Cultures that use Trauma Based Mind Control on their own members never integrate into society. This is why Sharia Law has no place in Civilized Western Society. The fact of the matter is that we know FGM is up over 200% only because of the cases that we have discovered. They don’t go to the Hospital for this procedure it is done in private by a person who has no Certifications, often times they don’t use Anesthesia. Not only is it dangerous & unsanitary, it is child abuse.
Now to be honest I am not officially a member yet because I haven’t signed on to their site. But in another manner of speaking I have been MGTOW for years in spirit just not in name. I started this page 3 maybe 4 years ago and it is currently connected to an ex-gf’s account.
I have not had a lot of good luck with women in my life. As a matter of fact the vast majority of my problems have been caused by women or been about women. https://usaguru.wordpress.com/author/
After my first girl friend and Fiance’ I promised myself that I would never get involved in an exclusive relationship with another woman until I understood women. I spent the next 20 years studying women and relationship, human psychology, history, the occult, philosophy, philology, linguistics, etc. I was a bouncer, a stripper, a chef, a stand up comedian, and an author. I now will not get in an exclusive relationship with a woman BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WOMEN.
As I was repairing the problems with modern psychology as it is practiced, I noticed something peculiar, what inspired me was deborah Tannen’s work on male and female communication rituals. I realized that if you took every logical fallacy and every cognitive bias and used them all of the time, you would sound exactly like a woman.
This prompted me to look at the problem like this. From a linguistic philosopher’s perspective, how are male and female brain’s in relationship with on another? How does the extreme feminine bias of the western mind factor into emergent properties that come out of collective western judgments and opinions? What does this mean for society and the future of Western society? What does it mean for me?
I realized that men have certain traits that occur more commonly than they do in women. Our society forbids us from scrutinizing or criticizing women, it treats women like a privileged class of people that is not inclined to look at it’s own failures, learn from them, or correct them. A type of sex based oligarchy in which women are considered moral authorities on account of having a vagina. This was affecting the relationships of the individuals, and it was creating these social events which I began to predict with more and more accuracy. I studied the natural inclination or women when left unchecked and what they would do, how they socially climb, how they think. What I realized was that women were destroying the civilized world and making it weak and indefensible for the incursion of Islam.
What I observed was the emasculation of the male mind through the forcing of female communication rituals or radical political correctness, a meritocracy of pleasantness in which a person could be an incorrect douchebag pleasantly, but you couldn’t speak the truth if it was unpleasant and you couldn’t point out the psychopaths or expose the pretenders to reason like Socrates did without being forced to drink the Hemlock.
I originally wrote a piece for my ex-gf’s blog, which she has so considerately set to invitation only, even though I generated all of the content on her blog and it was still generating web traffic without her promoting it. The name of the piece was called “As the Structures of Authority collapse” there was another piece called, “unsustainable emergent properties in human judgments”. They were time stamped so you can see exactly when they were written, and that they were indeed predictive.
Anyway, I have learned not to rely on women, and I hope never to be dependent on a woman again for her to do her part in a relationship and to carry her own weight. I want a working relationship and women, much like psychopaths, enter into relationship for their own benefit, to steal from relationship or to socially climb in relationship, they are detrimental to relationship and they antagonize their own and everybody else’s success, because they only look at things to see how those things might benefit themselves and they never create more value than they consume. Their life some is always less than zero, they are oxygen thieves, attention suckers, and space fillers. They aren’t homo sapiens.
Forcing the victory of the American Female. If American women can’t succeed in an environment of freedom of speech, just ban freedom of speech for men and give it to women….
This is so funny, trying to control the way people feel about them, the way people react to them. If I could control the way everybody was in relationship with me not only would I be a tyrant, but I could rule the world.
I catch a lot of flack for my ideas about the differences between men and women and a lot of that flack comes from feminazis, gomers, vagina worshipers, highly educated idiots and children that have been indoctrinated into man hate. The reason that happens is because this is America the most feminized country on the planet. The problem is this, it doesn’t matter how many morons agree with one another, it doesn’t make them more correct. The tyranny of the stupid majority cannot go unchecked.
You have been propagandized into thinking that there is no difference between masculinity and femininity and this creates a disparate impact in favor of femininity. This prejudice is not only dangerous for relationships and to the stability of america it is dangerous for individuals. Women in america think that their is a magickal force that protects them from evil and bad things happening to them and they are right, that magickal force is American men.
If you are familiar with my theories on the male brain and the female brain you know that I consider the true uncorrupted male brain to be sociopathic (not the pussified western male mind) and the female mind is psychopathic, and the psychopath is an over coddled child.
Aristotle’s views on women
“The slave is wholly lacking the deliberative element; the female has it but it lacks authority; the child has it but it is incomplete”
Differences between male and female
Aristotle believed that nature ordained not only physical differences between male and female but mental differences as well. By comparison to man, he argued, woman is “more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive … more compassionate[,] … more easily moved to tears[,] … more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike[,] … more prone to despondency and less hopeful[,] … more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, of more retentive memory [and] … also more wakeful; more shrinking [and] more difficult to rouse to action” (History of Animals, 608b. 1-14). Moreover, in accord with his society’s custom of allowing girls and women to eat only half as much as boys and men, he added that woman “requires a smaller quantity of nutriment” (History of Animals, 608b. 14)  Aristotle wrote extensively on his views of the nature of semen. His views on how a child’s sex is decided have since been abandoned.
He wrote that only fair skinned women, not darker skinned women, had a sexual discharge and climaxed. He also believed this discharge could be increased by eating of pungent foods. Aristotle thought a woman’s sexual discharge was akin to that of an infertile or amputated male’s. He concluded that both sexes contributed to the material of generation, but that the female’s contribution was in her discharge (as in a male’s) rather than within the ovary.
His idea of procreation was an active, ensouling masculine element bringing life to a passive female element.
While Aristotle reduced women’s roles in society, and promoted the idea that women should receive less food and nourishment than males, he also criticised the results: a woman, he thought, was then more compassionate, more opinionated, more apt to scold and to strike. He stated that women are more prone to despondency, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of having a better memory. wikipedia
Book cover of an edition ofOikonomikos from 1830.
Therefore it befits not a man of sound mind to bestow his person promiscuously, or have random intercourse with women; for otherwise the base-born will share in the rights of his lawful children, and his wife will be robbed of her honor due, and shame be attached to his sons.And it is fitting that he should approach his wife in honor, full of self-restraint and awe; and in his conversation with her, should use only the words of a right-minded man, suggesting only such acts as are themselves lawful and honorable. Aristotle’s thought that a wife was best honored when she saw that her husband was faithful to her, and that he had no preference for another woman; but before all others loves, trusts her and holds her as his own. Aristotle wrote that a husband should secure the agreement, loyalty, and devotion of his wife, so that whether he himself is present or not, there may be no difference in her attitude towards him, since she realizes that they are alike guardians of the common interests; and so when he is away she may feel that to her no man is kinder or more virtuous or more truly hers than her own husband.
I might remind you that every civilization that stopped studying Aristotle fell into the dark ages. The word Oikonomikos is where the English word economics comes from and the word oikos means house. How is our economy doing? As women have increased in “rights” and by rights I mean power without responsibility, the right to wage a propaganda war against masculinity, the right to get divorced on a whim, the right to have disposable relationships with men and sell themselves to the highest bidder while at the same time not wanting to be thought of as sex objects, the right to not suffer or struggle for the success of a relationship, how has our American economy fared? How has the marriage unit fared? How is relationship doing?
Men and women are not the same, when you make a false forced equality between them you upset the flow of energy between the poles. Rain does not fall up, and water does not flow up hill. Women enter into relationship and immediately start turning the man that they are attracted to into a woman, and when they have succeeded they move on to the next man. It is a conquest of the ego. But you are sabotaging yourselves, historically there is a pattern that repeats, women that turn their men into women have no defense when foreign invaders come and take the women and rape them. The men have no incentive to defend the women having had a life time of abuse from women and having been successfully turned into women they also don’t have the ability to wage war even if they wanted to. The women, now having a child, kind of want to keep and raise the child and they are thus assimilated into another culture. I am not making this stuff up. Genghis Khan is related to more people on the earth than any other single person, and he was the most prolific rapist in history.
American women, you are not winning a victory over men, you are defeating yourselves…
Women are fickle emotional creatures incapable of being reasonable an analytical consistently, when you make a woman’s emotional thinking the equal of a man’s intellectual reasoning, you destroy the possibility of a rational relationship. This pattern is destroying the educational system, the economy, America and the world, it is ruining everything that was good about America.
What is funny is watching this ugly feminazi stonewalling Leslie, she is operating on a slippery slope, seeing years of feminist propaganda being flushed down the toilette where it belongs. Her entire empire that was created for her by man hating women that she wants to pass on to all of her Amazonian little man hating daughters is going bye bye. The subjugation of the American Male is coming to an end, or at least it better if we want to survive. Stop homogenizing the sexes, they were created different for a reason, respect it.
Mung (computer term)
Mung or munge is computer jargon for a series of changes to a piece of data, which are often well defined and individually reversible, but which transform the original item into an unrecognizable form. The changes may be destructive, for example by corrupting a computer file, or simply concealing, for example changes to an email address to disguise it fromspambots.
The term was coined in 1958 in the Tech Model Railroad Club at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1960 the backronym “Mash Until No Good” was created to describe Mung, and a while after it was revised to “Mung Until No Good”, making it one of the first recursive acronyms. It lived on as a recursive command in the editing language TECO.
Usages of the term appear in munged password (a strong, secure password created through character substitution), data munging (cleaning data from one “raw” form into a structured, purged one) and address munging (disguising an e-mail address).
Munging may also describe the constructive operation of tying together systems and interfaces that were not specifically designed to interoperate (often using the Perl programming language). Munging can also describe the processing or filtering of raw data into another form.
Munging implies destruction[dubious – discuss]—to make large-scale and irrevocable changes to a file and to destroy it. Hence in the early text-adventure game Zork, also known as Dungeon, the user could mung an object and thereby destroy it (making it impossible to finish the game if the object was an important item).