Understanding Sexual Preference

First Published July 10. 2003 at https://rense.com/general38/sav.htm

Before the end of this paper, I wish to apologize.

I feel bad, in that it has taken this long, for the ability to reach fruition, by which the publications during 2003 could be written.

During the Spring of 1993, after having spent seven months pouring over test results of a circuit design, and attempting to find any possible way in which the interpretation of the mathematics could be in error, I made a self-aware decision to not concentrate on the main topic of the technology.

Curiosity, the result of a repeated void response from long-term memory, can be a very stimulating experience, when one is curious about demonstrative applications of a singular system.

During an intense period of time in May and early June of 1993, I wrote many speculative papers on varied topics of potential for a model in which the mathematics could be demonstrated. The single criteria for acceptance of concentration was the universal applicability to a potential understanding.

The topic finally decided upon was the brain.

The brain, (human level), is a perfect architecture by which to start an understanding of a universal system.

Everyone has one.

Everyone who would potentially understand would be capable of understanding.

I spent 10 years (sporadically, as I was not able to devote anymore than a cursory amount of time to the project) cranking out absolutely true papers of different aspects of the brain.

Those papers, were not at all easily understandable and those were thrown away, yet the papers of the second reincarnation of the topic remain on this site, more as a reference for those willing to attempt to make sense out of an amateur’s ranting, than anything else.

The self-aware decision has been a problem as well as a benefit.

It was impossible to step up to the plate in any scientific forum, whether it was as ridiculous as UseNet or as superlative as a mainstream science publication.

How in the world was a person to mention a ‘different’ energy charge to a science that had never seen one?

A few years back science finally saw one.

It got me back on track. The time had come where a new discovery (to science) was in its true understanding-infancy, and no peer-groups had formed strong enough around a single acceptable understanding of it, to cause much of a resistance, to understanding what was to be understood, instead of what could be understood.

The self-aware decision came back into play when in my enthusiasm, to dive back in to the physics I love to swim in ,as it was still not time.

All of the writing and explaining done prior to 2002 regarding the brain, was not understandable, and in most respects, was rather boring as my rather obnoxious aural short-term dominant process, was getting in the way of saying and drawing the right images at the same time.

It was not until I met Fred (not his real name), that the concept of saying things in the way the listener will hear them, turned on a light in an otherwise cobweb infested topic.

I spent a good deal of time on the phone with ‘Fred’, who is a short-term visually dominant, long-term dominate male, describing the concepts I was portraying, in a way he would be able to gain an image from, that matched the concept I was trying to explain.

At first, it was quite frustrating for both of us.

But after a short period of time ‘Fred’ began to view my way of thinking, and I began to view his way of thinking, from the other’s perspective. Our conversations became less and less cumbersome, and my ability to converse, in a way reducible by visually dominated short-term thinkers, became not only better, but easier as well.

It became so ‘easier’ that I let it get the best of me, which is covered in a different paper and I do not have to go into those details again here. Whew!

So, I began to set about the task of making right what was not wrong, but was incorrectly worded all those years ago. If I had known then, that all those years of frustration were not necessary, it is quite believable, that I would have opted for the easy way out, and jumped straight to the point, which science was not in a position to have taken seriously, let alone accept. At that time.

Once again, like an iggit, I decided to cover the same topics covered in the first round of papers but do so in an understandable manner. Of course, there are knowledge issues in the other papers and some issues that contradict accepted knowledge but those are for those papers.

When I realized that I had managed to duplicate the same topics I knew there was something most important I was missing.

For the past week (as I write this piece), I have been laboring over the curiosity of what that missing issue was.

In reading over the other papers of 2003 at this site one will find references to many sub-topics inside of each main topic paper.

The sub topics do not deserve papers of their own.

I kept wondering, that of all of the topics covered, and all of the explanations given time was going to be the largest culprit and if I had just thought it all the way through 10 years ago then now, perhaps by now, a splattering of the knowledge would be slowly sinking into the treatment of mental disorders and psychiatrists would be doing their patients good instead of lip service and pills.

I feel bad that it has taken this long. I named my programming web site after what I was. Iggit.com . I do not feel bad that it will undoubtedly take far longer for science to drop its illusions and come to its senses. I have no responsibility for that.

Then, just a couple of days ago ( as I write this piece), I received an email from a man looking for a specific programming product similar to one I had managed to crank out earlier.

In that email conversation, where I found him to be quite kind and intelligent he referenced the domain the software would be used at and I checked it out. It dawned on me then, that what was missing was what could do the most good.

But, I didn’t have a reference point.

Then, I did.

MSNBC did the right thing, one thing too late.

Michael Savage is not a very smart man. I judge ‘smart’ on how much control over output the short-term process has over the long-term process and Savage’s remarks, hastily excused as ‘not intended to be on the air’ proved his instant response was long-term based, and it continued, according to the news reports. Trent Lott knows that problem as well.

Not only did Savage resort to long-term based slurs in an attack he apparently did not have the short-term intellect to deal with, he kept it up, meaning it was not only long-term it was his anger venting with his perception of the truth.

From his own web site: “It was not meant to reflect my views of the terrible tragedy and suffering associated with AIDS.”

[The incident that resulted in his firing began innocently enough. Savage was taking viewer phone calls about airline horror stories, and a male caller began talking about smoking in the bathroom.

(Experienced helpful hint: delay processing delays both voices, MSNBC cut off the caller’s voice only.)

“Half an hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike take your …” the caller said, before he was cut off and his words became unintelligible.

“So you’re one of those sodomists. Are you a sodomite?” Savage asked.

The caller replied: “Yes, I am.”

“Oh, you’re one of the sodomites,” Savage said. “You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it.”

He asked for another phone caller who “didn’t have a nice night in the bathhouse who’s angry at me today.”

These bums “mean nothing to me,” he said.] MSNBC Referenced Above.

I tend to believe the source with the tape in stock.

But as much as I trust the tape, I distrust the typical radio stunt this whole situation really was. It was one radio show against another one using MSNBC as its battleground just as it has done with Fox News, Larry King, CNN and many others. Savage knew it immediately, but instead of addressing the topic, which was Don & Mike’s radio flunky, Savage addressed his ignorance.

Click HERE to hear the tape as long as it is there.

Click Bob Foster Shrills For Don And Mike and Don & Mike talk about their favorite ‘talent’. (as long as they are available since Bob Foster’s site is missing quite a bit of previously linked audio stunts.)

Also in the tape, Don And Mike identify who the caller is, that he is advertising their radio show and that they claimed MSNBC had changed their calling acceptance policies and procedures to stop that caller, yet he got through? MSNBC may have set it up, knowing who the caller was by his phone number but one would have to believe Don & Mike’s claim MSNBC was ready for Bob Foster. The truth? I don’t know.

What I do know is, it is a very old radio scam and the very old (sorry, I can say that) Savage did not fall for it. He caught the caller the moment the Don and Mike names were said (it just happened to have been the moment after it was said). His problem started when he unleashed his true feelings of ignorance on a person who was calling for a different reason, and he knew it.

And he kept it up.

Anger is based in something. In this case in listening to the tape it appeared Savage’s ego got the best of him and his ‘id’ won out.

Try as I might I cannot find the reference to the audio I heard on the radio today about this topic.

Neil Boortz is the only speaking human being on the air in Charleston, South Carolina during the early mid-day and my car radio wound up where the signal was human.

During his program he discussed the Michael Savage issue, completely ignoring the radio stunt ‘angle’ (which is exactly what it was) and in response to a male caller referred to something he had heard Savage say earlier. (Which means this is hear-say of hear-say, but good enough of a reference point excuse for a paper as I’ve ever seen.)

Boortz claimed that Savage said (sounds like a grade school discussion) [recalled, paraphrased] ‘until the time came that someone showed him that homosexuals were born that way he would consider them to be.’ [lack of recall, unable to paraphrase] some form of expletive slur.

Hello Mr. Savage.

Let me introduce you to the brain and the way it thinks.

Normally, (which means the majority) of human brains are indicative of their gender. Females, ‘normally’ are visual long-term creatures, with either aural or visual short-term processing. Males, ‘normally’ are aural long-term creatures with either aural or visual short-term processing.

The ‘masculine’ traits all stem from aural dominated long-term while the ‘alpha’ male dominant, head of the gang, born leader is the aural dominant short-term male with aural dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term processing is in that instance the more ‘macho’ they are.

The ‘feminine’ traits all stem from the visual dominated long-term while the very feminine submissive, born victim is the visually dominant short-term female with visually dominant long-term memory. The slower the short-term processing is in that instance the more ‘valley-girl’ they are.

Just as it is possible for the aural and visual to vary in short-term of ‘normal’ gender ‘specific’ persons, so it is possible, and in fact the cause of the opposite mental ‘preference’.

‘Normal’ means the most accurate fit to the architecture.

Females are visual long-term, as their evolutionary role of the ‘gatherer’ and ‘child-bearer’ require a visual interaction, where the conceptual aural long-term female, would never suffice. If females were not visual, the species would not exist today. Visual receives in order to create.

Males are aural long-term, as their evolutionary role of the ‘hunter’ and ‘protector’ require an aural interaction, where the visually controlled long-term male, would never suffice. If males were not aural the species would not exist today. Aural creates in order to see.

Every aspect of the brain is a balancing act. Each teeter ,causes a totter (whatever that might be, it sounds good), for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so forth, and so on.

Female is balanced with the male, where female is the default state of all potential humans.

Aural is balanced with the visual, where female is visual default and male is aural default.

There are variations in all cases.

Variations are not bad. Variations are not evil. Variations are normal BECAUSE variations balance OTHER variations.

If ‘Fred’ can be long-term aural and short-term visual then another male can be long-term visual and short-term aural.

Those other males will feel feminine but act masculine. (Visual short-term would be acting feminine).

The same applies in the other gender.

If ‘Freda’ can be long-term visual and short-term aural then another female can be long-term aural and short-term visual.

Those other females will feel masculine but act feminine. (Aural short-term would be acting masculine).

A normal short-term process compared to a normal long-term process, will depend for control over which process is first to reach maturity and become the ‘self’ the person perceives as ‘I’.

If the person has not managed to find the ‘trigger’ or the importance of ‘self’ the amplitudes generated by short-term processing will be just above the ‘non-zero’ value past equal. The result will be ‘consciousness’ but not ‘self-awareness’.

Those persons make up the majority of humans. True ‘self-awareness’ has been the target and subject of mysticism for thousands of years when it is really just a normal human trait that we have neglected to teach the use thereof, because we have not understood the brain at all.

There is nothing bad about a person who finds the mental desire to feel ‘normal’ internally, with ‘normal’ being different for them than it is for you.

The sexual reproductive process of humans has been considered a bad topic as it causes embarrassment to those who view it with a special sense of purpose.

That is not the topic of sexual preference.

The topic of sexual preference is for the contentment and feeling of ‘normal’, that matches the image or concept the ‘self’ has arrived at, through repetition of input.

If the input being repeated is the long-term memory (self-awareness is very low), then the image or concept of ‘self’, will need to match the dominance of the processing type. If that processing dominant type is contrary to the gender’s default condition, the ‘self’, will not feel like the right ,’self’.

Admitting the short-term’s perception of self is based in the long-term’s perception of self, is a good starting point to finding out if the feeling of ‘normal’, expected from what memory says should be ‘normal’, is based in a condition of birth or a condition of confusion.

If the person is female and their long-term memory is male the ‘self’ they will perceive will feel fulfilled as a lesbian. They are born that way.

If the person is male and their long-term memory is female the ‘self ‘ they will perceive will feel fulfilled as a gay. They are born that way.

Where Mr. Savage and most other sexual bigots miss their mark is in the simple act of sex.

Sex, is a reproductive act. It is, luckily, pleasurable or the species would not be here today.

Just about all brain containing creatures find ‘pleasure’ to be a good thing and seek it out.

The sex act has nothing to do with the preference of the sexual preference since sexual preference is mental gender preference. The sex act is the only physical manner in which love or lust (either extreme of pleasure) are able to share in that emotion or that misjudgment.

Not only are ‘true’ gays born that way, Mr. Savage; so are talk show hosts. I know, I’ve tried it.

One single show at one single station in Phoenix, Arizona. All set to take on the callers only to find out the previous four million weeks of that time slot were covered by local high school basketball (which no one ever listens to) and my impromptu ‘fill in’ was not only unannounced, it was a ‘secret’.

I was prepared. I was ready to fill the entire show with me talking. just in case no one found me interesting, while I took the chance to examine the, then current events , in a manner of pure logic. I had no calls. I struggled through the first 20 minutes of the show, into the first commercial break, when it dawned on me that long-term thinkers make good talk show hosts.

Talk show hosts these days are not at all about their topic, or their ’cause’. They are about sensationalism, getting the calls by exciting whatever emotion they can manage. The point matters, not the consequences or the victims of it.

When the commercial block was complete and my ‘bumper’ music started I began to play with the producer and stopped looking over my notes, and let the long-term take over with occasional disagreements from short-term. I have the tapes.

The one call I did receive during that show was from the assistant producer pretending to be a caller from another room in the station. I think he felt sorrow for me. I didn’t like that when I found out about it after the show, which is probably why I never fit in that industry. Don and Mike treasure the deception. It makes me sick.

So as simple as the explanation is of what causes the mental ‘state’ to exist of an internal feeling of needing the ‘self’ to not be a lie, and as much as religion preaches against lies it is amazing how many will read this paper, find out about what they think it says and still come to the conclusion that it is worth ignoring.

There is a cause of sexual preference, and it is active in every condition of the brain. It is ‘normal’ for the gender if the long-term processing is normal for the gender. It is ‘normal’ for the person whether it matches the gender or not.

Radio talk show hosts need to be long-term thinkers, with slightly advanced short-term, and should be aural long-term and visual short -term. They can paint a picture from a long held belief and listeners will ‘see’ that picture while listeners who cannot ‘see’ the ‘picture’ will relate to the ‘concept’. It is what makes the hardcore, shock-jock fan what he is.

If a radio show host is far advanced short-term and is visually short-term dominant, male or female, they will not only make great radio salesmen but they will advance into management, which is why radio as an entertainment medium these days has about as much quality, innovation and entertainment value as a sewer’s sludge.

If a radio show host is far advanced short-term and is aurally short-term dominant, male or female, they will not only make great on air talents that require thinking to listen to (therefore they will be entertaining to the intelligent and qualified target listener) but they will make great program directors and horrible talk show hosts, unless they know how to let go of the self. They will make it into station management only if a natural disaster suddenly kills the general manager., and no one else is in the building.

There is no difference between what causes a radio talk show host’s talent and what causes a gay male’s internal feeling of not being who they know they are until they admit it.

Now, you know.

Find another target for your sensationalistic searching consultant to embrace.

As for my apology: It still applies. But now, not with as much remorse. It took a long time to reach the point where explaining it at all, was possible. For that, and any part I played in hampering the event, I am sorry.

If only people would know and learn. Perhaps it might not take another ten years to start easing the emotional pain of confused brains.

Knowledge is only knowledge, if it is known.