But to what end? Can you trick reality, fool the gods, as easily as you can yourself?

Will it change who and what you are, or only make you more vulnerable?
It is you who will face the consequences of an error in judgment - a hyper-inflation or hypo-deflation. Nobody else...other than the ones who trusted your judgment, and took it for granted.
What will you do then, accuse others of you mistakes?
That's easy, as well, and it only leads to repetition, and an incremental increase in suffering.
Then we get to victimhood as the ultimate end of this process.
The eternal victim of self, to self, blaming world because ti chose to delude itself.

Ambiguity is noetic space/time where either/or absolutism synthesizes and hides its self-contradictions and paradoxes.
It's an ideological nexus merging the bipolar world into a singularity.
In the vague abyss of the mind, all absolutes co-habitate, and evade detection.
The either/or is determined circumstantially. It can be either/or, at any time, depending or the situation.
The obscure is how any absurdity validates itself, relying on the imagination of the onlooker to give shape to its formless shadows, existing in a conceptual twilight.
like a cloud, like an abstract painting, the onlooker determines the form, at any given time. Thee is no right or wrong answer.
The obscure ambiguous offers a framework, within which all speculations are equally valid, depending no the needs, the desires of the onlooker.
Then the magician/messiah can enter its contexts and direct with insinuations, subtle directions, after a relationship of trust and 'friendship' with the onlooker has been established.
fArtist becomes an intimate friend, offering himself as leader within the haze.
It is the Platonic cave, where the imprisoned are convinced they are exiting into the world when they remain fixated by the firelight casting dancing shadows upon the cave-wall.
The fArtist is the one standing in-between, creating suggestive shapes with his form upon the wall, convincing the on-lookers that these are real creatures, living in the real, outside, world.
The onlookers can name the creatures anything they like, because the shapes are not real.

Where was the term "Cuckservative" first used or coined?

Probably someone on the internet,

Excellent.
The unconventional choice of words aims at something other than being clear and precise, and engaging reality honestly.
It reveals your subjective, esoteric, 'world', and your deepest insecurities.

I've said that, in my view, the brain is flooded with data from both external, through the senses, and internal, through the nervous system.
The data, is transmitted to the brain where it is synthesized and processed - interpreted.
How much of the 'external' and how much of the 'internal' is synthesized, and how, will be determined by psychology, producing conscious and subconscious intent.

A realist will use the external, aesthetic, as a guideline.
He will shape his abstractions by constantly referring and deferring to an indifferent world, and its natural order.
The romantic idealist, or nihilist, will do the reverse. His abstractions will be idealistic, obscure, vague, surreal, fantastic, mostly positive and hopeful, making grand claims, compensating for great fears and vulnerabilities.
The misplaced or repeating word will accentuate how the individual wishes to be seen - the image he wants to cultivate.
Idealism. so afraid and against reality. cannot survive without a following. They have to proselytize, coerce or seduce, because their language exposes a disconnection from reality.
Their views are impotent, because they are detached from reality. They only hope to find a sheltering group, with the 'right' ideals, to find refuge within.
A form of parasitism.

Those who use 'cuckoldry' or 'cuck' to refer to monetary interests, as opposed to biological, are like unto paypiggies for bankers but in the realm of the genetic. If they refer to the general human condition, then they are plain retarded - and the arrogant of them will die as a marvel of human psychosis, metaphorically repeatedly hitting themselves in the face with a shovel to demonstrate the density of their skulls, pretending it's a sign of their strength, like some circus act to be laughed at by future generations. In the case of the latter, it is a commitment to a category error. Namely, to identify with the 'general human condition' is to set zero reproductive delimitation, and the use of the word 'cuck' becomes sheer attempts at emoting, and using it as a wimp and degenerate faggot would: as an emotive tool, instead of as an accurate description. The amount of 'damage' they imagine being done is only indicative of how much damage they, themselves, have received by being targets of its usage. By reducing it to a mere slur, the hope is that they'll destroy its power and be able to later convert the real condition into a 'good' or 'normal' thing.

When memes are used to compensate for inferior, or insecure genetics, the individual is identified by his surrender to memetic conventions: morals, socioeconomic, linguistics. Cuckoldry assumes monogamy as the natural sexual norm when in fact it has always been paternalistic authority that has enforced sexual behaviours that benefit the stability of the group.
Male promiscuity and, more importantly, female promiscuity, was punished. The female more severely, because of the importance of her biological functions in the reproductive cycle. The husband, the head of the family, was held accountable for his wife's inability to curb her natural disposition to sample sperm, and to then select the healthiest one to fertilize herself. The State was the male's representation. Family was destroyed when this Paternalism was converted to totalitarianism, blaming it for female reproductive roles, and when technologies were invented to allow females to behave like males, because it repressed her biological functions.The female could now sample as much sperm as she wanted, without suffering the cost of impregnation. Then sex became about which male could gratify female needs.
This is why abortion, in US politics, is such a hot-issue.
It permits females to behave like males, promoting the idealization of equality... and to correct her errors in judgment: the 'right' to 'pursue happiness', meaning hedonism, consumerism. Sex becomes a shopping trip, and women are the buyers.

McKnight, Jim wrote:

A reproductive differential?
By now you are probably wondering why heterozygous males enjoy a reproductive advantage in this selective scenario? Given that there are roughly equal numbers of men and women why doesn’t a simple matching principle apply, with each pairing with someone similar to themselves (positive assortative mating) and then each couple having as many children as they desire? What would make the heterotype have more children than anyone else? Several interrelated factors may be at work here.
In The Descent, Darwin distinguished two factors which lead to reproductive success in a sexually selective system: the male’s ability to charm (seduce) the female and the male’s ability to out-compete other males in finding a range of mates. Perceptive readers will notice that R strategy underlies these abilities and perhaps the primary reason for heterozygotic success is simply a male promiscuity reproductive strategy. Yet from our earlier discussions, you will recall that women’s strategy is aimed at the opposite—binding a mate close to the nest and being choosy with whom they marry, given a lesser reproductive capacity. As women are the limiting variable in the system, we would expect that a K-stable strategy would prevail and for this reason would nullify the heterotic advantage of a straight man with a gay gene. Fortunately, this difficulty is overcome by female infidelity. As regrettable as it may be, there is ample evidence that women are promiscuous, if not as flagrantly as men, at least as calculatedly.
As Symons and Barkow note, at least part of the difficulty is in our curiously conservative view of women as being wholly monogamous and mating for life, pair bonding with a single partner in the manner of ducks or gibbons. This is not so for our species and evidence from paternity testing research indicates that up to 30 percent of married women have children who cannot be products of the marriage, even if their spouses think they are.
Monogamy is rare among mammals and Baker and Bellis review several studies of human infidelity in defence of their sperm competitive theory. To show that infidelity is not entirely pointless they quote the traditional medical view that between 10 and 15 percent of children are genetically unrelated to their fathers. They support this with a range of studies which show rates of paternity discrepancy from 2 to 30 percent. In two of the larger studies to date, Ashton in Hawaii, with a sample of 2,839, gave a more conservative paternal discrepancy rate of 2.3 percent; and Edwards, in a large Metropolitan London sample (2,596), found a rate of 5.9 percent.
Perhaps the best estimate of parental discrepancy is around 10 percent. It should be remembered that this is a measure of successful inseminations, not of the myriad infidelities necessary to produce them. On the other hand these figures often include situations where the male partner is aware of and may even consent to an ex-nuptial child, or where the mother is unaware or uncertain of their child’s ex-nuptial paternity, so this figure may be an overestimate of infidelities that produce a child. For these reasons, researchers tend to speak of extra-pair copulations (EPCs) rather than infidelities, as you will recall in our discussion of EPCs in the sperm competition section of this chapter. There are a multitude of studies which point to high EPC rates in both sexes and to the theoretical complications this brings, for example, found in their sample of 4,000 British women that the more sexually experienced a woman, the more probable she would have at least one EPC: ‘17% double-mate within their first 50 copulations, 50% within their first 500, and over 80% after 3,000 copulations.’ Clearly, infidelity is a characteristic human behaviour in both sexes.”

Straight Science – Homosexuality, Evolution and Adaptation

Philosophy begins by understanding, not merely knowing, language.
Pan-European language cannot but begin with Greek. even the Romans adopted Greek as the language of their elites and taught their children in it.
It is said that Pan-European come from the Aegean, and not from the Caucuses.
Whatever the case may be what is obvious is that Greek is the foundation of all European languages and cultures....the central meme.
With it a world unknown to you open up. With it you become immune to nihilism and to all kinds of word-jugglers, linguistic charlatans.
Knowing and understanding Greek is like a immunity booster shot, that will keep your mind clear, healthy.
We can only see how the ancient Greeks related to the world, their environment, through their language and their gods.

A return to your own, respective, culture, if it is within the Indo-European family, must accommodate Greek, and more so ancient-Greek. A going back to the source, the well, to cleanse the spirit by returning to a point in space/time before its infection by the virus (nihilism), through contact with the parasite (((?))). The parasite has also been infected only it has developed the ingenious method of embracing this disease, and becoming a symbiont, merging with it - it now redefined concepts, by detaching language from reality, and by inverting them...so its dis-eased symbiosis is now the new, Modern concept of 'health', its occult obscurantism is 'clarity', its ugliness is 'beauty', its lies are our Modern 'truths'.
Everyone ought to become literate in his own language, carrying each cultural meme, English, the language of exchange and commerce, and ancient-Greek, the source of our shared heritage and its apex, its highest achievement. Not modern Greek, which is also a product of the same infection, but ancient-Greek....the pure well spring. Knowing and understanding ancient-Greek will act as an invigorating sip of Ambrosia, producing an intellectual Big Bang, filling you with awe,expanding your conciousness, where by 'consciousness" we mean awareness of diversity, of differences, to discriminate.

Give yourselves a mental bath, a cold one, because the kosmos is cold.
Clean away the crap you've been force-fed over the decades.....its causing sclerosis, an accumulation of filth in your brain processes.
Go back to before 'fist-contact was made, and the infection took hold.
Go back to before the Hellenic/Judea contact...no go further back to before the moment when Socrates spoke of his meeting with Zalmoxis, and his obvious infection by Zoroastrianism. Go back to before Socratic disillusionment.
Go back to the roots of our shared ancestry, if you are an member of the Indo-European family, in whole, or in part.
Return to the well, the source and drink from its Olympian crystal cleanness. Drink from Evrotas, and the streams coming off sacred Tayetos.
Re-Turn, Re-Call, call forth, from inside you, what you already know....connect, using language....the most pure and rich is preferable, but any language will suffice.
The Romans did, when they adopted Greek as their own language of nobility.
If you cannot learn ancient-Greek, for whatever reason, use your own, or any Indo-European language...not Asiatic, not African....Indo-European.  
Shared genes must flow back through shared memes.
That which was born from the relationship of peoples, specific genotypes with their environment, specific conditions, cannot be plagiarized, embodied successfully. It can copy, imitate and parrot, but it fails to connect, to fully understand.
It can only relate to the outcome. It covets the benefit, without understanding the price, thee cost, so it cannot fully appreciate it.

I know its all 'Greek to you' but here's an academic, a linguist, explaining the richness of the Greek language and how it relates to other languages, such as Latin and English....making a case that it is being bastardized and so dumbed-down.
I post it to make the point, starting from his comments on the 52:00 point.
He uses the verb ΛΥΩ, in Greek the simplest verb, it has 337 combinations/variations, in Latin, the corresponding verb has 122, and in English? Perhaps 6.
This makes the verb rich in possible combinations, each with its own nuanced meaning.....the word,or words, it is combined with, its place in the sentence, its spelling, all alter the meaning slightly.
English compensates for its poverty by adopting words from other languages, but loses the etymological connections, in the process - lost in translation. It also uses metaphors, allegories, to compensate....and here is where 'subjectivity' runs amok......because metaphors can be understood in any way other than the one intended.
In Greek the root word, the verb, acts as an anchor, restricting the meaning to the synthetic word...using metaphors insinuates, like a woman, alludes, implies, and lets the imagination go wild. This is where emasculated charlatans enter the picture to manipulate this, with obscurantism and esoteric 'positivity' also permitting the 'target' to project whatever psychosis he or she is troubled by.
This is not the case with Greek. The words cannot be ignored, even when used as metaphors....their richness of meaning is specific, not up to the interpretation of the observer.  
Little room is left for the imagination to project its own psychosis.
The word takes the imagination, harnesses it, leads it. The mind follows.
The synthetic word qualifies and/or adds a nuance to the root word.
The changing of the vowel, from Ypsilon, to Heta, or Iota, slightly modifies the meaning, giving it a nuance....changing the Omega to Omicron modifies the concept. If you use a more complex verb, things become even more fluid....and if you add other words in a sentence, the possibilities multiply. Each combination, each placement in the sentence sequence, each spelling variant, each accent placement emphasizing a vowel, slightly modifying how it is pronounced, adding a nuance, a spice.....a slightly different meaning, all anchored by the original verb.
Nothing is obscured, hidden, justified by claiming an internal meaning...the art of the con-man. All is obvious, direct, open.
Even innuendoes constructed using this language are clear, obvious.  
This is what it means to say a language is 'rich' by comparison to another which is 'poor'.

At 56:15 he explains how an American academic, Peter Jones, explained how in Greek the simple sentence "Peter kicks the ball" can be stated, in Greek, in six different ways without losing its meaning.

ΔΕΛΦΥΣ = woman's womb
ΑΔΕΛΦΟΣ/ΑΔΕΛΦΗ = brother/sister

From this we get Delphi, world's 'navel' or world's womb.

ΔΕΛΦΑΞ = young pig, piglet.
ΔΕΛΦΙΝ = newborn.  
ΔΕΛΦΙΝΙ = dolphin, because it looks like a young piglet.

All from the root word ΔΕΛΤΑ, meaning door, and the letter of course.
There are hundreds of combinations that can be produced with the root word DEL-TA.....synthesizing them with other words, each alluding to the root.

We see here an example of how Greeks follows a logic. From a root word, referring to something tangible, real, all kinds of synthetics can be produced.

Women are adept with word usage. They have to be, because their reproductive role makes them vulnerable to world, and they need others to support her. She is focused on reading people, and her status among the group, and has developed linguistic talents to manipulate and influence, so as to rise in status, build alliances, retain relationship etc.
But only a male can truly take advantage of this feminine trait, in himself, because the masculine has to control, the feminine, direct it, limit it so that it does not go crazy with linguistics.
The best philosophers have always been these males with strong feminine sides, but where the feminine sid not overwhelm the masculine spirit.

Where do we see this at work.
The Athenian (Ionian) in comparison to the Spartan (Doric) use of language.
We still use 'laconic', form the name the Spartan had for themselves ΛΑΚΕΔΕΜΟΝΟΙΟΙ... ΤΟ ΛΑΚΟΝΙΖΕΙΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΕΙΝ...to be frugal with words is the height of philosophy.

We also see it when we say that Jews are linguistically genius.....and also very feminine, emasculated....their circumcision being a form of symbolic castration. They pass on their identity matrilineally...and have developed their language skill via the Torah, so as to exploit and manipulate, like women do.
They've placed themselves below a 'masculine' God....abstracted into a mysterious idea(l).
When the Greeks came in contact with them cross-contamination ensued....on the Hellenic side Christianity was born, as an emasculation of the Doric, and the cultivation, and worshipping of the Ionian.

The mind always admires, worships, what it is less like....so Christianity worships a hyper-masculine, vindictive, cruel, God, which is a hyperbolic projection of how it relates to masculinity.
Emasculation makes boys worship a fake, exaggerated, from of manliness, unable to incorporate the feminine as a stabilizer. The feminine is prescribed, as 'humility, docility' but also regarded as shameful, sinful, requiring constant grovelling and paying the cost.....being punished.
When we say Abrahamism hates existence and nature we mean it despises the feminine that dominates its psyche - it is self-hatred directed outward.
It hates chaos, weakness, femininity....because it identifies with the feminine. This is why it hates what reminds it of itself. This shows in how it treats its biological females, and how it hyper-inflates what it considers masculine traits.
God is a hyper-inflation, a male with no feminine traits. This is their ideal, because they are the least like that....because they idolize what they cannot relate to, and they demonize what they are most ashamed of

Ironically, this attitude, leads to them using feminine language, or use language with a feminine motive, to pretend they are manly, or the opposite.
Feminine use is chaotic, full of hyperbole, innuendoes, emotionalism...pretences. All geared to raise in social status, by manipulating, seducing, obfuscating to impress to create an effect.
The goal for this kind of language use is entirely social. Political....selling something, the self.