Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Robert and Rob Equal Parenting Bike Trek!

Courtesy of the Bold site:

Robert and Rob EQUAL parenting bike trek!

It is official! August 11th 2007 Robert Pedersen and Rob Mackenzie
will start their over 600 mile bicycle trek from the Lansing Capitol to
Washington, D.C.. This will be an intense multi-day bike trek through numerous
states ending in Washington, D.C. where they will be greeted by thousands of
attending the national rally in Washington, D.C. on August the 18th.

It is simply amazing that two fathers are going to attempt this trip all
in the name and support of shared parenting! They do this to protect a child's
right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents! Many elected officials and supporters will see the riders off at the Lansing Capitol and thousands will greet them in Washington, D.C.

Kumogakure likes!!!

The Men's Rights/Fathers Rights movement definitely needs the bloggers and the writers to frame our arguments, spread the word, and educate others as to what our movement is all about.

Guerrilla fighters such as we are enlightening the public, one conversation, one debate, one expose' at a time.

On the flip side, we also need people with their boots on the ground. People who are able and willing to hold the protests, organize the special events, and lobby the politicians to make a change!

Two sides of the same coin. The time for concerned citizens everywhere to combat the plauge of feminism is now!

Expect to hear more about this excellent event in the near future, and be sure to visit DaddyBlogger for more details.


Tuesday, May 29, 2007

CooCoo Cola... Feel Da Fizz!!!

What else needs to be said??

You belong...

Darkwing Duck -- Intro Theme

Ya'll might be thinking Kumogakure got all of this knowledge by reading, or other useless activities...

But NO!

Darkwing Duck provided me with all the game needed to take on the Bad Boys (and girls) out there.

Let's get dangerous!!

Alvin and the Chipmunks Biyotch!!

Guess I'm gonna show my age here... In spite of the all the bullshit that goes on in the world, I can stack my money, lay low, and chill as I watch Old Skool Alvin and the Chipmunks all day.

Saturday Morning cartoons foreva!!


Monday, May 28, 2007

The Constitution is on life support continued!

Did a quick blog search for National Security Directive NSPD/51.

It is comforting to know that I am not alone in the knowledge that I now live in an official dictatorship!

Kumo will most definitely send emails to my government officials and the media... I urge you to do the same.

Check out what I have written... feel free to copy and paste if you want, but get the word out!

My black people have already had a taste of slavery... rest assured that I will not sit idly by and watch it happen again!


May 28, 2007

Washington, D.C. (Zip code)

Dear Senator (x):

Good day to you.

Please read the following articles:

And please note the following blog posts:

These are discussing National Presidential Directive 51, giving President Bush unprecedented powers bordering on dictatorship. There has been no mention of this on any of the mainstream media organizations, nor is there any mention on the actual Directive about Congress being consulted at any stage of the “emergency” period.

This is an outrage!

I implore you to call Congressional hearings concerning this matter. I implore you to investigate the possibility that the Bush Administration has committed high crimes worthy of impeachment and removal from office.

I beg of you to use your Congressional powers and have this Directive repealed, or revised to include Congressional oversight!

I thank you for reading.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Endgame! Part VI

Good morning!!

Previous posts in this series focused on the connections between Plato, Marxism, and Feminism, as well as covered some of the more radical proposals that all three ideologies advocate.

Today we begin our examination of the actual text of the Republic, and how Platonic doctrine is being applied in our present day.

It is my opinion that our grip on liberty is growing more and more uncertain with each passing day.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Let us move to the actual document. Please note that Plato writes in a conversational manner, and speaks through the person of Socrates as he engages in debate with his intellectual opponents.

Plato, in the following passage is speaking of the qualities and the training of his Guardians, the elite class of the republic whose only duty is to manage the affairs of the State:

“Don’t you think, I asked, that the natural qualities needed in a well bred watch dog have a certain similarity to those which a good young man needs for Guardian duty ( Plato. p. 64)?”

“ We have not noticed that there are natures which combine the qualities we thought incompatible.”

“And where are they to be found?”

“In different kinds of animal, but particularly in the watch dog to which we have compared our Guardian. For you must have noticed that it is the natural characteristic of a well bred dog to behave with the utmost gentleness to those it is used to and knows, but to be savage to strangers?... the kind of character we were looking for in our Guardian is therefore quite a possibility and not at all unnatural… it is annoyed when it sees a stranger, even though he has done it no harm; but it welcomes anyone it knows, even though it has never had a kindness from him. Haven’t you ever thought how remarkable this is (p. 65)?”

“But you know, that we begin by telling children stories. These are, in general, fiction, though they contain some truth. And we tell children stories before we start them on physical training… that is what I meant by saying that we must start to educate the mind before training the body (p. 68).”

“And the first step, as you know, is always what matters most, particularly when we are dealing with those who are young and tender. That is the time when they are easily moulded and when any impression we choose to make leaves a permanent markshall we therefore readily allow our children to listen to any stories made up by anyone, and to form opinions that are for the most part the opposite of those we think they should have when they grow up (p. 69)?”

“Then it seems that our first business is to supervise the production of stories, and choose only those we think suitable, and reject the rest. We shall persuade mothers and nurses to tell our chosen stories to their children, and by means of them to mould their minds and characters which are more important than their bodies. The greater part of the stories current today we shall have to reject (p.69).”
Seasoned MRAs will quickly recognize that young, especially female, children are brainwashed [aa][bb] into believing feminist orthodoxy, from a very early age.

They learn such attitudes from their parents and the media, as well as in government funded schools.

As Mr. Marc Rudov explains:

Mothers are raising most of the children in this country -- the average divorce rate is 50% and average out-of-wedlock birthrate is 37%. According to ABC’s John Stossel, mothers get physical custody 90% of the time. As a result, mothers dictate the attitudes, biases, feelings, morals, behaviors, and lives of American children. Consequently, the influence of their fathers is either anemic or negligible.

Not only do children learn to hate and disrespect their fathers at home, they learn it from TV as well. I’ve written extensively about the pejorative portrayal of men on TV -- in sitcoms and countless commercials. The latest offender is Sony Electronics, and its ad agency BBDO, which is promoting its Cyber-Shot camera through a new commercial called “Your dad is not a horse’s behind” (CLICK HERE to view the Sony commercial). Writes AdWeek:

Indeed, it’s a clever and attention-getting way to sell “face detection,” a Sony digital camera feature that ensures faces (not background images) stay in focus. If “face detection” is the brief, we get it, with both a carrot and a stick. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you. It’s not subtle, but it sells.

Clever. It sells. Those views of the equine hindquarters stay with you.

Unbelievable! Is anybody in America awake? Do people not grasp what’s going on here? The marketing execs at Sony and the creative chiefs at BBDO greenlighted this commercial. They had to say, This is good stuff! And, why do they think it is socially acceptable and “funny” to disrespect fathers? Because the viewers feel that way, too. Most divorced fathers, and many married ones, watching this perverse Sony commercial know that it reflects American attitudes towards them.

Can you imagine, in your wildest of dreams, seeing a spot like this on TV with a mother shown, literally, as a horse’s ass? Don Imus was kicked off radio and TV for offending one team of female college basketball players. Who will pay a similar price for offending tens of millions of fathers?

If Bill O’Reilly would expose misandric advertisers and sitcoms with the same vigilance he uses to expose lenient judges, we might turn the tide. Otherwise, disrespect for men, unchecked and unchallenged, will beget more of the same.

Children raised in today’s misandric homes, while witnessing powerful, unfettered public misandry like that in the Sony commercial, will become our next legislators, judges, prosecutors, mayors, governors, presidents, TV and movie executives, newscasters, magazine and newspaper editors, and, worst of all, parents. If you think fathers are irrelevant now, stay tuned.
If the eloquent words of Mr. Rudov aren't enough to convince you that there is a systematic degradation of men in the media, then maybe you might be interested in a book entitled, "Spreading Misandry."

The reviews of this book are quite interesting. For example:

A Good First Step On a Much Needed Path, January 12, 2006

By Dan Herak (Cleveland, Ohio United States) - See all my reviews

Misandry - the hatred or contempt for men - is a very strange phenomenon. Many people have become more aware of a significant uptick in recent years of the denigration of men, usually referred to as male bashing, yet examples of such are so widespread and diffuse that most instances go unnoticed. Many people, especially men, are reluctant to discuss the issue. Doing so not only exposes emotional vulnerability, difficult for many men, but also because those most likely to engage in male bashing are also most likely to ridicule and belittle any man who protests against it.

In SPREADING MISANDRY, the authors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young not only take up the issue, and do so quite well, but also address those mechanisms that prevent the issue from being better recognized and challenged. The result is a very good book that could pave the way for more widespread discussions of the issue.

The authors focus on misandry in pop culture, most notably movies and TV shows but also greeting cards and cartoons. This focus on pop culture is, in my opinion, one of the strengths of the book as it allows the reader to see how misandry has seeped into the larger culture rather than simply exist within some small isolated corner, such as among academic feminists.

The actual analyses of various movies and TV shows is usually pretty good and at times is exceptional. Interestingly, the authors discuss misandry in moral terms and this infuses their take on things. It is pointed out again and again that male characters are not only evil, but intrinsically so. The directors of such movies feel no need to explain why men are evil. This is not so for women characters who, if they behave in a similar manner, are contextualized so that their behavior is seen not only more sympathetically but usually as a result of mistreatment by men.

Nathanson and Young also focus in on one of the more typical tactics to promote misandry: the one-sided interpretation. This is especially useful in historical pieces as it allows women to be portrayed as having had their choices severely constricted in the past while not pointing out that the same was true for the overwhelming majority of men as well. Producers of such material then defend their pieces by pointing out, well, women did have their choices constricted. But it is not the truth of such a portrayal that is of interest here but rather that men are portrayed as being far, far more privileged than was actually the case. This allows for the male-privileged/female-oppressed dichotomy to flourish in a more subtle manner than overt trashing of men...
Another interesting take on this subject is relayed to us via the Masterful Save the Males:

PsyOp: GM Castrates Men Using Feminist Ad

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
May 17, 2007

I am old enough to remember when the word "Cadillac" was synonymous with success. It was the ultimate masculine status symbol.

A recent Cadillac commercial sells cars to feminists as a symbol of their success in degrading and humiliating men.

It's part of an ongoing Psychological Operation waged by the London-based central banking cartel designed to destroy heterosexuality and the family. The bankers perceive real men as a threat to their plan for world government tyranny. General Motors and other multinationals are all singing from the banker's homosexual/lesbian songbook.

The commercial (entitled "Khakis") depicts white males scurrying like mice at the appearance of the office cat. To a chorus of "Here Comes Success" a young woman strides confidently through the office intimidating the young slackers who are in various states of idleness.

In one office, a man smells his armpit. Another man is doing Tai Chi. Another takes his feet off his desk. Another is eating. Another throws up his arms in submission. There is no way to impress her; she is unattainable. While they include minorities, there is not one women in the ranks of these slackers!

The young goddess finds herself alone in an elevator with a male co-worker. When she says, "Hi Chris," the pen in his pocket spurts ink, suggesting he cannot contain his excitement. Premature ejaculation = impotence.

The goddess notices and smirks. In the next scene, she is driving away in her Cadillac. She thinks about Chris and laughs triumphantly. It is not enough that she is "successful"; the satisfaction is in lording it over men...
So what does all of this have to do with Plato?

Before I answer the question, I would like to make a few points that will help frame my argument.

1) Firstly, the widespread, negative portrayal of men is not accidental.

As we can see at the Fascinating blogspot Subliminal Control (check his 2006 material for the best examples), experts (especially in the Marketing discipline) are well aware of how the subconscious mind works; and there is a large body of knowledge that explains how to manipulate our basic desires in the quest to sell products, or to instill ideals.

Furthermore, we know that corporations and government have conspired (there's that darn word again!) to manipulate the public conscious for quite a while. Such is the art of politics.

2) Feminists, Marketers, and other groups, operate using a system called Just Noticeable Difference[1][2], coupled with a concept known as the "long march through the culture[3]".

In order to do such a thing, the minds and attitudes of the people have to be changed, so that opponents come to accept, and then internalize your views, making them their own.

This must be done little by little. Too much change, too soon, will cause your subjects to reject the new programming you are trying to instill in them.

The D/s (Dominance and Submission) players know how to train people, from knowledge obtained from works such as The Control Book.

Managers have a plethora of materials out there to help them complete their daily task of directing and controlling people.

In other words, it's no secret that there are methods of getting people to submit to your will. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that political movements seek to control beliefs, attitudes, and moral values of people.

For example, if the goal is to neutralize the opposition of a specific segment of the population, then an effective way of doing this is to subtly demonize and belittle the target group, as was done to the Jews in Germany, Blacks here in the United States, housewives and stay at home mothers throughout the West, and in our day, the Falun Gong religious group in China.

When we understand that male hatred in the West is an organized effort with a specific purpose, then we can see that...

3) Misandry is nothing more than a massive propaganda campaign.

Before we go any further, let's examine what propaganda is.

According to Wiki:

Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Propaganda techniques include: patriotic flag-waving, glittering generalities, intentional vagueness, oversimplification of complex issues, rationalization, introducing unrelated red herring issues, using appealing, simple slogans, stereotyping, testimonials from authority figures or celebrities, unstated assumptions, and encouraging readers or viewers to "jump on the bandwagon" of a particular point of view.
Sounds like Misandry to me.

So then, getting back to Plato, we can see that he was one of the earliest proponents of propaganda, agreeing to its use in order to achieve the desired outcome, the creation of the ideal State.

And, as we have seen in my Tyranny of Tolerance posts, anti-male propaganda was used as part of a multi-step plan, in which men were separated from their ancient role as steward and patriarch of the family unit; and to indirectly indicate that the future rights of women to be mothers to their own children was now subject to the pleasure of the State [4].

Women are parenting on borrowed time.

Let us not forget that the "second wave" of the establishment of the Platonic state was the absolute destruction of the family [5], which would see children taken away from both their fathers AND THEIR MOTHERS and raised by the state. This would be necessary of course, for even more effective mind-molding of the next generation.

Please note:

“The second wave, concerning the abolition of the family, is likewise implicit in the educational scheme of Book 3, a scheme that replaces parental control over education with public supervision of its every detail (cf. Nettleship 1951, 165; Barker 1961, 213). The rulers who supervise this education are to penetrate the soul of each child and place him or her at the proper position in the city, with exclusive attention to merit (p. 658)”

A strong family unit, consisting of a husband and his wife (or wives [6]) would be more than able to resist the tyranny [7] inherent in the communist State that our featured philosopher advocated as ideal [5]. This is why it is essential for Leftists and Elitists to take over as the sole provider and educator of children.

We will stop here for now. It is my hope that my readers will begin to see how these words, written three hundred years before the Advent of Christ, are being played out today in our modern world.

Next time, the Republic and the mis-education of the children in the schools.


The Constitution is on life support...

Get a load of this!

New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power

National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive establishes "National Continuity Policy"

Global Research | May 21, 2007
Larry Chin

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive , signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a "catastrophic event", George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator":

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic "security".

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive



Subject: National Continuity Policy


(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.


(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;...
Note the key word, economy.

As readers of my blog know, the economy is the Achilles heel of the United States of America[a]. The way that our system is structured is clearly unsustainable in the long term.

I fear that if this country suffers any disruption, the primary cause will be economic.

Think about it... if the government is willing and able to terminate the Rights of Men in family matters[b], what moral imperative does it have to protect the remainder of our Constitutional rights?

Read the rest of the article.

The Platonic state is coming.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Please bear with us...

Kumo the Dogg is currently engaged in Summer Semester fun!!

Until I knock these classes out of the way, posts will be a little slower than usual.

Don't fret! The quality will more than make up for the quantity.

Next time, we crack open the pages of the Republic!

Be there.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Smokey was right!!

Friday... One of my all time favorite movies.

God (Blessed be He) gave us tha Weed... for you and me!!

Although I don't recommend smoking as much Bud as Smoke Dogg...

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Jihadism... What you need to know.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know.

Jihad TV

Please note: These videos are pretty graphic.

Happy viewing!


Illegitimate Nation.

Another interesting item...

Give this report a once through.

As I have stated previously; marriage is dead, and Bastardy is all the rage.

So much so that the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that opposes illegal immigration, has issued this handy dandy report.

MRAs will find it useful as it breaks down by State, ethnic group, and so on, how many illegitimate children are being whelped by the women of America.

As the document states:

The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, birth records show that about one-third of births to both groups are now to unmarried parents. Moreover, unmarried immigrants are significantly more likely than unmarried natives to give birth.

Illegitimacy may be especially problematic for children of immigrants because they need strong families to adjust to life in America.

Both immigrants and natives have seen a dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock births, from 13 percent in 1980 for immigrants (legal and illegal) to 32 percent in 2003 and from 19 percent to 35 percent for natives over the same period.

• This modest difference disappears when teenagers, who have the highest illegitimacy levels, are excluded.

There are relatively few immigrant teenagers because immigrants tend to arrive when they are older. Without teenagers, the rate is about 30 percent for both immigrants and natives.

Hispanic immigrants have seen the largest increase in out-of-wedlock births — from 19 percent of births in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003. This is important because Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of all births to immigrants.

• In addition to the 42 percent rate for Hispanic immigrants, the illegitimacy rate is now 39 percent for black immigrants, 11 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 12 percent for white immigrants.

There’s no indication of improvement over the generations. Among natives, the illegitimacy rate is 50 percent for Hispanics; 30 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 24 percent for whites.

• 2003 is the first time that the absolute number of illegitimate births to Hispanics (immigrant and native) outnumbered illegitimate births to blacks (immigrant and native).

• The illegitimate children of immigrants also often have to overcome their parents’ low education levels. In 2003, 56 percent of illegitimate births to immigrants were to mothers without a high school diploma; for natives the rate was 33 percent. It was 65 percent for Hispanic immigrants...
Peruse this one when you have a chance; you might find it of interest.


Unhook that Bra! by Marc Rudov.

What can I say??

Mr Rudov is the unadulterated HALL OF GAME!

He wrote this piece a while back, but its so good that I MUST post a portion of it.

The author writes:

Marc H. Rudov
Unhook That Bra!

May 13, 2007 at 4:32 pm · Filed under Vox Populi, SEX & MET, Politics, Mating, Marriage & Divorce, Hot Talk

The Well-Endowed World

Every girl-obsessed boy grows up dreaming about unhooking his first bra. Actually, that recurring dream never dies. But, because of the twin functions of modern bra design — support and deception — as well as the ubiquity of breast implants, he never knows exactly what he will find inside.

After a lifetime’s parade of women through his life, especially if at least one of them has roped him into a torturous visit to Victoria’s Secret, a man knows that the bra comes in endless permutations and combinations of colors, fabrics, coverage, padding, inserts, straps, and fastening techniques. Like its owner, each bra has multiple agendas, which she exploits to the best of her ability.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, there is a unique bra that only foreign women can wear, only when they come into contact with American men. It is called the immigration bra, or ImBra, and it is available free of charge from an exclusive source: the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of the US Department of Homeland Security.

The ImBra is a pernicious, illegal support garment with a unique, dual-purpose design: it lifts the status of foreigners above that of Americans, and it creates deep cleavage between American men and their civil rights. When an American man examines the ImBra, he will question everything he ever believed about the greatness and legitimacy of the US Constitution, and the government that supposedly adheres to its precepts.

My bra metaphor is actually an introduction to the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, or IMBRA. An unconstitutional federal law, which became effective on March 6, 2006, IMBRA makes it a felony to facilitate communications between an American man and a foreign woman, via a fee-based dating Website, without the man first submitting unilaterally to criminal-background and sex-offender checks, and certifying all previous convictions or arrests, marriages or divorces, children, and states of residence since the age of 18. The foreign woman, who owes the American man zero information about herself, must then consent to his contact.

On March 26, 2007, in European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales, 1:06-CV-0426-CC, Judge Clarence Cooper, of the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissed a lawsuit by European Connections claiming IMBRA violates the right to freedom of speech contained in the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The plaintiff, according to Judge Cooper, had failed to challenge IMBRA based on the First Amendment right to assemble...

Give the whole thing a read.

Classic MRAism in it's purest form!


Help Wanted!!

What up peeps!!

Yet another post from Financial land!

While many people are under the impression that Outsourcing is going to destroy the United States and leave the nation completely idle...

Kumo is here to say that the doomsday scenario ain't gonna happen.


Because there won't be enough high skilled workers to supply the WORLD!

From Seeking Alpha:

The Surprising Shortage Of Quality Global Labor

Posted on Apr 9th, 2007 with stocks: INFY, WIT

Nicholas Vardy submits: At first, it was just a trickle. Indian call center workers become serial job hoppers, boosting their salaries 20% with every new position. Factory workers in Vietnam leave for the holidays and don't return. Computer programmers in Bulgaria don't bother to answer the want ads of a Los Angeles movie studio. But today, anecdotes of a global labor crunch have turned into a flood. Last week, staffing agency Manpower Inc. released the results of a survey of nearly 37,000 employers in 27 countries. It turns out that more than four out of 10 employers around the world are having trouble hiring the right kind of staff for the right kind of money. And the problem is getting worse.

The Global Labor Shortage: Cheap Labor R.I.P.?

At first, the flood of three billion new workers into the global marketplace for labor was a boon to employers across the globe. But cost cutting strategies, like offshoring and outsourcing work to low-wage countries, are running out of gas far sooner than many expected.

The salaries of IT workers from Central Europe to India are rising by double-digits every year. In the past five years, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), SAP (SAP), and even Morgan Stanley (MS) have set up shop in former Communist countries of Eastern Europe. There, a deep pool of highly qualified math and science graduates were supposed to be willing to work for a third of that paid their Western counterparts.

Yet today, IT directors in Poland can cost companies more than $100,000 a year. That approaches Silicon Valley levels. And the number of highly qualified workers is surprisingly low. Multinationals have reacted swiftly, moving operations to ever lower-cost centers. Nokia, which already employs nearly 5,000 people in Hungary, recently announced that it is building a new handset factory in Romania.

This is all rather unexpected. Five years ago companies never thought they would have to worry about human resources. China and India were supposed to have seemingly inexhaustible pools of cheap labor. Yet today, the #1 challenge for multinationals setting up operations abroad is finding and keeping good workers...

Check out the rest for yourself.

So how does this scenario play out over the long term?

My take is simple... the world today is engaged in an economic structure that is unsustainable.

For example, get a load of this report.

When you click on it, you will note that the areas of the world with the largest share of global assets are The United States, Europe, and Japan.

The report also states that Ninety percent of global capital flows between the U.S., the U.K, and Europe.

But what about India and China? you might ask.

These countries aren't even on the map compared to the Big Four (U.S., U.K., Japan and Europe). In other words, the much ballyhooed "global economy" is very much dependent upon nations that have serious challenges that lie ahead.

Systematic Risk, in its purest form.

When this information is examined in the light of a very possible GLOBAL worker shortage, ever increasing inflation [1], massive upcoming retirement and healthcare liabilities [2], tremendous amounts of government debt both in the U.S. and in Japan [3][4], political instability in the Middle East and Nigeria, (where a significant supply of our oil comes from) [5][6], and the Islamification of Europe [7], and you have a situation that most definitely bears watching.

Our fiat "global economy," while excellent for making short term gains, will pop at some point, unless painful decisions are made.

Unfortunately, I find it hard to envision politicians and corporate leaders with the will and the skills to turn the ship around.

Don't sleep... hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.


Monday, May 21, 2007

What's good??

Introducing the (soon to be) most powerful mage in the history of World of Warcraft:

Dark Prince Mamoma.

Hailing from Dragonmaw server, he fights for fame, power, and of course, threesomes!!

(Two Blood Elf babes are better than one, I always say. See picture above. )

If any of you happen to be in the area, he'd be more than happy to work with ya.



Sunday, May 20, 2007

Inflation Reporting Errors?

Good Morning!

First up is an interesting article by Barry Ritholtz, entitled Inflation Reporting Errors, Continued.

It's a little technical, but it meshes nicely with my overall message that the United States government has been playing fast and lose with our national "credit card"[1], and has written checks to big for it to cash[2].

Mr. Ritholtz writes:

Wednesday, we looked at a way to measure actual Inflation: Comparing the "spread" between the Headline CPI data, and that of the Core CPI, we learn that BLS has been consistently under-reporting inflation over the past 8 years. Since then, we have come across two related discussions that shed additional light on the subject of accurate inflation reporting.

Right off the bat, our author makes a serious charge. If Mr. Ritholtz's hypothesis is true, then there are people in government guilty of high crimes worthy of impeachment, indictment, court hearings, and if proven guilty, incarceration.

When Mob Bosses are convicted under RICO statutes, Bosses go to jail. Bureaucrats and politicians that impose a "hidden tax" on the people, therefore defrauding them, are criminals that deserve to spend a lot of years in "Club Fed."

One would hope and pray that this under-reporting is nothing more than extreme incompetence.

Unfortunately, when this article is considered within the totality of evidence that I have presented, it appears that these funny numbers are no accident. Low inflation figures are exactly what the government needs right now.

Now at this point, one might be wondering, why is inflation so important, and why would the government take pains to mislead the financial markets?

Basically, inflation is an increase in the price level of the goods and services we consume. And one of the biggest causes of inflation is when the government increases the money supply in the economy.

A good example of this is what happened in Post World War I Germany in the 1920's[3]:

Before World War I Germany was a prosperous country, with a gold-backed currency, expanding industry, and world leadership in optics, chemicals, and machinery. The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar. That was in 1914. In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. Most Germans were taken by surprise by the financial tornado.

"My father was a lawyer," says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, "and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread." The Berlin publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote that an American visitor tipped their cook one dollar. The family convened, and it was decided that a trust fund should be set up in a Berlin bank with the cook as beneficiary, the bank to administer and invest the dollar.

In retrospect, you can trace the steps to hyperinflation, but some of the reasons remain cloudy. Germany abandoned the gold backing of its currency in 1914. The war was expected to be short, so it was financed by government borrowing, not by savings and taxation. In Germany prices doubled between 1914 and 1919.

After four disastrous years Germany had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Versailles it was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks, and it was due to lose part of the production of the Ruhr and of the province of Upper Silesia. The Weimar Republic was politically fragile.

But the bourgeois habits were very strong. Ordinary citizens worked at their jobs, sent their children to school and worried about their grades, maneuvered for promotions and rejoiced when they got them, and generally expected things to get better. But the prices that had doubled from 1914 to 1919 doubled again during just five months in 1922. Milk went from 7 Marks per liter to 16; beer from 5.6 to 18. There were complaints about the high cost of living. Professors and civil servants complained of getting squeezed. Factory workers pressed for wage increases. An underground economy developed, aided by a desire to beat the tax collector...

... Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day. As prices went up, the amounts of currency demanded were greater, and the German Central Bank responded to the demands. Yet the ruling authorities did not see anything wrong. A leading financial newspaper said that the amounts of money in circulation were not excessively high. Dr. Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (equivalent to the Federal Reserve) told an economics professor that he needed a new suit but wasn't going to buy one until prices came down.

Why did the German government not act to halt the inflation? It was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination. The vengeful French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations, and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. In 1919 Communists had tried to take over, and severe unemployment might give the Communists another chance. The great German industrial combines -- Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, Stinnes -- condoned the inflation and survived it well. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."

The presses of the Reichsbank could not keep up though they ran through the night. Individual cities and states began to issue their own money. Dr. Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank, did not get his new suit. A factory worker described payday, which was every day at 11:00 a.m.: "At 11:00 in the morning a siren sounded, and everybody gathered in the factory forecourt, where a five-ton lorry was drawn up loaded brimful with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on top. They read out names and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you had caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought just anything that was going." Teachers, paid at 10:00 a.m., brought their money to the playground, where relatives took the bundles and hurried off with them. Banks closed at 11:00 a.m.; the harried clerks went on strike.
Now, long time readers of this blog will note that the state of the American economy is very close to the state that Germany was in. Not exactly the same, but similar.

Inflation, if unchecked, is bad.

Markets are so worried about inflation, economists, traders, and other finance guys live and die by data indicating whether or not inflation is increasing or decreasing.

If it were shown that inflation is increasing to unmanageable levels, then the stock, bond, futures , and commodities markets would of course be adversely impacted, and shake investor confidence that the United States is able to pay its massive multi-trillion dollar debts and liabilities that have been accumulated over decades.

The government would then find that it's "credit card" is over the limit, and would be "canceled", as a matter of speaking. It would then have to make painful decisions in order to finance its defense, security, social, and other liabilities. Not to mention that financing our massive future liabilities would become exponentially difficult.

All of this would mean political suicide for quite a few government types from both political parties. Heads would roll, figuratively (or maybe literally), for the citizens would demand accountability in the face of a very unpopular cocktail of massive tax increases and cutbacks in spending for services. It would get real ugly, real fast.

And if our government is desperate enough to conspire (there's that word again![4]) to falsify inflation data, and to thereby mislead investors and the public at large, then the situation is probably much worse than We the People are able (or willing) to contemplate.

Turning back to the Inflation Reporting Errors post, we find that:

... Since then, we have come across two related discussions that shed additional light on the subject of accurate inflation reporting.

The first is via PIMco's Bill Gross. In his monthly commentary, Gross observes:

"A bigger threat to asset markets however, comes not from slower economic growth in the short-term, but inflationary pressures towards the end of our secular timeframe. Note first of all the increasing influence of non-core food and energy prices in G-7 nations over the past few years as illustrated in Chart 5 for the United States. Since 1967, average differences in headline vs. core inflation have essentially been zero, despite distinct periods of cyclical variation. Now, however, with globalization so dominant and Chinese/Asian appetites for oil, soybeans, and iron ore amongst other commodities so voracious, it’s hard to envision an extended period of lower headline U.S. increases. This may bias more central banks to begin considering headline numbers in their policy decisions like Japan and the ECB do already."

Gross is referring to the Core/Headline spread we referenced Wednesday. Wednesday's graph was a bit complicated, and the chart below makes it far easier to understand the changing relationship between the Core rate of CPI inflation, and the actual Headline CPI:


As you can see, since 2000 the Core has been under-stating inflation for some time now. And, the amount it is off by has widened dramatically. The gap between core and headline is now greater than it was in the early 1980s, and -- hard as it may be to imagine -- we are only slightly off the spread of the terrible 1970s...

There you have it:

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the piece. It's very informative, and all the way relative.

And remember... its not about knowing everything, its about knowing where to look to get the answers. The imminent financial collapse will not be forecasted by the Journal.

Don't sleep.

Friday, May 18, 2007

Endgame! Part V

Good evening.

Previously, we have examined the intricate relationships between Platonism and the movements that it later inspired, Marxism and feminism. In addition, we also noted that feminism and Marxism are also closely related in style and substance.

Before we move directly to the dialog as found in the Republic, I would like to present to you one last piece that applies Platonic theory to the Woman question.

This essay provides an excellent analysis of Plato's ideals regarding woman and State, and more importantly, why Plato was so hell bent on destroying the family unit.

According to Gender and Justice in Plato by Steve Forde:

…I find that Plato’s defense of gender equality is serious, but that the foundation and the consequences of that argument have not usually been well understood. Plato’s argument for gender rests on a distinctive view of human nature, and his elaboration of the consequences of pursuing gender equality reveal that a price would have to be paid for it that few are willing to accept. His argument should be considered by contemporary advocates of gender equality (p.657).”
And that price, as we shall see, is heavy indeed.

Furthermore, it is a price that the vast majority of humanity, male and female alike, would balk at paying, if only they understood the full ramifications of what certain "elities" are trying to cram down their throats!

Mr Forde continues:

“No part of Plato’s outline of the perfectly just society in the Republic has generated more controversy than its arrangements regarding the role of women and the family. Plato’s proposals in Book 5 of that work to confer equality on women and dissolve the family have been examined and debated, attacked and defended, from ancient times to the present… Modern feminism has been especially interested in these; but the dispute among feminist writers as to the meaning and significance of the proposals has been nearly as far ranging as that among other interpreters. Plato has been portrayed as a bold precursor to modern feminism, as a ruthless suppressor of women and the “female voice,” and as a complete ironist. There is no consensus on whether feminism can legitimately claim Plato as part of its heritage and, if so, which of its strains is actually foreshadowed by the radical arguments of the Republic (p. 657).”

“Susan Moller Okin (1979, 31, 42) has argued that Plato can properly be seen as a pioneer with his argument that women are equal, although in her view Plato sees equality as a political possibility only under conditions of complete communism such as those introduced in Book 5 of the Republic (p. 657)”…
“Allan Bloom (1968, 383) also argues that Plato does not believe women to be equal and that he treats them equally in the city of the Republic only for the political good. He contends that no women would likely be included in the highest class of the guardians on their merits and that they are placed there to allow for the reproduction of that class. They must share in the austere and relentlessly public life of the guardians precisely because the natural female tendency to the private and the particular would otherwise corrupt the guardians themselves (pp. 382-3) (p.657)…”
The author goes on to say that:

Most of the revolutionary proposals of Book 5 are only the culmination of arguments developed earlier in the Republic. In retrospect, for example, it is clear that only the philosopher is equal to the tasks assigned to the rules in books 3 and 4. These tasks included the censorship of poetry, music, and even architecture, making them conform to the true models of human virtue in order to shape the souls of citizens in the best way possible (p. 658).”
Mr. Forde is being kind. I would call such a "re-education program" propaganda in the purest sense of the word.

The writer notes:

“The second wave, concerning the abolition of the family, is likewise implicit in the educational scheme of Book 3, a scheme that replaces parental control over education with public supervision of its every detail (cf. Nettleship 1951, 165; Barker 1961, 213). The rulers who supervise this education are to penetrate the soul of each child and place him or her at the proper position in the city, with exclusive attention to merit (p. 658)”

“Many modern feminists have concluded that gender equality requires “overcoming biology”; abstracting from the body in the Republic can be seen as a similar exercise. There, the bodily or nonrational part of human nature, which is the locus of gender difference (and doubtless of much else), must be discounted or circumvented in order to establish equality of men and women (p. 660).”
In my next post in this series, I will argue that this Platonic mind molding scheme is already firmly in place in schools throughout the West; and I will compare this indoctrination scheme with classical Communist schooling in order to drive the point home:


The evidence is quite clear, and undeniable.

With respect to "overcoming biology," my readers will note that we have already discussed how feminists seek to deny their own femininity in their misguided quest for autonomy. As Mr. Forde so accurately states, the feminist movement has taken a page out of the ol' Republic playbook in shaping their own philosophy and goals.

Mr. Forde writes:

“Socrates’s argument is that the abolition of the family is a necessary part of the perfect city because the family, with its private attachments and preferences, is unjust. It became tolerably clear in the discussion of education in Book 3 that the family is an obstacle to equal education and equal opportunity for all (p. 664) .”
Oh really??

This this sentiment in mind, we need to look no further than the Communist Manifesto to see the influence Platonism would eventually have in our modern world:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.

What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.

The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.

Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime.

But, you say, we abolish the closest relationships, by putting social education in place of the domestic one.

And, isn't your education, too, determined through society? Through the social circumstances, within whose scope (42) you educate, through the direct or indirect involvement of society, by means of the education system, etc.? The communists are not inventing the influence of society on education, they are only changing its character, they tear education away from the influence of the ruling class.

The common turns of speech about family and education, about the close relationships of parents and children become the more revolting the more as a result of burgeoning industrial development the family ties for the proletarian are torn apart and children are simply transformed into articles of trade and instruments of labour.
There can be no doubt that Marx himself took a page out of the Republic playbook in order to craft his Manifesto.

It has been argued by one of my readers that Classical Liberalism and Platonic Marxism are morally equivalent, since governments under the influence of both doctrines have committed horrible atrocities. Liberals stand accused of ugly terrors such as the Slave Trade, the genocide of Native American Indian tribes, Imperialism, among other horrors that occurred during Liberalism's watch.

A classic Leftist argument, one which I utterly reject.

Consider the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...
There is no comparison.

While there were many evil acts committed under the Classical Liberal democracies, one conclusion is inescapable:



It is inconceivable then, to equate a Liberal Democracy, such as the United States, on the same footing as a totalitarian regime such as the former Soviet Union. The Founding Fathers, for all of their very human weaknesses, flaws, and imperfections, would never dare suggest, much less seek to implement, such a heartless regime that would seek the destruction of the family unit forever and ever.

Getting back to Gender and Justice, we read that:

In the second wave of Book 5, much of Socrates’s argument is devoted to showing how the abolition of the family results in a unified and seamless community. His postulate, a compelling one on the face of it, is that the perfectly just community would be bound together by the greatest solidarity among its citizens, the greatest degree of concern of each for the others, and thus the greatest dedication to the community as a whole. But more than the destruction of the family is required to bring about this good, for to leave it at saying that Socrates destroys the family in this section of Book 5 is to give an insufficient idea of the radical nature of his proposal (Forde, p. 664-665).
The next section of this work is invaluable in explaining what Platonism is all about. Please take note:

"Socrates’s argument for the equality of the sexes has two major premises. The first is that both genders share certain rational capacities or virtues. The second is that these are the essential human capacities, and that next to them other parts or aspects of human nature are insignificant.

Justice then requires that the latter be suppressed or subordinated, however legitimate their claims otherwise may be. On these grounds Socrates is able to argue that there is a single, genderless human virtue, and justice requires that it be developed and made use of wherever it is found. The first wave of argument makes it clear enough that this depends on neglecting the body, if not certain parts of the soul. One of the things the second wave does is show precisely what it means in practice to ”abstract from the body” in this way… it means restricting, regulating, and controlling these as much as possible and, in the end, suppressing many things that are ordinarily, and not wholly without justification, regarded as legitimate parts of human life. This is done in the name of liberating, of doing justice to, the more essential or higher-ranking parts of human nature, whose expression otherwise would be inhibited.

This train of thought provides a key to the logic connecting equality of gender and the abolition of the family and of erotic attachments generally. Whatever we may say in defense of the family, or of the private erotic attachments that spring up between men and women, they are rooted in those aspects of our nature which are distinctively male or female, aspects that are not ration and that distinguish the genders. These are precisely the aspects of nature that must be abstracted if the common, rational human nature is to exhibit itself fully. In this way, the progression from the first wave to the second suggests that the family must be done away with not only because it detracts from citizens’ devotion to the common good but also because it is based irredeemably on those parts of human nature that prevent the expression of rational perfection (p. 666).”

Get it?

The desire for family, property, children, liberty, and privacy are just a waste of time. A stumbling block on the road to enlightenment.

Evils such as these, claim the Leftists, must be stamped out if humanity is to rise to a state of true justice and wisdom.

All the while administered by the benevolent and wise Philosopher Kings,[w] but of course.

Alrighty then!!

Now that the preliminaries are over and done with, we can now move to examining Plato's words for ourselves.

See you next time!

Kumogakure 9000.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Endgame! IV.


We continue our survey of Platonism and its effects on the Leftist movements we know and love: Marxism and Feminism.

Tonight we are going to focus more on the links between Marxism and Plato, with a dash of National Socialism added for flavor.

First up is The Logical and the Real in Political Theory: Plato, Aristotle, and Marx by Charles N. R. McCoy.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Plato and Aristotle)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Georg Hegel, instructor of Marx.)

The author writes:

“An immediate and important insight into the significance of Greek political philosophy may be gained by examining an observation made upon it by Karl Marx. The fact that Marx’s observation is fundamentally erroneous does not prevent it from being profoundly suggestive. Marx observed, in the course of his doctoral dissertation, On the Differences between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus, that the character of the philosophical world after the death of Aristotle in the Fourth Century B.C. was similar to that of the philosophical world after the death of Hegel in the Nineteenth Century (p. 1058).”
A footnote on the same page states:

“It has been pointed out that Marx expressly mentions the fact that the subject for his doctoral dissertation was suggested by his awareness of the parallel between the post Aristotelian philosophy and the post Hegelian philosophy (p. 1058).”
Like any serious student of philosophy, Marx was undoubtedly well versed in the works of Plato and Aristotle .

“… the fundamental affinity between Marx and Plato, as the disaffinity between Plato and Aristotle, is found in the Platonic assumption that the individual is nothing if not the species (p. 1062).”

Plato… by holding that the universal of predication has real existence—man in general exists, society in general exists—makes more easily possible the conclusion that Marx will draw… that every individual man is conscious of himself as being both individual and species (p. 1062).”

Marx writes that, “Communism poses the negation as a negation: it is consequently the real element, and indispensable to the historic development of the future, to human emancipation, and the recovery of human dignity. Communism is the necessary form and organic principle of the immediate future, but communism is not itself the goal of human education, --the form of human society (p. 1066).”
Mr. McCoy asserts that:

Marx simply completed a modern trend---that by transposing the whole order of nature to the domination of man: its accomplishment by revolutionary “practice” is preceded by a speculative conquest in identifying the order of things in nature with the order which reason puts in its own acts. To do this is to destroy science and to replace it with myth—the myth of Plato’s philosopher king or the myth of the dictatorship of the proletariat (p. 1066).”
Mr. McCoy, in my view[aa], is right on the money.

Marx, by abolishing "The Law of Heaven" and disregarding God's (Blessed be He), Laws and Commandments, and by constituting a new man to take the place of the old, has drawn on Platonic ideals. As we will see, Plato recommended massive social engineering, complete with censorship, "Noble Lies"[i][ii], and the like, in order to bring about his vision of the ideal State.

Marx and company attempted to bring Plato's ideals to fruition.

Moving to our second piece, we have The Ethics of Communism, by John Laird.

Mr. Laird writes:

Marxists, Lenin goes on, have always desired the abolition of the State; but first the proletariat must capture the State machinery, and having captured it, must consolidate. This, he continues, “the equality of all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, race, or nationality, which was always and everywhere promised, but never carried out by the bourgeois democracy, and, indeed, never could be carried out under capitalism, is immediately and amply realized by the Soviet power, or, in other words, by proletarian dictatorship; but the dictatorship of the workers can achieve this equality because have no private property interest either in production or in the struggle for distribution or redistribution (p. 200).”

Sadly, we now know where this kind of rhetoric leads[a][b], and we also know how it all ended, in a lake of fire and blood.

If it were the case that Marxism, or feminism, for that matter, didn't have the horrible track record of abuse and suffering, murder and discontent that they have amassed over the years, I would not criticize them as much as I do.

However, there is ample proof that both feminism and Marxism are destructive hate movements that, upon hindsight, will be forever discredited in front of the sight of the multitudes.

Getting back to the Ethics of Communism:

“ Quite apart, then, from the amazing political experiment of Moscow and Leningrad, we have to ask what communism in general means, and on what ethical grounds so many thinkers like Plato or More, or Godwin have discerned in
it an ideal of surpassing worth (p. 200).”

According to Laird:

“In a well known passage in the Laws Plato argues as follows: “That city,” he says, “is the most perfect in which men practice to the letter the ancient saying that all is really in common among friends, so that wives are in common, children are in common, useful commodities of all sorts are in common, and the greatest care is taken to banish even the name of property from the transactions of life in order that the very things which nature, strictly speaking, has given to every man shall become in a manner common to all, that all citizens may fancy themselves to live, think, and eat in common, and that their joys and their sorrows may turn on the same things (p.200-201).”
Now this is an interesting passage that deserves our attention.

Wives in common? Could this be one of the reasons why elite men, despite all the havoc and destruction that feminism has wrought, continue to give it aid and comfort?

Dinesh D'Souza, author of the book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, writes:

"I believe the reason why feminism prevailed so easily is that from the beginning, the feminists had the tact support of many men. Contrary to the predictions of the feminists, the patriarchy offered no serious resistance to women's liberation. Many men realized that feminists were championing something men have always sought, something that the ethic of the nuclear family denied them. Men discovered in women's liberation a means to have sex with many women without having to marry or support any of them. This was even better than polygamy, which allowed men to have multiple wives but required the husband to look after all of them. Consequently many men--especially rich, powerful men looking to expand their options---enthusiastically backed the feminist goal of liberation (D'Souza, The Enemy At Home, p. 170)."

Once more[1], I must repeat that FEMINISM IS NOT THE REAL ENEMY. They are mere handmaidens to the powerful money-men and others that run the show, behind the scenes.

The feminists themselves are nothing more than useful idiots; the lay followers of feminist teachings are grossly misinformed at best.

Finally, we close with the essay, Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State by R. F. Alfred Hoernlé.

He writes:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Mussolini and Hitler)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Lenin and Stalin)

“We may conveniently enter upon our study by meeting, at the very outset, a possible but irrelevant objection. I am sure to be asked: “Do you seriously mean to suggest that Plato’s philosopher-kings would have been men like Mussolini and Hitler, like Lenin or Stalin, or that they would have held the theories of any one of these (p.167-168)?”

...invoking Plato’s distinction between the true philosopher-king and the tyrant. Both are dictators, in the sense that they wield absolute power supported by military force. But this is the only point they have in common. For the tyrant is obeyed only because he can enforce obedience by physical force: the philosopher king… is a “leader” who can rely on the loyal obedience of his people. The tyrant has no philosophy, no vision of the good; he uses his power for personal aggrandizement and the indulgence of his private lusts: the philosopher king makes himself the selfless instrument of this high service...

...And so we come back to the point: the philosopher king of the Republic is best understood by analogy with the modern dictator who is, or claims to be, a “leader” and is obeyed by his genuine followers because of their faith in him and the good for which he stands, and which for them, and with their help, he strives to realize (p.169).”

“Turning, then, after these preliminaries, to the technique of dictatorship, what points of similarity between the Platonic and the National-Social systems can we discover?

There is, first, the authoritarian principle in the name of the good of the people… according to the authoritarian principle, the good which the people wills is to be interpreted and realized, not by the majority vote at some election or in the lobbies of Parliament, but by the decision and command of a public spirited dictator who leads the people to their own good. Look at the Platonic picture in the Republic. The philosopher-kings rule with absolute authority. They do not consult the people; they are not elected by the people; they cannot be removed by the people (p. 169-170)…
Now compare this passage to Judge Robert Dierker's description of our homegrown Tyranny of Tolerance:

“The ongoing judicial assault on traditional marriage and family revels the liberals’ (Cultural Marxists and global elitists) contempt for everything but their own power. That contempt was perfectly expressed in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s penultimate remarks in Lawrence v. Texas:

'Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty, in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.'

Well, if the Founding Fathers did not know what liberty was, they certainly knew what liberty was not. It was not licentiousness. Nor was it “tolerance.” And it certainly was not judicial autocracy, masquerading as enforcement of the Constitution, which was designed to preserve and protect liberty.

In other words, it was not slavery to the whims of five judges who fancy themselves philosopher kings---or queens. Justice Kennedy’s remarks expose the attitude of the illiberal liberals for all to see: The language of the Constitution, the intent of the founding framers and ratifiers, the traditions and usages of our people over unbroken generations—all are irrelevant.

Every generation of judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges is entitled to rewrite the Constitution to suit themselves, as long as those judges include five Supreme Court justices. In effect, then, we have no Constitution. Nor do we have a democracy, for the people cannot work their will through the ballot box on any issue that liberal judges decide to write into “their” Constitution. The tyranny of tolerance is complete...(p. 68).”

As another example, look at the groundwork being laid for the North American Union, which is happening without full coverage and debate that the people of the United States, Canada, and Mexico are legally entitled to:

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
Report to Leaders
June 2005

On March 23, 2005, you announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership - Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. While the Security and Prosperity agendas were developed by separate teams, we recognize that our economic well-being and our security are not two separate and distinct issues. In that spirit, we have worked together to ensure that the appropriate linkages are made between security and prosperity initiatives.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed. We will also encourage them to continue to provide us with new ideas and proposals which will help shape our forward agenda and our vision for North America..."
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has been quite busy; with almost complete media silence on the most important agreement in the history of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

The people seem not to be "relevant" stakeholders.

The people need not be consulted; our elites know our best interests.

The people need not be informed; our leaders are working for the greater good.

No reports need be made to the people; our "leaders" will decide what is best.

Mr. Hoernlé continues:

“Their rule justifies itself by its supreme efficiency. In detail they rule and are obeyed, because (a) they are “wise”, i.e. they “know” what is good for the State as a whole, and their lives are so organized that they have no other interest than to serve the State in this spirit; (b) they have an armed body of trained fighters at their command to enforce their decisions by force, if need be; and (c) they are willingly obeyed by the rest of the community in that spirit of “sophrosyne” of which loyalty to a leader seems the modern equivalent. It is the function of the philosopher kings in the Ideal State to declare what the welfare of the people requires and to give effect to their judgment by legislation and command. It is the function of the people to obey and to follow. Their consent to particular measures is not asked. For them to think about politics would be to meddle in things beyond their competence (Hoernlé, p. 170)…”

The philosopher kings and the helpers (the two highest classes in Plato’s State) are roughly the analogon of the modern dictator and the close-knit, disciplined Partei (be it the Communist Party in Russia, the Fascist Party in Italy, or the N.-S. party in Germany) through which the dictator rules (p. 170).”
Need I say more?

Ladies and gentlemen, its a dark road where we are headed; but no matter what, we gotta keep moving!

Next time!

Plato and his influence on feminism, followed by the beginning of my commentary on the actual words and phrases of the Republic itself.