Checking in!

What's good?

Big changes are occuring behind the scenes here at Kumogakure School, so I've been a little slow in the content department.

But don't fret... more MRA goodness be comin! So be sure to check back.

Kumo.

Endgame! Part VII.

What's good??

We carry on with our survey of Plato's The Republic.

In the first phase, we examined the links between Platonism, Communism, and Feminism [1][2][3].

At this point, we shall look to the actual text of the Republic, so it can be easily understood why Platonic thought was, and is, such a major influence on globalist movements worldwide.

Plato and his writings go far beyond feminism; the philosopher's ideas, in my view, are the framework for an as yet unrealized Superstate. This could possibly consist of various union zones, such as the European Union, the African Union, the super-secret North American Union project, among others, which would be overseen by a world body, possibly based on a model of our present day United Nations. Please keep in mind that this is speculation. But I hope to make a convincing argument that this scenario is indeed plausible. All the evidence, in my view, points to just such a conclusion.

If nothing else, MRAs should study Plato in order to predict future moves by our Cultural Marxist opponents. I believe that works such as The Republic have served as the unofficial "playbook" for feminist revolutionaries for quite some time now. Knowledge is power; and we are going to need all the information that we can get in order to turn the tables on our power hungry enemies.

I wrote previously:

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:

“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 mark… shall 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).”

One must understand that Plato's Republic is based on the education and training of the young. Schools and academia are absolutely essential to the propagation of Platonic dogma; so much so that Leftists made double damn sure to take over Colleges and Universities; and converted these schools into Socialist/Globalist Bastions from whence they were able to mold the minds of America's academic elite.

As we read in The Republic, Plato returned to Athens from Southern Italy in the year 386 B.C.E. and:




(School of Athens, by Raphael)

... founded the Academy, where he taught for the rest of his life. The Academy was founded as a school for statesmen. Plato had decided that nothing could be done with contemporary politics and contemporary politicians. He therefore decided to set up a school where a new type of politician could be trained, and where the would-be politician might learn to be a philosopher ruler [4] (The Republic, Plato, p.xix)."

(Justin Martyr)




(Origen)




(Philo of Alexandria Egypt)


Now we know that Plato was the original Leftist professor with the ultimate lifetime tenure. It should be noted that Platonism influenced some of the most influential thinkers in the ancient world, including important contributors to early religious thought such as Philo the Jew, Justin Martyr, and Origen.

It must be stressed that Platonism is not confined to Marxism and Feminism alone, but it is also found in religion, especially the Christian.

What is the connection between Marxism and religion?, you might be asking right about now.

The answer is that both are spiritual heirs of Platonic thought. Truthseekers will keep this in mind in their never ending search for answers.

But I digress.

It should be apparent that Platonic thought and centers of learning go together like white on rice. With that being said, let's cut to the educational curriculum of the typical Marxist country, regimes that have been directly responsible for the deaths of millions [a][b].

According to the site Changing China:

3. WEAKEN THE FAMILY. Few nations honored the family more than pre-Communist China. The Confucian ethic pressed the people into centuries of strict family loyalties, ancestral worship, and elaborate rituals. With the spread of Communism, the family was forced to change. "To redirect loyalties, China’s recent leaders created channels of mobility less subject to family control and reorganized communities to make them more responsible to outside pressures."[3] Government day care centers, schools, and youth corps replaced the family as the vehicle for teaching values and transmitting beliefs. (See The Nazi Model For Outcome-Based Education)

The Soviet Union came up with a plan that worked well, and other communist nations followed suit: Get mothers out of the home and into the workplace, then train their children in government day care, pre-school, after-school, and youth centers. At night, send them back home as ambassadors for the international socialist paradigm. With UN guidance, the rest of the world has followed, and the family would never be the same.

5. INDOCTRINATE EVERYONE WITH THE "RIGHT" IDEOLOGY. Compare the following quotations from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of China with the Cuban education system and with the changes taking place in education throughout the "free" world. (See Zero Tolerance For Non-Compliance: Clinton's Ten Steps Toward Lifelong Behavior Modification)

“In schools and universities ideological indoctrination was built into the curriculum, partly as a result of wholesale borrowing from the Soviet Union. … The study of Chinese literature for example, stressed ‘social realism' with the stereotyped presentation of ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ in terms of the social classes they represented. Foreign literature focused on works guaranteed to show the worst features of capitalist society.

"The teaching of history was similarly conducted in accordance with Marxist concepts…. It became common for peasants and workers to be invited into the classroom to recall “past bitterness”: and contrast it with the benefits of the new era. Party-controlled youth organizations reinforced the official ideology…. “The level of an individual’s ‘political consciousness’ became of the greatest importance. … In some educational institutions, indoctrination came almost to replace teaching entirely.”[5] (See Élian's Future in a Totalitarian State)

According to the publication Lituanus:

Indoctrination

The aim of the Kremlin is to produce collaborators faithful to the Russians and the Communist party of the Soviet Union. This indoctrination is carried out through its huge propaganda apparatus. In the resolution adopted by the conference of the party activists on April 23, 1968, it states: [It is necessary] to improve the party propaganda, the political propaganda among the masses, especially through lectures; we have to advance the work in agitation, press, radio, TV, in cultural-educational institutions... The task of the party organizational units is to educate the working people of Soviet Lithuania, especially the youth, in the spirit of boundless faith to party ideals, Soviet patriotism, proletarian internationalism... It is necessary — through all the means of ideological education — to strengthen the Communist faith of every Soviet citizen, to foster the ideological firmness and the ability to resist any form of bourgeois influence" (Tiesa, April 25, 1968).

Various Soviet feasts, holidays, anniversaries, and commemorative occasions of important Soviet and Russian personalities are used for this kind of indoctrination, and there is an abundance of them. There are the annual holidays: the day dedicated to the Soviet army and navy (February 23), International Woman's Day (March 8), the day of International Solidarity of the Toiling People (May 1-2), the day of the great October revolution (November 7-8), and the day of the USSR constitution (December 5). There are also the various anniversaries of Marx and Lenin.

When the cult of Stalin collapsed, the Lenin cult replaced it. The various complimentary attributes, which were formerly ascribed to Stalin, are now transferred to Lenin. Although the anniversary of Lenin's birth was in 1971, as early as 1986 there was an intensive campaign to prepare for this occasion. There was a plethora of articles in the newspapers and journals; in schools, Lenin museums were set up, in which his youth and the years of his revolutionary activity were portrayed.

Every school year, various themes were assigned based on some connection with Lenin. Ethnologists had to organize secondary school pupils to search for historical evidence of Leninism in Lithuania. Artists produced portraits of Lenin and revolutionary themes, sculptors made statues and other likenesses, architects — with the sculptors — produced various projects for monuments of Lenin. At the beginning of 1970, in the Palace of Exhibitions in Vilnius, an art exhibit was organized, the central theme of which was Lenin's anniversary. In the theaters of Lithuania, several plays written by Russian authors were shown. Even the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences had to dedicate a session to Lenin, with the basic theme "The triumph of Leninist ideas in Lithuania." Under this theme, the importance of Lenin's theories for science in Lithuania in general and their influence on industry, literature, and history of occupied Lithuania were discussed (Pergalė, No. 3, 1970, p. 172).

A very good example of early Russian propaganda is the film, Man with a Movie Camera.

Continuing on:

In the public schools, the regular instructional programs are specially adapted for communist indoctrination — classes in history, geography, literature, and languages are especially exploited. In the eighth grade, a special course has been introduced — a discussion of the Soviet society, and in the ninth grade — an introduction to the study of society. As was mentioned before, pupils are organized into the "Oktyabrists," the Pioneers, and the Komsomol.

Through these organizations, youth is constantly bombarded with the ideas of "Soviet internationalism," of "eternal friendship of nations,' and of "love for the Russians." There are numerous supplementary activities: "international clubs," "festivals of brotherly nations," "special one-topic evenings," "excursions along the trails of revolutionary war." There are also common camps for the pioneers and secondary school pupils of various nations of the Soviet Union, there are social gatherings with the communist underground veterans, members of the old revolutionary groups, with the veterans in the struggle for Soviet power, etc.

For international education (which at the same time, is a program of Russianization) special international student song festivals are organized, student delegations are sent to various youth and student festivals, excursions are organized — students are sent to the other "republics," to various propaganda courses, even to construction - and other projects in the Soviet Union.

For the purpose of indoctrination of the masses, a complete system of party work training and propaganda apparatus has been established. To it belong the various branches of the party central committee (especially those dealing with organizational party work, propaganda and agitation, science and culture), the institute of party history attached to the central committee of the party, the "Žinija" (Knowledge, Science) association and others.

In the first six months of 1968, "125,000 people were improving their ideological-political level in the party system, among them 70% were communists and members of the Komsomol" (Tiesa, 1968, No. 162, p. 2). The district party committees organize all kinds of trips and seminar type excursions to Vilnius, where the visiting groups must tour the Revolution museum, the atheism museum, and the building in which the first conference of the Communist party of Lithuania was held.

Looking to the pages of Plato's Republic, we find that the Soviet Communist party had applied the lessons of the philosopher:

“It will be for the rulers of our city, then, if anyone, to use falsehood in dealing with citizen or enemy for the good of the State; no one else must do so. And if any citizen lies to our rulers, we shall regard it as a still graver offense than it is for a patient to lie to his doctor, or for an athlete to lie to his trainer about his physical condition; or for a sailor to misrepresent to his captain any matter concerning the ship or crew, or the state of himself of his fellow sailers (The Republic, p.81).”

Passages like these give rise to Plato's famous concept of the Noble Lie.

We all know that politicians lie for a living, but we as a people cannot possibly imagine that our leaders would mislead us.

We cannot fathom that our rulers would withhold crucial information from us, or outright lie to us altogether.

However, it must be emphasized that they do indeed mislead us; the most recent examples of such dishonesty include our bankrupt treasury, the hush-hush National Security Directive 51, the shameful attempt to ramrod the so-called EU constitution down the throats of Europeans, and of course, the unofficial effort to create the North American Union.

The powers that be have a lot of lies on their plate now-a-days, it seems.

Getting back to Plato:

“I am no expert on modes, said I; but leave me one that will represent appropriately the voice and accent of a brave man on military service or any dangerous undertaking, who faces misfortune, be it injury or death, or any other calamity, with the same steadfast endurance. And I want another mode to represent him in the voluntary non-violent occupations of peacetime; for instance, persuading someone to grant a request, praying to God or instructing or admonishing his neighbor, or again submitting himself to the requests or instruction or persuasion of others… and in all showing no conceipt, but moderation and common sense and willingness to accept the outcome… (p.94-95).”

“The graphic arts are full of the same qualities (to influence) and so are the related crafts, weaving and embroidery, architecture and the manufacture of furniture of all kinds; and the same is true of living things, animals and plants… (p.97).”

Here, our man is explaining how the arts can be used in propaganda efforts. If the old saying, "you are what you eat" is true, then saying that you are what you watch/listen to/do is especially relavent in this case. By manipulating the senses, you can create an alternate reality in the minds of your target audience.

As a good example of how entertainment is designed to fool you, the viewing audience, please visit David Bordwell's Website on Cinema blog. It does a nice job of deconstructing films into its piece parts, and explaining how directors and moviemakers acheive desired outcomes by manipulating elements of sound, props, lighting, editing, shots, and so on.

Plato has recognized this and recorded this truth for posterity. Unfortunately, not so nice people have gotten the message, and are now running amok with it.

“We shall thus prevent our Guardians being brought up among representations of what is evil, and so day by day and little by little, by grazing widely as it were in an unhealthy pasture, insensibly doing themselves a cumulative psychological damage that is very serious. We must look for artists and craftsmen capable of perceiving the real nature of what is beautiful, and then our young men, living as it were in a healthy climate, will benefit because of all the works of art that they see and hear will influence them for the good… and that, my dear Glaucon, I said, is why this stage of education is crucial. For rhythm and harmony penetrate deeply into the mind and take a most powerful hold on it…(p.97-98).”

Plato here affirms what longtime readers of Kumogakure School already knew; that by utilizing a little known principle known as Just Noticable Difference, the attitudes and beliefs of the target audience can be modified and controlled by those that seek to impose their will upon others.

This is why our cultural arts have become more and more degraded, pornography (which I enjoy in moderation) has become more prevelant, music (especially my beloved hip-hop) has become more crude and nihlistic.

All of these combined lead to a dumbing down effect upon the target audience. Infidelity is celebrated, sexual morality is ridiculed.

Fathers, men, and boys are made out to be thugs, perverts, and utter menaces to society, whereas the "liberated woman" is held up on a new pedistal as desireable and worthy.

Exploring the connections between public schools and feminist mind-molding, Ifeminists.com notes:

…More and more, people concerned with the deterioration of public education are pointing a finger of blame at political correctness. Championed by mainstream feminists, PC policies have become prevalent in the school system, from kindergarten to Ph.D. programs.

These policies are designed to change the social attitudes of students -- for example, their perspectives on gender and sex -- not to educate them in a conventional sense.

Parents who do not share these attitudes are upset, and understandably so. The inculcation of personal values in children is properly an aspect of parenting, not a line item in a government program.

Moreover, the imposition of personal values detracts from the teaching of basic skills if only because the time and energy of teachers are limited. To focus on one thing is to divert attention from another.

Even worse is the manner in which the values are being imparted. There is mounting evidence that public education discriminates against boys.

Last month, the novelist and feminist icon Doris Lessing used the Edinburgh Books Festival as a podium from which to decry the diminishment of boys in society. Lessing declared, "I was in a class of nine-and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence..."

Lessing was reporting anecdotally what other dissident feminists have documented.

Christina Hoff Sommers' book, "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men," points an accusing finger at organizations such as the Ms. Foundation for harming boys by spreading myths about the nature of men and male power. She argues persuasively that "gender equity" programs in the public schools are undermining the education and self-respect of boys…”

Be sure to read the comments posted to the Amazon.com The War Against Boys review page. Very interesting reading.

Readers of my previous Endgame! series know that Platonism, Marxism, and Feminism have much in common, and that the Republic has had a tremendous impact on feminist thought.

Leftists know that in order to implant their poisionous ideology, they have to reach YOUR children while they are still impressionable and naive. The Endgame is nothing less than the establishment of a totalitarian order where each is given according to their needs; to paraphrase Marx.

While charity begins at home, Platonic indoctronation begins at the public school.

Get your minds right, because, as we shall see later, the Republic demands your complete allegiance, and could care less about your natural rights as a free human being. Man, woman or child, EVERYONE will serve the State... whether you like it or not.

This ain't no game homeboy.

Kumo out.

Ode to the Eternal Bachelor!

I have been informed that Duncan Idaho, author of the Magnificent Eternal Bachelor Blog, has decided to move on to other things.

Fortunately, his posts have been archived here.

Change happens to all of us; and some of us know how it is when the time comes to get out of the Blog game. It comes with the territory.

EB has enlightened an awesome number of men to the perils of the fematrix, including yours truly. If anyone needs a rest for his labors, it is he.

My prediction?

He will see something that pisses him off. He will notice some feminist lie that needs to be countered. He may understand that the salvation of his brothers may very well rest in his capable hands. The fire will grow. The sweet desire to blog will increase.

My thoughts? We haven't heard the last of the Eternal Bachelor.

And we, the Generals of the Men's Rights Movement, will be here to welcome the Return of The King.

Godspeed.

Kumogakure.

On Polygamy II

Welcome Dear Readers!

Today we carry on with our discussion of Polygamy.

Please keep in mind that this is a hypothetical analysis; as Kumogakure cannot recommend that any man get married to any number of women in this day and age.

We left off last time with a brief historical survey of this institution. We found that this ancient tradition was to be found in many cultures around the globe, yesterday and today. In addition, I touched on why I am opposed to polyandry (one woman with many husbands), and that polygyny (one man with multiple wives), monogamy, and celibacy are all valid paths for human beings to pursue. I do not hold that monogamy is in any way superior to the other two.

I have been asked by a kind reader what should be done if the number of men and women were very similar. Wouldn't polygyny increase the competition amongst marriageable bachelors? Would it then lead to widespread abuses and civil strife?

In answering this question, I would like to say again that polygamy is a tool for the wise ruler to keep in his toolbox. Polygamy should be skillfully employed where and when it is needed, and implemented when and where it is practical to do so. Polygamous unions must also be considered marriage contracts, fully enforceable and upheld by the State's Police Power.

Note: Please see my edit on the first post on this series, On Polygamy. I have recanted on my previous assertion that the State was not authorized to regulate marriage law via its Police Powers.

Marriage, in any form, should not be entered into, or dissolved lightly, as is the case today.

I believe that there should be a definite limit to the number of women that a man can have in his household.

If we look to the teachings of three religions, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, we find reasonable restraints to the practice.

According to the Jewish site Simple to Remember:

If we go back to the Book of Deuteronomy where the idea that Jews would one day want a king is first discussed, Moses warns that the king should not have too many horses or too many wives (Deut. 17:17). The great Torah commentator Rashi tells us that this means no more than 18, and that King David had only six.

The Torah placed limits on the number of wives and wealth the king could have so that he would stay focused on his responsibilities and not be distracted and corrupted by materialism and power.

The referenced Bible verse, Deuteronomy 17:17, tells us that:

Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Moving to the Koran, we are told that:

Sura (4:3) - "Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess."

Four wives is a reasonable number. The command to treat them equally, is also very important. However, it should be noted that "what your right hand possesses," or slave girls, is not acceptable in any way, shape or form.

Kumogakure is ABSOLUTELY NOT supportive, in any way, of human slavery [1][2]; something that Islam, as a political-religious entity, seems to be very good at promoting. Feminists, take note.

And now, the Buddhist position:

In Buddhism, marriage is regarded as entirely a personal, individual concern and not as a religious duty.

Marriage is a social convention, an institution created by man for the well-being and happiness of man, to differentiate human society from animal life and to maintain order and harmony in the process of procreation. Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife. The Buddha did not lay rules on married life but gave necessary advice on how to live a happy married life

.

While the laity is advised to have only one wife, in Buddhist countries such as China and Thailand, polygamy was accepted and practiced.

And in the case of Buddhist (and Shinto) Japan:

"The position a wife holds towards a concubine is the same as that of a lord to his vassal. The Emperor has twelve imperial concubines. The princes may have eight concubines. Officers of the highest class may have five mistresses. A Samurai may have two handmaids. All below this are ordinary married men."

All of these sources have a similar message; that limits to the number of wives a man can have are prudent and reasonable. I would proscribe the maximum number of allowable wives to three.

Personally speaking, I think two is enough, 'cause three's company; four and up is a crowd!

So now that we have limits on the number of wives, which helps to prevent the elite minority of men from having a top heavy number of wives, let's turn our attention to the ratio of men and women in the United States.

According to the U.S. Census:

The female population is projected to continue to outnumber the male population, going from a numerical difference of 5.3 million in 2000 (143.7 million females and 138.4 million males) to 6.9 million (213.4 million females and 206.5 million males) by mid-century. (See Table 2 [Excel].)

In addition, the Census tells us that:

Of the four regions around the country, the Northeast had the lowest male to female ratio, in other words, the highest number of females to males, while the West approached near parity between the sexes with a 99.6 to 100 male-female ratio.

You can also see a map of male-female distribution in the United States here.

According to National Atlas:

The female population outnumbered the male population in most counties in 2000.

At the county level, the female population outnumbered the male population in most counties. Of the 3,141 counties and equivalent areas, the number of counties with a greater female population was 2,305 representing 73 percent of all counties and equivalent areas. About 42 percent or 1,315 counties and equivalent areas had male-female ratios below the U.S. male-female ratio of 96.3.

The counties with low male-female ratios were concentrated in the Northeast and South. Most States in these regions predominantly had counties with low male-female ratios, except for a few counties in upstate New York and the Florida panhandle. The female population exceeded the male population in all counties in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Delaware. The female population also exceeded the male population in most counties in Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

In contrast, counties with high male-female ratios were primarily in the West. All counties in Nevada, Alaska, and Hawaii had male-female ratios above 100. Other States with the majority of their counties with high male-female ratios were Idaho, Oregon, and Colorado.

The important information, in this case, is that the male-female ratio varies greatly depending on the age group and the region of the country under consideration. In addition, there are currently more men in the younger age brackets than women.

If polygamy were allowed, with specific conditions and limitations, I do not believe that this would lead to increased numbers of frustrated bachelors who are unable to marry. There are many potential reasons for a population to have large numbers of unmarried men, such as war, educational pursuits, incarceration, or abstinence from marriage altogether. Monogamy does not insure a happy, healthily married population of men, as was the case in staunchly monogamous Rome.

In our era, feminism, alone and unaided, has done a pretty good job of killing male desire for marriage in this nation.

If Polygamy were skillfully advocated, what would probably occur would be similar to what would happen under my "free marketplace of love" philosophy:

Some people will never marry for various reasons; i.e. Eternal Bachelorhood, desire for Celibacy, physical/mental disability, and so forth.

Most people will choose a monogamous marriage. The man may not want the responsibility that having more than one wife entails, the woman may not wish to agree to such a marriage, etc etc.

Some people will seek out polygamous marriage. Consenting adults, free from duress or coercion, will choose to enter into such an arrangement for religious, logical, or practical reasons.

Marriage contracts, similar to the agreements made between Islamic and Jewish couples, or possibly secular prenuptial agreements (that will be strictly enforced by the law courts, in this hypothetical scenario), will ensure that the happy couple agrees, in advance, to all aspects of their married life, including polygyny.

If the woman does not agree to be a party to a polygamous marriage, she can include a clause to that effect. If the man insists on maintaining the option of taking another wife, then that right will need to be included in the marriage contract.

If negotiations break down, then the parties can go their separate ways. In this way, no one is forced into any such relationship against their will.

No pressure, no funny business, everything is out in the open, the parties are of sound mind and legal age to agree to terms, and everyone gets what they want.

I'll stop here for now.

Next time, I will explain which groups of our society can benefit the most from polygamous unions, and explain why polygyny should be a legal and viable option for Men.

Also, be sure to check out Angry Harry's Polygamy Pros and Cons!

Kumo 9000.

School Daze...

Are almost over.

Be sure to check back daily, as fresh content WILL BE delivered as soon as possible. Next up on the schedule: On Polygamy and more Endgame!

It's gonna be a long hot summer, and MRAs have a lot of work to do in order to shape, mold, and guide during these perilous times. Best believe Kumogakure is gonna be all up in the mix!

Be There!!!

Congratulations...

To the Formula One driver representing the United Kingdom,

Lewis Hamilton!

Yep, your friend Kumogakure had the pleasure of attending this year's United States Grand Prix in Indianapolis, Indiana!

And I have to say, I met some very interesting people at the event, including the two U.K. Expats that sat next to my young wife and I. I wanted to ask them if they knew anything about MGTOW, but of course, there's a time and a place for everything.

Hopefully Hamilton (who looks like some of my relatives incidentally) will be on top of his game and avoid getting married like the plague! I can just imagine all the feminasties in the UK that would love to take advantage of the very generous divorce laws there.

Another thing, I was glad to see that there was ample evidence of Old Skool Nationalism... in between the Flag Waving Brits, the Ultra-Serious-Pokerface having Japanese, the Fosters-Australian-For-Beer Drinking Aussies, the Football-Hooligan-like Polish Cheering Squadron, and me wearing my full size American flag around my shoulders and waving it around like a Gang-Member-Representin' Superman, it's safe to say that the death of healthy love of country hasn't happened quite yet.

As a matter of fact, even though the totalitarian powers that be are attempting to squelch the national identities of the people out of existence, I would predict that Patriotism for your country, wherever hood you're from, will make a monster comeback.

While Hamilton might be the next Tiger Woods of Formula One, Kumogakure plans on being the Tiger Woods of Anti-Feminism!! And who knows? You might see me out on the track next year representing the Ford Pinto-Yugo all star race team!

All in all, not a bad day's work for the kidd... and if your nice, I might post some of my pics from the event!

Have a cold one for me,

Kumogakure of Team Vodafone McLaren-Mercedes




p.s. For the meaning of this symbol, click here.

Japan has its own problems...

Readers of my blog know, in nauseating detail, that our economic system has serious long term problems that need to be addressed.

However, there is another country that is even further along in its death throes than we:

As Charles Hugh Smith writes:

Japan's Runaway Debt Train (2001)

Imagine, if you can, an economic Hell in which the U.S. government was borrowing 40% of its annual budget, creating annual deficits of 900 billion dollars a year; where 65% of all tax revenues were gobbled up by interest payments on a mind-boggling $13 trillion public debt; and where there was no conductor in sight to stop this runaway debt train.

Welcome to Japan, where that Hell is reality.

Reports on Japan's weak economy and the mountains of bad debt in its banking system have been percolating for over a decade; every once in a while, a downgrade bubbles to the surface, and then the whole "crisis" sinks from view again, lost in the complacency of seemingly permanent malaise.

But after a decade of half-hearted attempts at reform and repeated stabs at "kick-starting" its moribund economy with pork-barrel spending, time is finally running out for Japan. For despite the endless hand-wringing about weak banks, Japan's real financial cancer lies in the public sector, run not by bankers but by politicians.

In fact, if Japan's bad bank debt magically vanished tomorrow, the root causes of the nation 's financial woes would remain untouched...

... The numbers are truly stunning: Japan's swelling public debt of $6.3 trillion is 136% of the nation's GDP--over twice the relatively modest U.S. rate ($5.6 trillion in public debt, or about 56% of GDP)--surpassing even Italy, long the European Community's poster child of public indebtedness at 120% of GDP.

In stark contrast to the universal hand-wringing which arose when the U.S. national debt hit 70% of GDP in the late 80s, this record-breaking public debt has only recently created a ripple of concern around the world.

It's not just the size of Japan's current debt that worries observers; it's how fast it's growing. Government receipts totalled only $463 billion in 2000, while its expenditures were $830 billion.

The $367 billion difference--a staggering 40% of the budget--was borrowed, with the government issuing some 33 trillion yen of new bonds to fund the new debt. Deficit spending is now a mind-numbing 9% of the entire GDP.
This is the result of a decade of denial.

Unfortunately for us, Japan is also one of our biggest financiers, holding more U.S. Debt than even China. In other words, when your banker is facing economic ruin... you know that you are living on borrowed time.

Check it out:

Reasons for Japan's Dismal Birth Rate

Both the government and companies are to blame

Hisane Masaki (hmasaki)

Japan is at a historic juncture demographically, with the rapid aging of the population. Its birth rates had precipitously declined on an annual basis until making a recovery last year. The 2006 figure, at 1.32, is still among the lowest in the world.

Even before the population showed its first decline since the end of World War II in 2005, two years earlier than widely expected, the working-age population had already begun to shrink several years earlier. The percentage of people aged 65 or over has exceeded 20 percent of the total population, while that of children aged 14 or under has declined below 14 percent.

Not only is Japan's birth rate already among the lowest in the industrialized world, but its pace of decline, until bouncing back last year, was the fastest. This has been largely attributed by experts to such factors as employment insecurity, long working hours and poor public aid for childrearing.

Economic factors are most often cited as the primary reason more and more Japanese get married in later life or choose -- or are even forced to choose -- to remain single. Working women in particular need or want to work, but it is not easy to combine employment and childrearing because of the poor quality of childcare services available, unfavorable employment practices and rigid working conditions.

I would like to make a quick interjection.

When the English language media covers Japan and her shrinking birthrate, this feminist line of thinking almost always appears.

However, those in the know realize that Japanese women are not as monolithic as this reporter makes them out to be, and that Japanese women as a group are not interested in putting in the insanely long hours that their men do [1][2].

In my view, the main cause of the falling birthrate is that the Japanese man is simply too exhausted to do his duty.

Consider:

Japanese Citizens Not Having Sex

TOKYO — The secret behind Japan’s plunging birth rate? A record 39.7% of Japanese citizens ages 16-49 have not had sex in over a month.

Among married couples, the rate was only slightly lower, at 34.6%.

"My research shows that if you don’t have sex for a month, you probably won’t for a year," said Dr. Kunio Kitamura, the family planning association’s director.

The survey comes amid concerns over Japan’s faltering birthrate, which fell in 2005 to 1.26 births in an average woman’s lifetime. The decline has stoked fears of impeding tax revenue shortfalls and labor shortages.

Kitamura partly blamed stress from busy working lives. A decline in physical communication skills in an increasingly web-based society was also a factor.

No love, no sex, no babies, no economy, no future. It really is that simple. It is clear that the feminist party line of the plight of the "working woman" isn't nearly as significant as this article portrays it to be. For more thoughts on this topic, please go here.

Continuing on with the article:

The government white paper on the labor market, released last August, said that the steady increase in low-wage, part-time workers and those in temporary jobs is contributing to the low birth rate as people become reluctant to marry because of financial insecurity. The annual report acknowledged for the first time that the changing employment system is behind the widening income gap...

... Japanese have become increasingly concerned about the future as social-security costs, such as pension contributions and insurance premiums for medical care and nursing care for the elderly, as well as tax burdens, are expected to keep rising sharply amid the anticipated long-term declining trend of birth rates and the rapid graying of society. While having to pay more pension premiums today, current Japanese workers also face the prospect of reduced pension benefits after retirement. In addition, more and more Japanese, including the elderly, are living alone.

The rapid demographic changes have alarmed Japanese policymakers. In addition to a further shrinkage in the working-age population, the decline and rapid graying of the population are matters of deep concern because they will ultimately mean lower consumer spending as well as a drop in the savings rate. All of this poses a serious potential threat to the growth potential and future competitiveness of what is currently the world's second-largest economy. Meanwhile, pressure is also growing, especially from domestic industries, to accept more unskilled foreign workers to alleviate an anticipated serious labor shortage.

All in all, it would seem that our post feminist economic model is unsustainable in the long term. All the evidence seems to point to the fact that, while a society can choose the path of rapid economic growth, the moment that society sacrifices family ties for profit, it sows the seeds of its own collapse.

Had Japan (and the United States) maintained its tradition of strong extended family networks, they would not be facing a social security crisis. If the United States (and Japan) had took a hard line against Cultural Marxist feminism and preserved its strong traditions of accountability and family, and established and maintained a regime of equal rights, not special rights, between the sexes, we would not have the familial discord that threatens to derail all of the economic gains the country has achieved.

That's a lot of what ifs.

In summary, understand that Marxist feminism is the way of death, for women, for children, for men, and even for nation states. Japan's problems are a harbringer of our own.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Don't sleep.

On Polygamy.

What up folks! Let’s talk about Polygamy shall we?

By popular demand, I will fully explain why I support this controversial practice. But first, it needs to be understood that this is merely an academic exercise because…

IT IS SIMPLY SUICIDAL, IRRATIONAL, AND FOOLHARDY FOR ANY MAN TO GET MARRIED, TO ANY NUMBER OF WOMEN, IN THIS DAY AND AGE.

With that being said, let’s get on with it!

1) Polygamy is a tool that should be in every wise ruler’s toolbox.

Polygamy has a very ancient history. As we read in The History and Philosophy of Marriage:

“…the polygamists of Asia have preserved their social purity, and along with it many of their nationalities, through every age, notwithstanding their idolatry and Mohammedanism. Such are the nations of China, Japan, Persia, and Arabia, whose living languages and existing laws date back to the very earliest records of antiquity (p.60).”

The work continues:

“Polygamy is not barbarism, for it has been maintained and supported by such men as Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon; whose superiors in all that constitute the highest civilization - knowledge, piety, wisdom, and refinement of mind and manners -the world has never known, either in ancient or modern times.

Yet polygamy, though it be not barbarism, has almost always and everywhere prevailed, where a simple, natural, and inartificial state of society subsists. Its origin is coeval with that of the human race. It is mentioned before the flood. It is mentioned soon after the flood. As soon as mankind were multiplied upon the earth, it was discovered that the number of the women exceeded that of the men; and also that the amorous passions of the men were stronger than those of the women [1].

Polygamy brings both these inequalities together, and allows them to correct each other. It furnishes every woman who wishes to marry, a husband and a home; and gives every man an opportunity of expending his superabundant vitality in an honest way (p. 61-61).”

Turning to Lafcadio Hearn’s Japan, An Attempt at Interpretation, we read that:

“The ancient Japanese society was polygynous; and polygyny persisted, after the establishment of the domestic cult. In early times, the marital relation itself would seem to have been indefinite. No distinction was made between the wife and the concubines: "they were classed together as 'women.'"[1] Probably under Chinese influence the distinction was afterwards sharply drawn; and with the progress of civilization, the general tendency was towards monogamy, although the ruling classes remained polygynous. In the 54th article of Iyeyasu's legacy, this phase of the social condition is clearly expressed,--a condition which prevailed down to the present era:--

"The position a wife holds towards a concubine is the same as that of a lord to his vassal. The Emperor has twelve imperial concubines. The princes may have eight concubines. Officers of the highest class may have five mistresses. A Samurai may have two handmaids. All below this are ordinary married men."

This would suggest that concubinage had long been (with some possible exceptions) an exclusive privilege; and that it should have persisted down to the period of the abolition of the daimiates and of the military class, is sufficiently explained by the militant character of the ancient society.”

And according to Mr. Siahyonkron Nysanseor:

To Africans including Liberians, the institution of polygyny (polygamy) is nothing strange. Polygyny was the acceptable form of marriage in Africa prior to the arrival of the colonizers and Christianity. The same can be said about the Americo Liberian settlers. As a matter of fact, the Settlers got involved in this practice of having more than one wife. Therefore, I assume it is out of ignorance that President Taylor wants to legalize an institution which has been the practice of the African inhabitants for hundreds of years.

Moreover, we need to correct a common mistake in referring to polygyny as polygamy. Polygamy is the practice of having more than one wife or husband at one time. Whereas polygyny is the practice of one man having more than one wife at one time. Polygyny is the form of marriage practiced in Africa not polygamy…

… the rationale given for the practice of polygyny in Africa is provided by two schools of thought - the Social and Economic. Proponents of the Social School explained that at the time polygyny was established as the legal form of marriage, the ratio of women to men in Africa was about 10 to 1. As the result, those who were responsible for establishing social institutions - the elders, including women, decided to come up with a marriage system that would address this problem. Their aim at the time was to provide a balance and equal distribution of social, material, security and economic benefits to both women and men.

Furthermore, these social architects or elders felt that if the problem regarding the needs of unmarried women were not addressed, what would eventually happen was the snatching away of other women's husbands, or the unmarried women would, for example, engage in prostitution since as human beings, their sexual, social, psychological and economic needs had to be taken care of.

On the other hand, the proponents of the Economic School reasoned that polygyny was established to address the prevailing economic issues of the period. They explained that during the Pre-colonial era in Africa, the economic activities were centered around subsistence agriculture. This type of farming requires lots of manpower. In order to establish the mode of production that was going to be beneficial to the entire society, the polygynous form was preferred. Since this form of marriage emphasized collective responsibilities, communal ownership of farms, wealth and the economic benefit of the extended family.”

So now we know that for the majority of the world’s peoples, Polygamy was, and is, a legitimate option that existed, and continues to exist, alongside the ideal of monogamy.

Rightly focused, and skillfully applied, polygamy served, and continues to serve, its purposes very well, and we will explore this in detail later.

I would like, at this time, to make a clarification. I previously stated that:

“Man is NOT a monogamous creature by nature.”

Let me now amend that statement and say that Mankind, as a group, is not monogamous by nature. Most people, I think, gravitate towards monogamy, and let it be known that I consider monogamy as a legitimate marriage option. I also support the personal choice of some to be celibate.

(Unfortunately, with the modern day Male Witch Hunt being carried out by the feminist courts of law, many men have entered into a forced celibacy that is quite unnatural.)

Human beings fall upon this sliding scale, and I am not one to quibble with human nature.


Celibate-----------------Monogamous------------Polygamous

The enlightened ruler will recognize that these are the three states that Men aspire to. Suppressing any of these will only lead to inefficiencies and social disorder amongst the people.

Some may wonder if I support Polyandry, which is the union of one woman with many men. I oppose such unions for religious and logical reasons. A woman normally has one child at a time, over a nine month period; whereas a man can impregnate the several women under his care with relative ease. A woman has, on the aggregate, a weaker sex drive than a man; but a man usually has enough vigor to satisfy the multiple wives in his house. Not to mention that such couplings are forbidden in scripture:

“As amazing as it may seem, there is no definition of adultery in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and we must go to the Tanak (Old Testament) for that. In the Tanak, the Hebrew word for adultery is na'aph (Strong's #5003), and literally means "woman that breaketh wedlock". Because male-female roles are different in a Biblical marriage relationship, what constitutes adultery for a woman is not the same as for a man.

'And a man who commits adultery with the wife of another man, who commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor: the adulterer and the adulteress shall certainly be put to death.' (Leviticus 20:10, The Scriptures)

"When a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Thus you shall purge the evil from Yisra'el. When a girl who is a maiden is engaged to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and shall stone them to death with stones, the girl because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has humbled his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:22-24, The Scriptures)

These two passages comprehensively define what adultery is. A married or unmarried man commits adultery if he has sexual intercourse with another man's wife (as King David did with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah) and the woman also becomes an adulteress. This is true whether the woman is fully married (having consummated the relationship) or is betrothed (having entered marriage vows in the presence of witnesses without the relationship having been consummated). This is the only definition of Adultery in the Scriptures.”

Biblically speaking, a woman cannot marry multiple men because she would then be committing Adultery with her multiple husbands.

Religion aside, it is my opinion, based on experience, historical precedent, and scientific evidence [2], that men, on the main, are better suited to the headship role; and if one is to have a multiple spouse household, then male headship is preferable to the female, in most cases. Men and women fall on the sliding scale of Manliness and Femininity [3], and we will find women that are suited for the dominant role, however, such women are few and far between.

As you consider this point, let us look at this quote from The Female Brain by Dr. Louann Brizendine:

“What we’ve found is that the female brain is so deeply affected by hormones that their influence can be said to create a woman’s reality. They can shape a woman’s values and desires, and tell her, day to day, what’s important. Their presence is felt at every stage of life, right from birth. Each hormone state—girlhood, the adolescent years, the dating years, motherhood, and menopause---acts as fertilizer for different neurological connections that are responsible for new thoughts, emotions, and interests. Because of the fluctuations that begin as early as three months old and last until after menopause, a woman’s neurological reality is not as constant as a man’s. His is like a mountain that is worn away imperceptibly over the millennia by glaciers, weather, and the deep tectonic movements of the earth. Hers is more like the weather itself—constantly changing and hard to predict (Brizendine, p. 4)”

Male headship is the desired state of things [4]. Men are wired by the Holy One to exercise this authority, and this is one of many reasons why I do not approve of Polyandry as a rule.

If I were King for a Day, would I forbid, by the force of law, a woman from having more than one husband?

No, because marriage is a private decision. Marriage existed long before the formation of our present American Republic, therefore the American government has no jurisdiction over it, in my view. Per the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Marriage is one of those powers reserved to the People, although the government has done a commendable job of stripping away those unnamed powers by demanding licenses and permits, enticing the common folk with “tax breaks” and other government sponsored services, and the like. But I digress.

If two (or more) men wish to associate themselves with one woman, so long as there is no coercion, and all the parties involved are of age to give their consent to such a union, so be it, although I seriously doubt that such unions would be very common in any case, using Gay Marriage as an example of a marriage movement gone bust. Whether God (Blessed be He) would approve of such unions… I leave that for Him to judge.

My belief that Truth should be known to all, and that lies exist only to be exposed demands me to articulate an otherwise private preference; because by means of sophistry and falsehood, the legitimacy of polygyny (one man, multiple wives) has been unfairly tarnished. I will not stand for this, as I believe that polygamy can be a useful social arrangement that can be used to remedy very pressing present day issues.

More on this in Part II.

Kumo out.

----
----

Edit:

I would like to retract the following statement:

Marriage existed before the formation of our present American Republic, therefore the American government has no jurisdiction over it, in my view.

Marriage, and the regulation thereof, is regulated by the Police Power of the State. Sorry for my mistake.

With that being said, the question becomes, by preventing Polygamy, is the State denying First Amendment Freedom of Religion , or the Supreme Court defined Fundamental Right to Marry?

While there are many opinions both in the negative and the affirmative, Kumogakure says that our existing marriage laws need amending on a great many points, Polygamy included.

But that is another post, for another time.

Kumo.

My New Hedge Fund

Welcome back friends!

It's my pleasure to annouce that I have started my own Hedge Fund.

Please click here in order to see a short advertisement for my new enterprise.

I hope you enjoy it... please let me know if you are interested in investing!

Kumogakure.

Wu-Tang Financial.
New York, New York.
212-555-5151.

Seeking Alpha.com: Perfect Storm?

Greetings!!

Today I am going to make some assumptions.

I am going to assume that you read this blog somewhat regularly, and that you are aware that America is headed, in the longterm, for a massive economic meltdown thanks to massive entitlement program liabilities [a] and a horrendous national debt [b].

But there is yet another reason to be cautious.

According to this article from Seeking Alpha.Com:

“Another Perfect Storm Brewing: Government Underwritten Contingent Liabilities

Posted on Jun 8th, 2007 with stocks: FNM, FRE, SPY

Michael Panzner submits: Of all the brewing firestorms in the U.S. economy, perhaps the least known is the one stemming from the massive build-up of contingent liabilities underwritten by federal, state, and local governments -- that is, taxpayers. These include a vast array of explicit backstops, such as federal and state loan guarantees, where the public is on the hook if the insured borrowers default. They also include various implied guarantees, like those associated with government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are not legally binding but which authorities will nonetheless find it difficult to renege on if and when disaster strikes.

One category of contingent obligation that has grown in size to the point where it is beginning to represent a potentially serious threat to future financial stability is comprised of government-sponsored insurance pools, or "insurers of last resort." In many cases, ILRs have been established to provide coverage for those who can't obtain insurance from the private sector, but who are nonetheless required to have it (as is the case with those who own and operate motor vehicles, for example). While overseen by the public sector, many are funded by premiums levied on most or all of the firms operating in a particular market, though large deficits often stir up controversy and legal wrangling.

Other ILRs have been set up not because the coverage in question is mandatory, but because they are seen by those in charge as economically and socially desirable initiatives and the private sector has otherwise been unwilling or unable to fill the breach. These run the gamut from the federal government's aviation war-risk insurance program, which was put in place in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist bombings to aid America's beleaguered airlines, to federal and state-run entities that offer flood insurance in high-risk coastal areas…”

Please read the rest of the article.

The bottom line is that We the American People really are sitting on a house of cards.

If America should experience a massive terrorist attack or a crippling natural disaster; or a trade war with our Bankers in China breaks out:

By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY

After years of inconclusive skirmishing, trade tensions between the United States and China are about to intensify. The escalation comes as both countries' domestic political calendars are complicating prospects for the compromises needed to call off this high-stakes game of financial chicken.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties are drafting legislation designed to punish China for trade practices they say violate the Asian giant's international commitments and leave American companies at a profound competitive disadvantage. A bilateral trade deficit that yawns wider with every year is fueling the push for action.

"We're competing not only with a country with low wages but with very high and heavy subsidies and a rigging of their currency. Essentially, you have China with a very clear-cut economic plan in terms of exports and (the U.S.) saying … it will work out or we'll talk. But that hasn't worked," says Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the House trade subcommittee.

A bipartisan quartet of influential senators on Wednesday is scheduled to unveil a measure to pressure China into accelerating its evolution to a market economy, while Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, readies a separate bill that would target China's currency policy. House Ways and Means Committee action on a competing trade proposal will occur in the next few weeks, according to Levin.

But even as the mood in Congress hardens, some economists are warning that the likely congressional action could backfire. Stephen Roach, Asia chairman for investment bank Morgan Stanley, calls the prospect of a trade war between the world's largest and its fastest-growing economies "the biggest risk to the global economy."

Or if plunging birthrates [c] and increasing demand for entitlement programs breaks the bank; or a massive global shift away from the U.S. Dollar [d] occurs for economic or political reasons…

Well, you get the idea.

Now is not the time to invest with Rose Colored Glasses, ladies and gents.

Kumo.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; MRA movie of the Month!

What up!!

MRAs are highly advised to watch Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

Not only is it full of good game, it's a good way to compare society today vs. society back then.

Negro porters aside (Sure am glad segregation is over), American folks today have no idea about Patriotism, or what it means to value our Constitution, or our Bill of Rights.

It would be cool if we could take the good things from past generations, while keeping some of postive advancements from our era.

All in all, a good flick to watch.

Against Claritus

Greetings!

I recently read a blog post entitled What Is It All About by Claritus, which is located here.

My first impression was that this woman was like a blind man wandering about on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. Clearly, she has no real understanding of either feminism OR the Men's Rights Movement.

As is the case with most feminists and their sympathizers, she writes about her "feelings", and supplies her reader with little in the way of FACTS.

Unfortunately for our writer, feelings can only get you so far. If she desires to be taken seriously among the intellectual giants within the Men's Rights Movement, she is going to have to supply some serious data in order to back up her assertions.

Let's take a closer look at what she wrote:

Men’s Rights Activists. Started up in response to the third wave of feminism that has washed across the western world. Started up with good intentions, but now degenerated into angry men calling women names.

“Is this true? No.

Most men writing under the standard of MRA are making legitimate points, about
how the way child custody is handled is unfair, about how the education system
is designed for girls to excel rather than boys. However, the way they throw
about the words ‘bitch’ and ‘whore’ doesn’t just distress me: it makes my blood boil.”

Our author is a little sensitive because "women" are being "disrespected". However the fact is, women have been disrespecting themselves for quite a while now. Furthermore, while I can understand her feelings on this issue, the facts are that men have been systematically demonized for decades. Please see my post on Misandry in the public square here. In addition, our author should understand that Men have held their tongues for over forty years, while feminists and their Leftist allies destroyed our most ancient and vital right [a][aa], a man's right to his own child [b].

It is important to remember that anger is NOT a bad thing, feminist brainwashing to the contrary. Righteous anger, when injustice is being visited upon you, is a blessing, not a curse. So if men are angry, and call women bitches and whores (and from my experience, these labels are heartily justified in most cases), then it is because most of today's modern women are:

Unpleasant, insolent, disrespectful, untrustworthy, selfish, bitter, petty, cunning, unfaithful, loose in morals, promiscuous, and whorish.

The proof is this is overwhelming. All one has to do is to visit sites such as Eternal Bachelor, Captain Zarmand, Don’t Marry, among others, to find well DOCUMENTED accounts of women behaving badly. In short, MRAs are calling it as we see it, and if women such as Claritus can't stand the heat, then she needs to get the HELL out of the kitchen.

Leave the discussion of serious issues to the grown folks; those who can't handle the truth can go back to their feminist friends who, in their insane denial of the truth, will weave tales of unmatched Sophistry in order to make sure that blood doesn't get boiled.

Claritus continues:

“Even the dreaded feminists can manage to write a post on equality without having to resort to calling men names! I read once that ‘women should not call men dogs or bastards’. I fully agree. Women shouldn't’t call men names. BUT men should be able to write a sentence without referring to the entire female population as prostitutes!”

Our author has much to learn about the art of debate. She claims that feminists write posts on equality without resorting to name calling. This is an ignorant statement for two reasons. Firstly, she has provided no links or no proof that her quote ‘women should not call men dogs or bastards’ was actually made. Secondly, there are ample feminist writings that compare Men to animals, rapists, and other unsavory things.

According to Men’s Wiki:

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination." -- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers". -- Robin Morgan

I would like to make this clear; these are not quotes by some ‘anonymous’ feminist poster on some obscure feminist weblog. These are DOCUMENTED quotes by some of the most famous feminists in history.

Again, it would appear that Claritus is very unknowledgeable about the philosophy of her beloved feminist movement. Perhaps it would be better for her to come to this humble blog and let a MAN and a MRA educate her as to what feminism is really about, before she writes foolishly about the Men’s Rights Movement in general, and MRAs in particular.

The author notes:

“…In the MGTOW manifesto it says they want women to return to their traditional roles of complementing men - but for the love of everything green don’t assume that that means MRAs want men to return to their traditional roles! They want women to stop having sex all the time (to the point of inserting chips into their arms so that men can tell if they want sex or not), just for the pleasure of it, (like the feminists have encouraged women to do) but they still defend the old line of ‘men are genetically hardwired to spread their seed’ meaning, basically, that men should get carte blanche to have sex with as many women as possible.”

It should be said that every MRA has his (and her, as there are female MRAs out there) own opinion as to what the role of women should be. I will state my position on this subject, and others are free to agree or disagree as they like.

I am a Classical Liberal. I believe that every human being has basic, unalienable rights, given to them by the Holy One (Blessed be He).

I don’t particularly care if women work, or if women stay at home. Nor do I care about who "wears the pants" in the family. I think that those choices should be the private (not the politically correct) decision of each individual couple. It is up to each person to negotiate for themselves the duties and roles that they so desire in their relationships. And once the couple has solemnized their decision via the marriage contract [**], then let it be done forever.

In this "marketplace of love" as I call it, it is my opinion that in the aggregate, most men will naturally choose to be the leaders of their homes and families, as it is their nature to lead [*], although there are exceptions to this rule.

The beauty of Liberalism (not to be confused with today’s Leftist bent) is that there is a division between the Public and the Private, and that the citizenry and the government both have their respective rights, responsibilities, powers and obligations. Feminism, on the other hand, seeks to destroy that balance [c]. It demonizes not just men, but also traditionally minded women (like my wife for example) who choose to emphasize family over career, and the home over the public square.

Every person has innate inclinations [d]. Some want to work, others not. Some want to marry, others not. I really don’t mind what an individual person does, so long as the personal idea of freedom is equally balanced with the freedoms of others, so that the needs of society are balanced with the freedom of the individual, so long as the innocent are protected and the guilty punished, and that reasonable persons can enter into oaths, covenants, and contracts, free from duress and coercion, and abide by the oaths they have spoken.

Leftist feminism, on the other hand, seeks to manipulate in order to gain power, uses the State to enforce its aims [e], and denies Men and women both the freedom to choose what is just and good, in addition to absolving women of any form of maturity or moral responsibility [f].

It is interesting that our author should mention the spreading of seed. I personally support Polygamy [g], for religious and logical reasons. By our very nature, men and women are different, in very profound [***] ways.

In matters of sex, Dr. Louann Brizendine, M.D., author of the Impressive work The Female Brain, tells us that:

The Great Sexual Divide

“The sex related centers in the male brain are actually about two times larger than parallel structures in the female brain. When it comes to the brain, size does make a difference in the way women and men think about, respond to, and experience sex. Men, quite literally, have sex on their minds more than women do. They feel pressure in their gonads and prostates unless they ejaculate frequently. Males have double the brain space and processing power devoted to sex as females. Just as women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion while men have a small country road, men have O’Hare Airport as a hub for processing thoughts about sex whereas women have the airfield nearby that lands small and private planes. That probably explains why 85 percent of twenty to thirty year old males think about sex every fifty two seconds and women think about it once a day--- or up to three or four times on their most fertile days. That makes for interesting interactions between the sexes. Guys often have to talk women into having sex. It’s usually not the first thing on women’s minds(Brizendine, p.91.).

Continuing on with the idea that women are less sexual than men, consider this piece by the BBC:

“Security 'bad news for sex drive'

Differences in sexual appetite may be driven by evolution.

A woman's sex drive begins to plummet once she is in a secure relationship, according to research. Researchers from Germany found that four years into a relationship, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex. Conversely, the team found a man's libido remained the same regardless of how long he had been in a relationship.

Writing in the journal Human Nature, the scientists said the differences resulted from how humans had evolved. The researchers from Hamburg-Eppendorf University Hospital interviewed 530 men and women about their relationships.

They found 60% of 30-year-old women wanted sex "often" at the beginning of a relationship, but within four years of the relationship this figure fell to under 50%, and after 20 years it dropped to about 20%.

In contrast, they found the proportion of men wanting regular sex remained at between 60-80%, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship.

Tenderness

The study also revealed tenderness was important for women in a relationship.
About 90% of women wanted tenderness, regardless of how long they had been in a relationship, but only 25% of men who had been in a relationship for 10 years said they were still seeking tenderness from their partner. Dr Dietrich Klusmann, lead author of the study and a psychologist from Hamburg-Eppendorf University Hospital, believed the differences were down to human evolution.

He said: "For men, a good reason their sexual motivation to remain constant would be to guard against being cuckolded by another male."But women, he said, have evolved to have a high sex drive when they are initially in a relationship in order to form a "pair bond" with their partner. But, once this bond is sealed a woman's sexual appetite declines, he added…”

So the old idea that Men give love to get sex, and women give sex to get love, seems to be validated by modern research. It is ironic, however, that science is just now proving what the Ancients already knew. And while each individual man and woman is unique, this 'sexual divide' holds true across the aggregate.

And so, in response to Claritus’s attempt to label our healthy male sex drives a “double standard”, I boldly state that there is nothing two-faced about it. We were created this way, and Man is NOT a monogamous creature by nature.

And while it is necessary to place limitations on innate behavior for the sake of society, I think that the burden placed on men is too great, and the yoke on women, far too light in our post feminist age. Women should be married to one man for the sake of stability and accountability, and a man, if he is able, should be allowed to build a polygamous household. But I digress.

Human nature is like a river. You can deny the rushing waters, but the river always finds a way to channel its natural flow. Sometimes dammed rivers lead to destructive floods. Such is the case with men, love and sex in our time.

All in all, this is another example of our author's great fallacy:

Writing from her “feelings”, instead of dealing in facts.

While our author goes on to address other issues in her post, my analysis stops here, as I have proved my point:

Claritus is ill-informed about a great many things, and poses no threat in the slightest to our movement.

Furthermore, she is a writer that is not to be taken seriously by MRAs, as her weak arguments are easily countered by the spotlight of Truth. In addition, her endorsement of the doctrines of a KNOWN hate movement that has crippled Men, women and society makes her guilty by association.

A friend of feminists is no friend of mine. I can only hope, for her own sake, that she disassociates herself from such a notorious group of man haters.

If she renounces her feminist ties, and demonstrates that she has done serious and scholarly research, I for one, might reconsider my stance. In the meantime, I will chalk her up with the ever decreasing group of amateur feminist apologists.

Kumogakure.

Liquidity??

Good Afternoon, one and all!

Today I'd like to start off with this short piece concerning global liquidity:

John Hussman: Global Liquidity or Domestic Stupidity
Posted on May 29th,
2007 with stocks: IVV, SPY

Excerpt from fund manager John Hussman's
weekly essay on the U.S. market:

Interest rate trends are pushing higher not only in the U.S., but globally. One might wonder -- if there is so much "global liquidity," why are interest rates rising everywhere? Credit spreads are perking up modestly too, but haven't yet exploded higher in a way that would reflect an oncoming recession or an easing of general inflation pressures.

What's really going on is not the creation of "global liquidity" -- central banks worldwide are generally tightening. What investors have misconstrued as "global liquidity" is nothing but a combination of a) risk blindness among investors, and b) the U.S. going deep into debt to finance current consumption (both private and government spending), while China and other developing nations run huge surpluses to sell us that consumption. They then take the proceeds and buy a) Treasury securities, and b) our means of production. Piece by piece, we are selling off productive assets and claims to our future income, in return for present spending. That's not liquidity -- it's reckless, voluntary subjugation of our future prosperity. Indeed, China recently agreed to buy a chunk of Blackstone Group, and its government is establishing additional means to invest its surpluses by purchasing U.S. assets.

Smartest comments of the week: Ray Dalio of Bridgewater Associates, who
manages about $160 billion in assets for clients including central banks and
foreign governments, quoted in Barron's:

"Our situation today is a modern-day version of the time before the Bretton Woods breakup. It is very much analogous to 1968, '69, and '70, a period in which we had large imbalances, a fixed exchange rate, and Japan and Germany bought our bonds, and then there was a rebalancing. China today is similar to Japan then, in transition from being an emerging economy, except it is about eight times as large. The imbalances are only going to increase, and there'll need to be an adjustment for that. This will lead to depreciation in the value of the dollar relative to emerging countries' currencies, particularly those in Asia . It is going to mean the Fed's tradeoff between inflation and growth is going to be more acute in the next couple of years..."

Check out the rest of the post.

In the long term, we the American people have a very large bill coming due... one that I fear we will not be able to meet, without a lot of suffering and gnashing of teeth.

However, in a small ray of hope, the mainstream media is starting to sound the alarm, albeit, a little too late.

According to USA Today:

The federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion loss last year — far
more than the official $248 billion deficit — when corporate-style accounting
standards are used, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The loss reflects a continued deterioration in the finances of Social Security and government retirement programs for civil servants and military personnel. The loss — equal to $11,434 per household — is more than Americans paid in income taxes in 2006.

"We're on an unsustainable path and doing a great disservice to future generations," says Chris Chocola, a former Republican member of Congress from Indiana and corporate chief executive who is pushing for more accurate federal accounting.

Modern accounting requires that corporations, state governments and local governments count expenses immediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be made later.

The federal government does not follow the rule, so promises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when the government reports its financial condition.

Sorry, but that's not right.

From day one of Kumogakure School, I have linked to reports such as the Financial Report of the United States 2006, which gives government figures in Accrual (standard business) vs. Cash (what the government usually uses) Accounting.

Remember: Kumogakure always told you so, long before the Lamestream media got on the case. As a matter of fact, the government has been issuing these Financial Reports for years, and the media hasn't given them the time of day.

Ah well, at least it made the front page... so maybe we're NOT doomed.

The article continues:

Bottom line: Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in
liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for
every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined...

Now, dear reader, combine all of this bad news with the other posts on this subject I have done... and recognize that we have serious problems coming our way.

One good thing about all this... government subsidized feminism is coming to an end, and soon, as America will be too broke to fund the feminist agenda. Heck, maybe we will see compulsory marriage laws just like the Caesars tried in Rome as a last ditch effort to save this Republic...

But, once again, it will be too little, too late.

Revenge is a dish best served cold, and I for one can't wait to see the femmes get the comeuppance they so richly deserve.

Kumo out.