Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Illegal Immigration Invasion!


Please take a look at this video entitled The Illegal Immigration Invasion.

While I don't agree with everything presented in the film, and advise you to take in this new information a grain of salt. I will say that, in my view, this piece does a good job in telling the other side of the story of the immigration fiasco, the American side.

As long time readers know, illegal immigration is all part of the masterplan to force the shadowy North American Union down the throats of the American nation. On top of this, we find that our Money Men are working behind the scenes to bring this to pass.

Check it out will ya??


Monday, July 30, 2007

Endgame! Book V.


Before we get started, please be advised there is some nudity. So this post is 18+ years or older, aiight?

We begin our examination of Book V of Plato's Republic.

My goal with this Endgame series is to argue that many of our Leftist movements, such as Communism and Feminism, have drawn upon the writings of Plato for thier ideas. Furthermore, I hope to make a reasonable case that we can look to the writings of the Republic as a "Playbook" of sorts, as many of these organizations seek to move the unsuspecting populace into a Quasi-Platonic state.

To this end, let's move directly to the text. Please remember that Plato presents his ideas in the form of a philosophical debate between Socrates and some of his fellows. My commentary will come in between passages.

According to Book V:

“yes but here, as is so often, what is right needs explanation. What sort of holding “in common” do you mean? There are many possibilities; so let us be told the one you mean. We have been waiting for you to give us some idea of how the Guardians are to produce children, and bring them up when they are born, and how this whole business of community of wives and children is to work; for it seems to us that this is a matter in which it is vital to society that the right arrangements should be made. You were just going on to other forms of constitution before dealing adequately with it, but, as you heard just now, we resolved that we would not let you do so till you had discussed it as fully as everything else (p.158).”

Plato rises to the challenge:

Ought female watchdogs to perform the same guard duties as male, and watch and hunt and so on with them? Or ought they to stay at home on the grounds that the bearing and rearing of their puppies incapacitates them from other duties, so that the whole burden of the care of the flocks falls on the males?

‘They should share all duties, though we should treat the females as the weaker, the males as the stronger.’
And can you use any animal for the same purpose as another… unless you bring it up and train it in the same way (p.160-161)?”

Notice the comparison of Plato's Guardians to mindless beasts. As I read the Republic, the callous indifference that the philosopher exhibts towards the innate desires of the human heart strikes me. This is a man that knows that he is utterly superior to all other men, due to his mental gifts. It's also interesting to note the heartlessness of those that support Plato's more radical ideas [1][2].

People are not animals. People are beings made in the image and likeness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and are to be respected as such. However, it appears that our dear friend didn't get the memo!

Plato surmises:

We shall have to train the women also, then, in both kinds of skill (physically and mentally), and train them for war as well, and treat them in the same way as the men (p. 161).”

Seasoned MRAs already know that pushing women into frontline combat is a major pet project of our feminasty friends [a][b].

For the record, Kumo is not adverse to women serving in war. Sometimes, the best man for the job truly is a woman, and it is foolish to limit one's options when faced with an aggressive foe. On the flip side, it is also foolish for feminists and their lackeys to demand that women be placed in combat situations that they are ill qualified for.

The author continues:

“Then if men or women as a sex appear to be qualified for different skills or occupations,’ I said, ‘we shall assign these to each accordingly; but if the only difference apparent between them is that the female bears and the male begets, we shall not admit that this is a difference relevant for our purpose, but shall still maintain that our male and female Guardians ought to follow the same occupation (p.164).”

If I dare say so, this is yet another flaw in Platonic philosophy. There are significant differences between the sexes [3], and these differences must be taken into account, especially with respect to the governance of the state.

“There is therefore no administrative occupation which is peculiar to woman as woman or man as man; natural capacities are similarly distributed in each sex, and it is natural for women to take part in all occupations as well as men, though in all women will be the weaker partners (p.165).”

Allow me to share with you, dear readers, a very pertenant example of Platonic philosophy in action:

Why women should pay less tax

Published: April 18 2007 03:00

Normally, free-marketeers and those who are worried about the efficiency costs of taxation are in opposite camps from those social activists who believe you need extensive government intervention to achieve a range of social goals. Here is a policy proposal that should make the two camps agree: reduce income taxes on women and increase, by less, income taxes on men.

As surprising as it may look, this can be done while keeping total tax revenue constant and reducing average tax rates. Thus, this policy would at the same time reduce overall tax distortions and increase women's participation in the labour force. It would achieve similar goals to affirmative action policies, quotas or subsidised childcare and could substitute for those policies. It would also make gender discrimination more costly for employers and would be fair because it would compensate women for bearing the brunt of maternity and for the fact that the possibility of having children can negatively affect their career prospects.

How is it possible to achieve the miracle of raising taxes on men by less than the reduction on women while also holding tax revenue constant? The answer is well known to any graduate student in public finance.

The supply of labour of women is more responsive to their after-tax wage, so a reduction in taxes increases the labour participation of women substantially. Men's labour supply is more rigid, so an increase in taxes does not reduce their labour supply by much, if at all. Ergo, for a given tax cut on women, with a smaller tax increase on men, one maintains the same total revenue with fewer tax distortions. This is simply an application of the general principle of public finance that goods with a more elastic supply should be taxed less. Our computations, available in our working paper, Gender Based Taxation*, suggest that the difference in tax rates across gender that would be implied by our proposal - based upon different labour responses to wages - could be quite large, especially in countries where the labour participation of women is not as high, such as the -Nordic countries.

Since we are talking about people and not goods, one needs to worry about whether such a policy undermines other social goals. In fact it does not, and this is why social activists should favour it as well. Increasing the labour participation of women is an explicit goal of the European Union's Lisbon agenda. It sets a very ambitious target for female employment, especially in southern Europe, where women tend to stay at home more. Reducing the cost of working for women (ie their taxes) is the simplest and most direct way of achieving that goal. Concern over the discrimination against women in the labour force underlies many policies of "quotas" for women or affirmative action. A lower tax on women would lower their pre-tax wage and increase their after-tax wage, making it relatively cheaper for an employer to hire women. Discrimination would then become more costly. As for pollution, it is easier and more effective to tax the undesirable activity (ie make it costly) rather than prevent it by regulation or other forms of government activism.

Often those who care about women's work emphasise the policy of supporting it with publicly funded childcare facilities. A higher take-home salary for women created by our proposal would allow them to buy more childcare at market prices and, since childcare facilities employ mostly women, they would also benefit on their costs. Moreover childcare subsidies target only women who have children; the problems of gender discrimination and low female labour force participation are more general. Not all countries will want to subsidise fertility directly.

In the long run, gender-based taxation may contribute to changing the traditional division of labour within the family, which currently encourages men to work more in the market and women more often at home. If and when a change happens (and many social activists consider that a desirable goal), the response of male and female labour supply (their "elasticities", in technical terms) may become less different from each other then they are today. At that point, one may need to reconsider the differences in tax rates, precisely as the basic principles of optimal taxation suggest.

In conclusion: would it be unfair for the fiscal authority to treat women and men differently? We do not believe so. There is nothing more hypocritical than to invoke equal treatment in some areas (taxation) for those who are not treated equally in many other areas (the labour market; sometimes in the family allocation of tasks, such as rearing children or caring for elder family members). We already have a host of policies that are not gender neutral. We could eliminate many of them by adopting a simple differentiation of tax schedules for men and women. And do not forget that a large part of the redistribution of the tax burden implied by this proposal would occur within the same family: the husbands of married women who choose to work would also benefit from their wife earning a higher take-home salary.

The writers are economics professors respectively at Harvard University and the University of Bologna

Nevermind the fact that this ponzi scheme flies in the face of the ideal that all are equal before the law, taxation or otherwise... I would like to know who in the hell these "social activists" are and why are they so damn insistent on dragging women out into the workforce by taxing them into submission?

Is a woman's decision to work part-time or not at all not to be respected? If I didn't know any better, I would think that they were inspired by the Republic, too much of that green weed, or both. I leave it to you, dear reader, to draw your own conclusions.

While many feminists would label me a sexist, I say that it is people like Plato, and those that follow in his footsteps, that deny the innate desire of most women to be feminine, take care of business at home, and make up their own minds about these sensitive issues, that are the real sexy pigs!!

But I digress.

Continuing on, we find the REAL motivations behind this entire nefarious operation:

“We must therefore pick suitable women to share the life and duties of Guardian with men, since they are capable of it and the natures of men and women are akin (p.166).”

“Our women Guardians must strip for exercise, then – their excellence will be all the clothes they need. They must play their part in war and in all other duties of a Guardian, which will be their sole occupation; only, as they are the weaker sex, we must give them a lighter share of these duties than men. And any man who laughs at women who, for these excellent reasons, exercise themselves naked is, as Pindar says, “picking the unripe fruit of laughter (p. 167)…”

So much for modesty. Not only does Plato advocate the destruction of the family... he also wants to see women excercise naked!!!

Yep! Gotta get up pretty early in the morning to get over on Ol' Kumogakure...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Ye old school Gymnos, where men traditionally trained naked.)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
(Tha new school Gymnos. Plato would be proud!)

Women and the Family

And now, ladies and gents, we get to the good stuff.

Maybe you have heard of waves to describe political movements, such as the Third Wave, or the various waves of feminism.

Please understand that the term wave, as it is used in this context, is a Platonic idea. Yet another link between our man hating friends and the Greek philosopher.

What you are about to read is shocking, but this is what the man wrote, and I reproduce it here faithfully. Take note, dear readers, that this is indeed the feminist, communist, socialist, elitist (whatever the hell you want to call them, because they are all the same gang) Endgame.

'Well, then, we’ve escaped one wave without drowning, and have dealt with the regulations about women. We have laid it down that our men and women Guardians should both follow common occupations; and we’ve proved without inconsistency that our proposals are both practical and advantageous (p. 168).’

'Yes, and a pretty big wave it was.’

Plato then warns us that:

'You won’t say that, when you see the next one.’

“… our men and women Guardians should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be in common to all the men; similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know it’s child, or child its parent (p.168).”

Hmm... where to begin?

So instead of a woman (or women) having their own husbands in their own happy homes with those cute white picket fences, she would be at the beck and call of the fastest and the strongest. She would basically be a whore in service to the State.

The male Guardians would have easy access to the female ones. Wham bam thank you ma'am!! But, as we look around us, aren't we as a society moving in that direction anyway?

Is it not true that most women are sleeping around like never before, with no intentions of getting married [1][2][3]?

Now don't get me wrong... Kumo tha freak doesn't mind if young, pretty, and smoking hot women want to sow their oats but... there was a time when a girl traded hot sexx for the promise of marriage, and the security and whatnot that came with it. At least she tried to ensure that she knew who the father of her child was, so forth and so on.

As I see how the womenfolk are getting played, it reminds of the saying that goes something like, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

Unfortunately, women think that they have picked themselves up. But the reality is that women as a group have been set up to get knocked the funk down!

Right, wrong, or indifferent, gratutious promiscuity among women is running rampant. If one considers the growing number of women who commit adultery, then we get to the place where mostly all women are "in common," just as Plato and the feminists desired.

It ain't no secret that all of the above objectives have been plainly stated by feminists for decades now [aa]. Marriage, healthy relations between the sexes, and the rights of Men to their children and their marital rights... all of these have been targeted for termination by the femms, and they have largely succeded. In the political area, it's easy to see that Leftist organizations such as the Femocratic [cc] party benefit the most when women remain unmarried, and with the rise of the Welfare State, luring women into the Democratic fold hasn't been all that hard to do.

Ironically, Leftist leaning governments have already begun the process that I predicted they would do once government bodies such as the Supreme Court of the United States terminated the rights of men to their offspring; 'liberating' mothers from their own children [dd][ee][ff] (Kudos to the former Eternal Bachelor for his work on this subject).

The process has already begun. Little by little, an unchecked government will "persuade" the ever-growing class of single mothers that, "Daddy Government knows best."

Women thought they had a pretty good deal... free assistance and a child support check to boot! But as time passes, and as our power players behind the scenes move forward with this Platonic scheme, women will find themselves forced out of the parenting business. Maybe then, the women will recognize the perdicament they are in, and appeal to their natural allies, men, for help.

Unfortunately, it will be too late, as too many bridges have been burnt. It will take literally generations for Western women to win back the trust, affection, and respect that they once had.

Ladies, you have to understand that the power-mad really don't give a fuck about you, and they never have. This whole "ladies first" treatment is nothing more than a massive transfer of power from the citizens to the hands of the Ruling Elite.

Money, power and respect.

Moving on with the Republic:

“As law-giver, you have already picked your men Guardians. You must now pick women of as nearly similar natural capacities as possible to go with them. They will live and feed together, and have no private home or property. They will mix freely in their physical exercises and the rest of their training, and their natural instincts will necessarily lead them to have sexual intercourse… But … it would be a sin either for mating or anything else in a truly happy society to take place without regulation. Our Rulers would not allow it (p. 169).”

Plato goes on to give an example of “hunting dogs and game birds (p. 170),” and how breeders of these animals take great care to make sure that they, “breed from the best of them (p.170).”

The philosopher sums it up by saying that, “We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we’re to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best. And no one but the Rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid dissention in our Guardian herd (p.171).”

Infanticide? Lies? Manipulation? Eugenics?

Do you get it yet?


Our very disturbed writer continues:

“And among the other honors and rewards our young men can win for distinguished service in war and in other activities, will be more frequent opportunities to sleep with women; this will give us a pretext for ensuring that most of our children are born of that right kind of parent (p. 171).”

Each generation of children will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose, who may be men or women or both… these officers will take the children of the better Guardians to a nursey and put them in charge of nurses living in separate part of the city: the children of the inferior Guardians, and any defective offspring of the others, will be quietly and secretly disposed of (p.170-171).”

Dear Readers,

I have to say that this line of research troubles me greatly. I would like to think that there aren't people out here that would support evil like this. I would like to hope that those that support feminism and other such movements are mislead and naive.

Unfortunately, all the evidence points in the opposite direction. It is, in my mind, quite clear that some groups of people have latched onto this aspect of Platonic philosophy, and are doing their damnest to bring his "ideal state" to fruition.

Wake up, and recognize that we as a society, are taking a long walk on a very short pier. We are going to hit the Endgame in a New York Minute, and many won't even realize what the hell happened to a society that once stood for liberty, justice, and all that is good.

Our Greed, Lust, and Selfishness will be our undoing.


Saturday, July 28, 2007

Tomorrow Comes Today.

Dear Readers,

Market watchers know about the massive, multi hundred point drops in the U.S. Capital Markets.

In the world of Economics, there is a concept known as the Classical Dichotomy. Part of the theory tells us that there are two time periods, short and long term.

Until two days ago, the short term prognosis for the U.S. economy was all peaches and cream. The stock market could do no wrong.

However, as readers of this blog know, our long term financial position looks pretty damn scary.

There is a point in time, ladies and gents, when the short run morphs into the long, and it can come suddenly, and without warning.

I've been watching the market downturn with interest over the last few days, and while I don't think the world is going to end just yet, I do see very ugly storm clouds gathering.

Consider this entry from SeekingAlpha.com:

Tate Dwinnell submits: You won't ever hear that the LBO boom is over or that the depreciation in housing is reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression from the Fed, or any government official for that matter.

Telling the truth might be seen as irresponsible, sending markets tumbling across the world. So, the Fed has been carefully spoonfeeding us the truth by transitioning from telling us that the subprime / housing issue was contained to finally acknowledging that the subprime and housing issue has deteriorated and is worse than expected. So Bernanke told us last week. Yesterday, the sugar coating was removed as PIMCO's Bill Gross and Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo told us how they really feel.

From Bill Gross:

Both borrowers and lenders may have bitten off more than they can chew, and even those that swallow their hot dogs whole - Nathan's Famous Coney Island style - are having a serious bout of indigestion.

That growing lack of confidence - more so than the defaults of two Bear Stearns hedge funds and the threat of more to come - has frozen future lending and backed up the market for high yield new issues such that it resembles a constipated owl: absolutely nothing is moving.

The tide appears to be going out for levered equity financiers and in for the passive owl money managers of the debt market.

No longer therefore will stocks be supported so effortlessly by the double-barreled impact of LBOs and company buybacks. The U.S. economy in turn will not benefit from this tidal shift and increasing cost of financing. The Fed tightens credit by raising short-term rates but rarely, if ever, have they raised yields by 150 basis points in a month and a half's time as has occurred in the high yield market.

Bill Gross' entire August outlook is a good read, check it out.

. . . and from Mr. Doom, Countrywide CEO:

During the quarter, softening home prices continued to affect many areas of the country and delinquencies and defaults continued to rise across all mortgage product categories as a result. Due to these adverse conditions, the Company incurred increased credit-related costs in the quarter, primarily related to its investments in prime home equity loans.

Perhaps we can no longer call this just a subprime issue!

We are experiencing home price depreciation almost like never before, with the exception of the Great Depression.

Did he say the Great Depression? Perhaps a poor choice of words that may have spooked the markets a bit more than need be, but you get the idea . . . the housing market isn't recovering anytime soon.

What this means for you, dear reader, is that the mortgage market, which is the ultimate prop for our economy, and the ultimate savings plan for the number one driver of said economy, the American consumer, is going to hell in a handbasket.

It's kind of like boiling a frog in hot water so slowly, that the poor victim doesn't realize he is being cooked until it's too late.

No housing, no home equity loans, no mortgage backed securities, no consumer spending, no massive company quarterly profits, so forth and so on...

You get the idea.

Take a look at this:

Michael Panzner submits: When the housing bubble burst, the optimists were quick to call for a bottom -- again and again.

Later, when the fallout from that still unfolding meltdown helped trigger a category five hurricane in the subprime mortgage sector, the rose-colored glasses types kept saying the situation would remain "contained."

Then, when the reverberations from that snowballing disaster caused credit spreads to start shooting higher and losses to pile up at a growing number of financial operators, the Pollyannas said it wouldn't affect "liquidity" -- the life blood that has kept the LBO game of musical chairs alive and the stock market floating on nothing but air.

And now, the Mr. Magoos -- and no small number of "smart money" investors who've been piling into the shares -- appear to be saying that all of these various shockwaves are unlikely to have much impact on what many consider to be the poster children of ponzi finance, the publicly-traded government-sponsored mortgage lenders.

Unfortunately, as a recent report from BusinessWeek seems to indicate, "Why Fannie And Freddie Are Fidgety," the delusionists are about to be proved wrong once more.

The financial giants are loaded down with dicey loans as defaults increase

Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) have been cast as saviors in the housing drama that's roiling the financial markets. After they stepped in to snap up billions of dollars in subprime loans earlier this year, some politicos declared the duo a point of strength: "Freddie and Fannie aren't the problem. [They] are the good part," Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said in a recent hearing.

But that doesn't mean they're immune to the pain. Like the big private- sector players, these government- sponsored companies, which own or guarantee 45% of all residential mortgages, have taken on more risk in recent years. Now they hold a sizable piece of subprime and other potentially toxic debt--securities and largely illiquid loans that could take a hit after the recent fire sale prompted by two Bear Stearns hedge funds. And given the state of the broader housing market, more trouble may lie ahead. That would be bad news for shareholders and investors who own their mortgage-backed securities. "We don't know how much trash is on their balance sheet," says Josh Rosner of researcher Graham Fisher & Co. "It seems they've shot themselves in the foot." Fannie declined to comment. Says a Freddie spokeswoman: "We are well positioned to withstand even a severe and enduring period of heightened credit risk."

Driven by market competition and regulatory mandates, the two have become big buyers of adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, and MBSS that include them. Those items accounted for 18% of Freddie's volume in 2006 and 22% for Fannie in 2005, the latest data available. That's up from virtually nothing in 2001. A large chunk comes in the most exotic flavors, such as payment-option ARMs and interest-only loans.

With home prices falling, ARMs, both prime and subprime, are especially scary. Some $300 billion in ARMs guaranteed by the agencies will automatically reset through 2011, according to Banc of America Securities. The unknown is just how many homeowners will default. By Fannie's own estimates, 18% of the subprime ARMs industrywide that reset in the first three months of 2007 have gone south.

It goes without saying that massive losses at these two pillars of the mortgage market would be absolutely fatal for our economic system.

Speaking of government, a fascinating connection is the following comment:

There are just four people who control all of the U.S. markets through their use of dangerous and explosive DERIVATIVES. They are risking the assets and retirement funds of all Americans. Because of their manipulations, especially since 2001, U.S. financial markets are now based on the gambling whims of a special fraternity of Federal Government DERIVATIVE dealers.

This group is known among Wall Street as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT). Their "official" role was to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday". They have the entire U.S. Treasury at their disposal to manipulate the markets through DERIVATIVES (futures options). In other words, they are using the assets behind the U.S. Treasury to rig the prices of commodites (gold, currencies, etc.) and stocks.

This fraternity comprises of Fed Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the heads of the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Association. It works closely with all the U.S. exchanges and Wall Street banks, including the largest DERIVATIVE risk holders Citibank and JP Morgan Chase.

Few people are aware of Executive Order 12631 signed by Ronald Reagan on March 18, 1988. In a nut shell, this is the "authority" behind the four dictators and the [sic] "laws" and "regulations" that have backed their casino-style DERIVATIVE gambling spree since 2001. Here are some highlights of this Executive Order to ponder:

Executive Order 12631 - Working Group on Financial Markets - Mar. 18, 1988; 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559.

"By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee; (2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee; (3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and (4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.

Section 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:

(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.
(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.
Section 3. Administration. (c) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds therefore, the Department of the Treasury shall provide the Working Group with such administrative and support services as may be necessary for the performance of its functions."

Get out of the markets before the inflated DERIVATIVE bubble bursts

The pre-911 U.S. markets showed an astounding - yet confounding and puzzling - rise for the 4 months proceeding 911. The U.S. media dubbed it a "patriotic rally". The European Press called it a "PPT [Plunge Protection Team] rally". Obviously, the U.S. markets were manipulated and rigged to an inflated value in advance of the 911 disaster. Was this a coordinated measure in anticipation of what was to come? Only The Powers That Be can answer that question directly.

Since honesty is the best policy, I will tell you that I have never heard of this "plunge protection group" until today. More research is needed on my part before I pass judgement on this shadowy government body. For right now, take it, along with everything you see or hear, with a grain of salt.

I will say this though: On this blog alone, there is ample evidence to assert that the government is misleading the public at large concerning the health of our economic system. It would not be too far-fetched if this PPT group pulls major strings behind the scenes. Extensions of our notorious Money Men to be sure.

So in summary:

Don't believe the hype. The world isn't going to end just yet, but at the same time, the time for extreme caution has arrived. This might just be a stock market correction, but maybe this is the time when the short term becomes long.

Investors worldwide are waking up from their champaign dreams, and woe to the person who needs to exit the market suddenly when the stampede hits in earnest. Be safe, talk to your financial advisors (as your advisor knows your personal situation much better than I), read the press, and stay informed.

Tomorrow becomes today, and the end can come like a thief in the night.

Don't sleep.


Friday, July 27, 2007

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?


According to Gary Mauser and Don Kates, less guns does NOT equal less crime.

Take a good look at their report.

Taking weapons, of any kind, away from the able bodied citizenry of a nation does not make them safer in any way...

...but it sure does make tyrants happy!

Happy Reading!

Kumo tha Dude.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

On Polygamy III

What’s Pimpin Baby??

Kumo tha Dude back at ya!

When we left off with our discussion of polygamy, we had determined that there should be limits to the number of wives, we considered the idea of men and women negotiating if plural marriage will be a part of their marriage or not, and also that allowing polygyny in an intelligent and skillful way would not result in a large number of men being without partners.

Having laid the groundwork, I am ready to share some thoughts, spread out over a series of posts on how polygamy could be skillfully used to benefit society, and why it should become an accepted part of our culture.

Reducing the likelihood of male Adultery.

The crime of Adultery is, unfortunately, more prevalent than we would like to admit. In addition, it ain't no secret that Adultery is a leading cause of divorce, and all of the harmful things that flow from it [a][b].

While figures are somewhat hard to come by, what I have found shows us that Adultery is a “male dominated” activity.

Yes, I am aware that women cheat too, and I also know that this post does not address the many reasons why women commit adultery. Nor do I address how polygamy can lessen the occurrence of adultery among women, as the vast majority of multiple partner marriages, past and present, involve one man and many women. As a result, I do not see this tangent as sufficiently relevant to our purposes here, and I will leave that discussion to others.

According to Mr. Kerby Anderson:

How prevalent is adultery? Two of the most reliable studies come to similar conclusions. The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior estimates that "More than one-third of men and one-quarter of women admit having had at least one extramarital sexual experience."{1} A survey by the National Opinion Research Center (University of Chicago) found lower percentages: 25 percent of men had been unfaithful and 17 percent of women. Even when these lower ratios are applied to the current adult population, that means that some 19 million husbands and 12 million wives have had an affair.{2}

Whatever the actual numbers, the point to be made is that adultery is much more common than we would like to admit. Family therapist and psychiatrist Frank Pittman believes "There may be as many acts of infidelity in our society as there are traffic accidents."{3} He further argues that the fact that adultery has become commonplace has altered society's perception of it. He says, "We won't go back to the times when adulterers were put in the stocks and publicly humiliated, or become one of those societies and there are many in which adultery is punishable by death. Society in any case is unable to enforce a rule that the majority of people break, and infidelity is so common it is no longer deviant."{4}

In addition, Mr. Anderson notes that:

Preventing Adultery: His Needs

Now, let's look at the five needs husbands have. The first is sexual fulfillment. The typical wife doesn't understand her husband's deep need for sex anymore than the typical husband understands his wife's deep need for affection[aa][bb][cc]. But these two ingredients can work very closely together in a happy, fulfilled marriage. Sex can come naturally and often, if there is enough affection…

… A husband's third need is an attractive spouse. A man needs a wife who looks good to him. Dr. Harley states that in sexual relationships most men find it nearly impossible to appreciate a woman for her inner qualities alone--there must be more. A man's need for physical attractiveness in a mate is profound.

… The fourth need for a man is domestic support. He needs peace and quiet. So deep is a husband's need for domestic support from his wife that he often fantasizes about how she will greet him lovingly and pleasantly at the door, about well-behaved children who likewise act glad to see him and welcome him to the comfort of a well-maintained home.”

The author gives an extensive list of needs that both men and women desire in their relationships. It should be obvious that multiple partner marriage, in and of itself, cannot solve all problems. However, I do believe that it can help reduce the rate of adultery among men.

Incidental, it seems a little strange to me that to expect a lone wife, who is:

A) Biologically not on the same sexual level as the husband,

B) In most societies, Matriarchal or Patriarchal, usually juggling a ton of responsibilities such as childcare, housework, cooking, working, and so forth,

C) Affected by evershifting hormonal cocktails that make or break her sex drive,

to always be available sexually 24 hours a day, seven days a week, seems a bit unrealistic to me. It makes more sense, in my view, for a man to at least have the option to bring another wife home to pick up some of the slack instead of having to go down to the local brothel, or seduce some young college intern.

And, in our age of so-called "Marital Rape," the wife has every legal right to deny her husband entry (pun intended) into the "promised land."

Unfortunately for millions of men across the world, the sexless marriage is a fact of life. So what is he to do then?

Is he to live like a celibate even though he is married? Resort to violence and go to jail? Leave and lose everything in divorce court? Complain and run the risk of losing everything in that aforementioned divorce court? Go and take a mistress, risking his reputation, his children, property, and livelihood?

What is he supposed to do?

It becomes obvious that our modern day Matriarchal marriage model places an inhuman burden upon the married man. Is it any wonder that marriage rates are dropping like stones throughout the West?

Does anyone even care?

Sorry, I digress.

Moving on, MSNBC notes that:

“In February, MSNBC.com and iVillage asked readers to share their feelings about love, sex and fidelity.

Over two weeks, 70,288 readers — 93 percent from MSNBC.com, the rest from iVillage — completed the survey. Three-quarters told us they were in a committed relationship and the majority of participants have been with their current partner for at least 12 years. Fifty-four percent were men, with an average age of 43; 46 percent were women, 38 was their average age…

… Have you ever cheated? Nearly half of men and women have cheated at some point in their lives. Twenty-two percent of people have cheated on their current partner, but only 4 percent are in the middle of an affair…

… Why did you seek sex outside your relationship? Among men’s top reasons: 44 percent wanted sex more often, 40 percent wanted more sexual variety. Women’s top reasons: 40 percent desired more emotional attention; 33 percent wanted reassurance of their desirability. Physical attraction was a strong pull for about 42 percent of men and women. Revenge was more of a motivation for women, with 11 percent of them naming it as a reason they cheated, compared to only 5 percent of men.”

While the MSNBC poll is not the most scientific in the world, we note once again that Men have affairs mainly because of the quantity and quality of sexual relations.

This is because men have much stronger sex drives than women, and that, in some cases, a monogamous union, for whatever the reason, is insufficient to meet that need.

It should be noted that monogamy, as it was practiced by the Greeks and the Romans in ancient times, had no quarrel with men seeking pleasures from partners other than their wives.

According to the History and Philosophy of Marriage:

“The ancient Greek and Roman notions of marriage and of chastity were in some respects different from ours, but only as Christianity has made them different. We are ready to admit, at least in theory, what Christianity requires, that the laws of chastity are binding upon men and women equally, and that no person can innocently indulge in amorous pleasure except with his own wife or her own husband. But among them this rule of chastity applied to the female sex alone.

The other sex claimed and exercised their freedom from it, without concealment or palliation, and at the same time without the loss of moral character or of public estimation.

To be grossly addicted to whoredom and seduction was no dishonor: it was only when convicted of Sodomy that they were pronounced unchaste.

Marriage was not expected or intended to preserve the public purity, or to secure domestic happiness, but was rather designed to perpetuate their heroic races, to preserve their rich patrimonial estates, and to maintain the ascendency of their aristocratic families.

For these purposes they guarded the chastity of their wives with vigilant jealousy and punished their adultery with severity; but the men placed themselves under no such restrictions either in law or in fact, but they habitually sought their own pleasures away from home, in the public haunts of impurity, at the house of an Aspasia, of a Leona, or of a Messalina, or at some other establishment of their numerous Cyprian and Corinthian dames; or, if they could not pay the extravagant prices demanded by these celebrated beauties, they could at least resort to their public temples, and gratify their lust among the prostitutes kept there.”

We in the West have continued the Greco-Roman tradition of monogamy. However, as we can see, monogamy and fidelity were not mutually exclusive. With the grafting of Christianity, a religion with Semitic origins, monogamy was thus reinforced by the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church. However, the religion, (in scripture) does not outlaw polygamous marriage, again, due to its Middle Eastern origins, where plural marriage was practiced and accepted [1]. So while couples throughout time and space have manfully attempted to live up to iron-clad monogamous expectations, adultery has gotten the better of many a man, and the institutions of concubinage and prostitution thrived, even unto our present day.

So how does Polygamy compare to Monogamy with respect to Adultery?

Catholic Priest Eugene Hillman, speaking about Polygamy in Africa, notes that:

(In a change from polygamy to monogamy,) … the kinship system (strong family ties created by the existence of polygamous marriage) will also suffer; and, as kin relationships deteriorate, the whole social fabric will progressively lose its traditional cohesiveness. But the institution of marriage itself is apt to be the first thing compromised, at least as regards stability and permanence.

Among the Yoruba people of Nigeria, for example, there is correlation of social change… (i.e. monogamy) … and the high rate of divorce. Moreover, it is notorious that the introduction of enforced monogamy contributes in no small measure to the establishment and increase of institutionalized prostitution, while it also encourages casual concubinage and adultery (Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, p. 124).”

It should be noted that polygamy is not a cure-all for social ills. As Father Hillman continues (with my comments in parenthesis):

“When men must wait a long time before marriage and younger women are often married to much older men (as is the African custom), there is a tendency toward adultery (on part of the woman); or there is a tendency to give considerable license to the association of unmarried persons of both sexes… “it is because unmarried girls are so scarce and lustly bachelors so many, that the seduction of the wives of polygynists is frequent, and homosexual practices are general (p. 125).”

Mr. Hillman concludes that:

“…we must say that neither the system of monogamy nor the system of polygamy yields a perfectly balanced control of sexual activity.”

I have held previously that monogamy, polygamy, and celibacy are all equally valid options, with none having any form of superiority over the other (It goes without saying that the best way for men to go nowadays is to not marry at all). I also argue that polygamy should be skillfully used as a tool to solve pressing social issues that neither monogamy nor celibacy can address successfully.

Based on the evidence presented in this series,I believe that a finely crafted approach towards polygamous marriage would not result in rampant homosexuality nor a massive shortage of marriageable women. Polygamy can help hold families together by greatly reducing the risk of married men getting caught up in sexual infidelity, should his first wife be unable, or unwilling, to satisfy his intimate sexual needs.

In the next installment of On Polygamy, I will touch on demographic change, how plural marriage could work for the black American community, and how Christianity can use the polygynous model as an effective counter to the rise of militant Islam.


There is no such thing as getting depressed or ever
thinking that you are losing – example is the Muslims
- no you are winning – they got you some food, you
slept and you got to take a few shots against the
enemy while explosives planted before destroyed enemy
transport vehicle somewhere, while Muslims went up in
population by 240,000 in those hours while non-Muslims
declined in population worldwide by 600,000 and so you
are winning thousands to one – cannot lose at all –
good morale and winning feeling is good and true all
the time.

Posted by: Madduck at July 7, 2007 12:56 AM

Polygamy is a tool. Either for good, or for domination.

Kumo Out.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

State of our Unions 2007... The Marriage Strike is On!

Check it out here.

Solid info here for MRAs, concerned citizens, and Truthseekers. Marriage appears to be dead. While marriage is the absolute best place for children, and for adults as well, so long as the institution serves the goals of the feminists and their Leftist masters...

...I say let it die!

For a man, marriage is the greatest threat to your freedom, your health, and yes, your wealth.



Announcing... the End of the Fred X Blog!!

It is with great sadness, that I announce that Fred X's blog has been closed for reasons unknown.

So now we have Zarmband, Eternal Bachelor, and Fred X, three of the UK's most popular Men's Rights Blogs, shut down under questionable circumstances.

I think this is a sign that the Men's Rights Movement is being noticed in high places, and that they are trying to put the heat on us now.

Readers: The future of Men's Rights is in your hands. Save the writings that you care about, from my blog and from others, store them, and post them wherever you see fit.

We need to diversify. It's only a matter of time before US blogs start getting shut down, in my opinion.

Save the information, save the primary sources, hit the streets, vote for Ron Paul and other MRA friendly candidates, join Mens Rights Organizations, start chapters...

The pressure is on ladies and gentlemen. It's up to us to keep this thing going!


Women don't need men. Really.


It's been said that women need men like fish need bicycles, or something along those lines. Our women today are Strong and Independent!

They don't need men that love them and care about them. Nope, just your wallet and some hott sexx action if you please!!!

However, it turns out that, thanks to feminism and its corporate sponsors, women are literally shooting themselves in the foot.

Thanks to the Howard Center, we see how women are actually worse off because of their widespread support for feminist fringe benefits:

Lethally Reliable Predictor

Criminologists have long believed that murder rates will climb when the number of young people grows, especially in areas where unemployment runs high and urban populations are growing. However, a new study by Rutgers sociologist Julie A. Phillips suggests that the homicide rate may track less closely than previously thought with the size of population centers or with the number or employment status of the young people. But one all-too-certain portent of murder remains: namely, divorce.

Examining county-by-county data collected between 1970 and 1999, Phillips uncovers a pattern that contradicts rather than confirms conventional wisdom among criminologists. In analyses that she calls “intriguing,” Phillips shows that the statistical relationships between homicide rates on the one hand and unemployment and population size on the other are both negative, so manifesting “effects that run contrary to common theoretical expectations.”

As most criminologists would expect, Phillips does discern “a positive association between the proportion [of] young [in various areas] and homicide rates within U.S. counties across time.” But Phillips’s multi-variable analysis establishes that “criminogenic forces, such as poor social conditions…, can alter the association between the relative size of the young population and homicide rates.”

One particular social measure especially helps Phillips recognize areas with the kind of “low social control” that looses murderous impulses, even if those impulses are “less heavily concentrated in the young age ranges” in the affected areas than some theorists might have expected. The indicator of social breakdown that Phillips highlights as a predictor of murder is the divorce rate.

Unlike elevated unemployment rates and burgeoning population size—both surprisingly linked to lower homicide rates—high divorce rates do augur bloodshed. In four out of five of Phillips’s statistical models, the county divorce rate emerges as a statistically significant predictor of the homicide rate (p < 0.05 in all four models). “On average,” Phillips accordingly observes, “higher levels of the percentage of the population divorced are associated with larger homicide rates within counties over time.”

County coroners, it appears, will often be called on for grim duties wherever the divorce courts are busy.

(Source: Julie A. Phillips, “The Relationship Between Age Structure and Homicide Rates in the United States, 1970 to 1999,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43 [2006]: 230-260.)

Violent Homes, Violent Neighborhoods

Progressives never tire of decrying the evil of domestic violence, particularly that directed against women. Curiously, however, they rarely say anything about the cultural erosion of the social institution that best shields women from such violence: namely, marriage. Still, the evidence continues to accumulate showing that marriage matters a good deal in reducing women’s vulnerability to domestic violence. Indeed, a study recently published in Public Health Reports indicates that a woman seeking safety will want to live in an intact marriage herself—and in a neighborhood filled with intact marriages.

Conducted by researchers at the University of Tennessee and the University of Cincinnati, the new study examines the effects of “contextual risk” on the prevalence and severity of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The Tennessee and Cincinnati scholars calculated the “contextual risk” for IPV for a nationally representative sample of 2,273 couples with children ages 5 to 17, using data collected from these couples in 1990 and 1994 by interviewers and Census officials. Those calculations highlight the importance of marital status as a predictor of Intimate Partner Violence.

“As might be expected in a sample of households with school-aged children,” the researchers report, “stably married couples . . . have the lowest rates of I[ntimate]P[artner]V[iolence].” For stably married couples, the researchers calculate an incidence of 16.2% for overall IPV and of 3.5% for IPV involving “physical violence with injury.” In contrast, the researchers find that “cohabiting couples show the highest rates of IPV.” Among cohabiting couples the rate of overall IPV runs more than twice as high as that found among stably married couples (37.5% among “stable cohabiting couples”; 33.6% among “new” cohabiting couples). The rate of physical violence with injury runs four times as high as that found among stably married couples (16.1% among stable cohabiting couples; 14.1% among new cohabiting couples).

Though the incidence of overall and severe IPV does run higher among newly married or remarried couples than among stably married couples, it still runs far below that observed among cohabiting couples. (The researchers report a rate of overall IPV of 18.7% among newly married or remarried couples and a rate of IPV with physical violence with injury of 7.0%.)

Nor is it just a woman’s own marital status that determines her vulnerability to domestic violence. The authors of the new study establish that “neighborhood context” also helps determine that vulnerability. And in determining whether a neighborhood is “advantaged” or “disadvantaged” the researchers look at—among other social and economic characteristics—the fraction of households in the neighborhood that are headed by single parents. When that fraction rises, the neighborhood becomes more disadvantaged.

The researchers note that, compared to violence-free couples, “couples with IPV are more likely . . . to live in neighborhoods of high disadvantage.” Among couples who reported Intimate Partner Violence, 27.3% lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods; among couples who reported no IPV, only 18.3%. Among couples who reported severe domestic violence involving injury, more than a third (35.2%) lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods, compared to less than a fifth (19.1%) of those who reported no severe domestic violence. Statistical tests identify all of these neighborhood-context effects as significant (p < 0.001 for all neighborhood effects).

Those truly intent on reducing the incidence of domestic abuse are those at work to reverse the national retreat from marriage.

(Source: Greer Litton Fox and Michael L. Benson, “Household and Neighborhood Contexts of Intimate Partner Violence,” Public Health Reports 121 [2006]: 419-427.)

Ironically, feminists and their overlords in business and government continue to do all they can to destroy marriage and family life. And many women, many of whom view child support, no fault divorce, abortion and discriminatory laws such as VAWA as their God given rights, are marching right along to the Piper's tune.

All the while, they are ultimately creating the conditions that may return them, like their Spartan sisters of old, to the status of mere chattel property. The Special Rights that women currently enjoy are generally very hard to enforce during periods of prolonged social and political upheaval.

On a slightly different track, I invite you to watch this film, entitled, Jihad on Horseback. It's all about Jihadis and what they do best, kill defenseless men, women and children, burn homes, and plunder booty.

Booty, by the way, includes human beings, with female captives used as sex slaves and overall beasts of burden. All in a day's work for certain bloodthirsty followers of the "religion of peace."

The viewer will note that most of the survivors interviewed are women. Women who have watched their men be slaughtered, women who have been gang-raped, women who have cradled the bodies of their dead children.

What does this have to do with feminism? you may be asking.

A few things.

1) Western women have it better than the vast majority of the women on this planet; and yet through their selfishness and shortsightedness, they have allowed themselves to become pawns in a deadly game of social engineering that will ultimately lead to their own enslavement and disenfranchisement [a][b][c].

As it is written:

The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down (Proverbs 14:1).

As an example, Radical Islam is making massive inroads in Western countries that are paralyized by political correctness and feminization. From a historical perspective, hostile takeovers of countries have usually NOT lead to significant gains in the rights of women. Indeed, the opposite usually occurs as the native women are brutized and enslaved by the invading army.

See The Rape of Nanking, 34:13, for a classic example of this.

In essence, a situation not unlike the chaos in Darfur could easily play out in the West at some future time, unless of course, we as a society get our act together.

However, that remains to be seen.

2) Society is an artificial construct, and like the economy, it is a fable agreed upon. Women will not be able to fool men forever, nor will men remain ignorant to the injustices visited upon them indefinitely. As government and popular culture continue to provide powerful incentives for men not to form stable marriages, relations, or families with women, men will in turn become increasingly desensitized and insensitive to the wants and needs of their former helpmeets.

And of course, when good men that actually give a damn fail to act, then bad men like our Sudanese Arab friends will act with impunity. Be it externally or internally, men with a very, very low opinion of women as a class WILL come to the fore, and at that time, any legitimate gains made by women will be erased. We may indeed see the warrior class make a comeback in our lifetimes.

It is becoming increasingly clear that feminism is indeed a symptom of a larger sickness, one that threatens to take our Western civilization back to an age of darkness and barbarism.

Feminists, take note.


Thursday, July 19, 2007

Not what they say...

- Woman wishes to wish away the differences between the sexes. - but
then, that is the nature of woman.

Long time readers know that I advocate Male Headship; a system in which capable Men assume the duties and responsibilities of leadership of their homes, businesses, schools, and political institutions.

I wrote previously:

... 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...

... male headship is preferable to the female, in most cases. Men and women do fall on... (a)...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].

Patriarchal headship has been the norm throughout recorded history. Even in our Matriarchal system in which females hold numerous rights, and share in very little of the responsibility that comes with these rights, the vast majority of the people who hold power are still MEN.

You may be thinking that since I am a man, I am just some young chauvanist, biased in favor of my fellow men. While this may be so (as I am human just like everyone else), I believe that women, in the main, agree with my assertion.

The rub is this:


With women, the key thing to always remember is that you should NEVER TAKE WHAT THEY SAY AT FACE VALUE; BUT WATCH WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO.

If that knockout next door is really interested in you, she will let you know. You won't even have to ask. But if she's not, she won't even give you the time of day.

But don't take my word for it. Step to Tha Halls of Game:

Chicago Man and The Reality Method.

At this point then, I would like to present proof positive that women DO NOT desire the modern wimpy, sensitive man, although many will claim that they do until they are blue in the face!

This article is so damning, I have to post it in its entirety, to make sure it is preserved. It looks like Michael Noer, author of the highly controversial article Don't Marry Career Women, has been absolutely vindicated.

Read it and weep boys...

From the Daily Mail:

Househusband backlash as high-flying wives ditch men they wanted to stay at home

By DIANA APPLEYARD - More by this author »
Last updated at 09:00am on 10th July 2007

Comments (50)

It's the bitterest of ironies: thousands of men who've given up work to care for their children are being ditched by their high-flying wives - who wanted them to stay at home in the first place.

Really, this paragraph says it all!

It is no irony that these motivated Sistas are leaving their gullible husbands. The fact of the matter is, that they have failed... THE TEST:

Women are fully aware of men's problems with communication. Think not? Read any women's magazine -- they're chock-full of information about this! This understanding leads to a little event I call "The Test." The test is a situation (often manufactured) that puts the relationship, and more directly YOU, in a position where you have to act. Not acting (or acting incorrectly) will lead to humiliation, loss of affection or intimacy, looking bad in front of your friends, family, co-workers, etc., or even loss of the relationship.

The test has become so prevalent in our society that it almost always goes unnoticed for what it is. Next time you're watching a movie or a TV sitcom and you see a male character running around like a madman trying to handle something created by his love interest, you're probably seeing a test!

Why would women actually create relationship problems? This seems ridiculous to most men. After all, how would you feel if one of your buddies tried to create problems between you two to see how you'd handle it? You'd just laugh at him! Women, on the other hand, have learned to test their men because they want to be with men that are able to pass tests!

The Test is real. There is no logical reason for it. If you don't pass The Test, it's all downhill from there. Unfortunately, House-husbands, along with society at large, have been tested at the School of Hard Knocks, and have come up miserably short.

Most women want, and expect, a man that is able handle her, able to lead her and correct her when it is needed, able to be in control of himself and his emotions at the same time, and of course, meet her womanly needs.

Someone who is funny, has similar interests, and able to stand up to her and tell it like it is when appropriate. Someone who is cool, but ain't no punk.

Money, power and social standing are also important to a lot of women, even if they don't come out and say it directly. No romance without finance right?

She wants someone who is strong and reliable, good looking and able to take care of business in the bedroom, or so I've been told. Just think of the coolest guy you know, and think about how all the women cream their undergarments just thinking about him. I guarantee that your ladies man is NOT a house-husband!

It should also be noted that this desire is universal:

Women are women are women, regardless of race, creed, religion, or culture.

Most women want, in essence, a man who, as one of my female friends put it, "has his shit together."

And that is never going to change.

Getting back to the Daily Mail piece:

At the time it seemed like a good idea. After all, Richard Dean told himself, he was earning less than his wife Louise, a high-flying marketing executive. And did it really matter who was at home to look after their children?

With that in mind, it was not such a difficult decision for him to give up his career as a manager in the manufacturing industry to look after their ten-month-old son, Jack.

He hoped it would bring them closer together as a family. In reality, it sounded the death knell for their marriage.


Look at sites such as Taken in Hand . Look at these eye opening polls from the Loving Domestic Discipline blog, a site that promotes relationships of a very adult nature.

Please be aware that I am not advocating the recommendations or suggestions found at these independent websites, but I am saying that the desire for a more "take charge" kind of guy is out there, and, due to our Matriarchal climate, is very much suppressed and going largely unfulfilled.

The desire for Male Headship will find itself expressed in a variety of ways; some beneficial, some weird, others totally destructive. If we lived in an environment where men were accepted for who they are, maybe sites such as the two referenced above would not exist. Maybe we would see a more kinder and gentler approach, such as existed in the days of Courtly Love.

Be that as it may, please remember:


Back to the article:

Thousands of men who stay at home to raise the children are being dumped by their high-flying wives

"I sensed that Louise was becoming more detached and less interested in me sexually within a year of becoming a househusband," says Richard, 50. "She was always picking on me for silly little things she said I hadn't done, like the washing up or not tidying away the toys.

"It was as if she was losing all respect for me, just because I was the one at home, doing the domesworktic duties. Then, one day two years ago, she announced she was leaving me - and taking the children with her. She told me she was going to go and live with her mother 20 miles away. To say I was devastated does not do my feelings justice. It was as if the bottom had fallen out of my world."

For five years Richard, from Watford, Herts, had worked hard to become a perfect "mother" to their sons, Jack, who is now nine, and Edward, seven. But from the moment he gave up his job, Richard says Louise, 47, failed to see him as a "man".

The phenomenon of the househusband is an increasingly popular one. The number of men deciding to become househusbands has increased by a staggering 83per cent since 1993. According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, there are more than 200,000 fathers in the UK choosing to give up their careers and raise their children at home.

But are the couples who go down this domestic route sowing the seeds of marital disharmony? It seems that in many cases the rise of modern career women has had an unexpected - and disastrous - knock-on effect on many husbands who assume the traditionally 'female' role.

In short, having a man whose primary function is not as alpha male breadwinner, but domestic drudge just ain't sexy.

Divorce lawyer Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says that in her experience, the decision to allow the wife to be the main wage earner will have a detrimental effect on as many as half of these relationships, and that divorce statistics in these cases have risen by at least five per cent in the past two years.

"My warning would be to think long and hard about letting the man stay at home,' she says. 'I know it is very trendy for the wife to be the breadwinner, but in my professional experience this decision will strain the marriage. It may be fun at first to say 'I have a househusband', but the wife will quickly begin to resent the fact the man is not pulling his weight financially.

"She will think: 'You're not supporting me' - within all of us I think there is still a very deep-seated belief that men should be the protectors. A gradual lack of respect begins to eat into the relationship, and it puts men in a very vulnerable position.

"The role these men are performing at home is, of course, very valuable, but women can find it very hard to recognise and respect a man who is doing it."

It's a marital timebomb which exploded under Richard Dean's relationship with little warning, yet he and his wife embarked on their "househusband" experiment with high hopes.

Richard says: "Our elder son was just a baby and I was intrigued by the thought of spending all day, every day, with him. It didn't offend my masculinity at all - we'd also just moved into a bigger house and there was a lot of renovation work to be done, so when the baby was asleep I would don my hard hat and do some building work.

"I know my grandfather and my father could never have been househusbands, but I didn't see why there should be a social stigma in this day and age."

Balance quickly shifted

But Richard says the balance in their relationship quickly shifted.

"I was happy to do all the cooking, cleaning, shopping and washing, but I began to feel that Louise was taking me for granted," he says. "She'd come home exhausted after a ten-hour day, and I'd be desperate to chat, to have some adult conversation, but she'd say she was too tired."

He says he poured his heart and soul into being a good "mother", more so after their second son was born two years later. 'I made sure I structured my days with the children - I took them swimming, we went to the park and I did lots of activities with them, like reading and crafts. I lived and breathed those children, but not once did I regret the decision to put my career on hold.

A good "mother?"

What The Fuck??

Kumo is here to tell you dear readers...

... very few women have the stomach for a man who has lost touch with his Manliness.


This whole sorry mess reminds me of a mega hit song by everyone's favorite R&B singer, Beyonce:

Everything you own in the box to the left
In the closet that's my stuff - Yes
If I bought it nigga please don't touch
And keep talking that mess, that's fine
But could you walk and talk at the same time
And It's my mine name that is on that Jag
So remove your bags let me call you a cab

Standing in the front yard telling me
How I'm such a fool - Talking about
How I'll never ever find a man like you
You got me twisted

You must not know about me
You must not know about me
I could have another you in a minute
matter fact he'll be here in a minute - baby

You must not know about me
You must not know about me
I can have another you by tomorrow
So don't you ever for a second get to thinking you're irreplaceable

This shit goes down for real, everyday.

In my personal life, MANY MANY of my male friends, who were at the mercy of their womenfolk, ended up homeless, childless, and with criminal records due to false arrests for "domestic violence."

All because the women in their lives didn't respect them, and because we live in a culture that encourages women to belittle the men in their lives, especially in my native Black community.

But anyway.

The Daily Mail continues:

"Yes, it's hard not making your own money, but I was doing the essential job of bringing up our children."

But then the hammer blow fell, and Louise walked out, taking the boys with her.

"I begged her not to go, but I think she had simply decided she could find someone more dynamic than me," he says sadly. "Suddenly, the children I'd cared for since they were babies were being taken away.

"It's all very well to be a househusband, but she had come to look down on me, to think of me as not very masculine, and not hard-working. It was as if all the things I did around the house didn't count - that was nothing compared to how hard she had to work in her mind, which was so unfair.

"And the great irony was that we'd decided together that I should stay at home with the children."

While the pain of the separation was humiliating enough, worse was to follow when Richard attempted to establish proper contact with his children.

For two years he fought through the family courts, desperately trying to gain full access to Jack and Edward. And at the same time, he was forced to find to meet maintenance payments. Having effectively quit his career five years earlier, he had to start at the bottom all over again.

"I was left out in the cold," he says. "It left me in an impossible situation, because I'd been out of the workplace for five years, caring for my children, and yet now I was expected to get straight back to work and start paying her some maintenance."

The moment Richard's wife said she was leaving him and taking the children, she changed her working hours from full to part-time so she could spend more time with the boys, while her mother helped with the rest of the childcare.

"It was very cleverly done," he says. "I've had to take a series of menial part-time jobs just to keep me going financially, and on top of all that I've had two years of solicitor's bills in taking my wife to court to get better access to the children, which has cost me at least £12,000.


Richard is still desperately fighting for better access to the two children he did so much to raise, but now sees only every other weekend. 'It's no wonder I am suffering from stress, and have gone from living in the lovely home we owned to a two-bedroom flat in a much rougher area of town.

Vanessa Lloyd-Platt says there is a huge problem built into the legal system at a time when more and more fathers are becoming primary carers for their children.

"There has been a massive turnaround in roles within a marriage, but there is still a very strong belief in the legal system that allowing the father to have residency of the children is somehow against the natural order of things, and many judges still believe the children will be better off with their mother."

It's a conundrum which is all too familiar to 46-year-old James Thomson, who works as a mechanical engineer, but prior to this was a stay-at-home father to his three daughters, Alice, 14, Chloe, 11, and Amy, eight. He lives in Manchester, and like Richard, he found that his marriage to Angela - a 43-year-old who runs her own communications company - began to crumble once he had given up his job.

James says: "We made the decision that I should stay at home when Alice was 18 months old. Angela was earning twice as much as I was. Up to that point we'd had a child-minder, but it felt as if neither of us was spending much time with our child.

"Alice would scream when we dropped her off with the child-minder, so it was obvious that all was not well. We then had a two-week family holiday in Greece and talked about the future. It became obvious that by the time we'd paid a child-minder and both of our petrol costs, there wasn't a lot left from my wage. It actually made financial sense for me to be at home.

"To my surprise, I slipped into the role with real ease. I shopped, cleaned, washed and cared for Alice, and then Chloe and Amy once they came along. Alice was with a childminder for just under a year before I gave up my job, and I was a househusband for about 11 years until we split."

James says that as a househusband 12 years ago he was very much in the minority, and many mothers were very distrustful of him.

"There weren't many couples doing this when we first made the decision, and I think some other mothers thought I was trying to seduce them when I'd chat to them at coffee mornings and play groups,' he says.

"In the park, they'd all be sitting chatting to each other while I rushed around physically playing with my kids and they ignored me.

"Then when my wife came home she'd plonk herself down in a chair and put on the TV or read a magazine and ignore me, too, while I was still running round with the children.

"I suppose I did resent this, but I thought that was the trade-off. The children meant the world to me. But then, in 2005, our relationship broke down completely. We were hardly talking to each other, and she was spending longer and longer out of the house.

"One day she came home suddenly and told me that she didn't love me any more, and she was fed up with being the main breadwinner.

"It came out of the blue to me - we'd jointly agreed that this was the best plan, and it was as if the rug was being pulled from under my feet to be told that she was not happy and deeply resented having to earn all the money.

"Further arguments followed and over the course of several months they got more and more heated until in the end I told her to pack her bags and get out if she was so miserable. At first the children stayed with me and she visited them, but then she took me to court."

As both Richard and James were to discover, the British courts still favour the mother when it comes to deciding where the children should live in divorce cases, even if the father has previously been the primary carer.

James has 50-50 care of his children - he has them for one week, his wife the next.

"I suppose I should be grateful that I have a half-share in my children, but it doesn't feel like that to me at all - I miss them so much," he says.

"I just have to put up with what little time I have with them, and be grateful for that.

James says: "It's madness that in this day and age fathers do not have more rights over their children. I think it's appalling that courts should be able to rule that a father's needs are somehow less than those of a woman. Just because someone gave birth to the children doesn't mean they love them more.

"I cope by working very long shifts when my children aren't here, and my company has been really helpful and understanding in letting me work flexible hours when I need to pick them up from school."

David Williams, 48, from Cardiff, is still fighting his wife Mandy, 39, for custody of their four-year-old daughter, Alexandra, after they split up two years ago.

He used to work in social services, but is now retired through ill health. His wife used to work as an administration officer, but has given up full-time work to care for their daughter.

Like Richard and James, he feels much of his masculinity and power in the relationship was lost when he gave up his job to become a househusband.

"It is ironic, given that for hundreds of years women have been perceived solely as housewives and mothers, and yet their role has been regarded as essential to society and they have been respected and valued for it," he says.

"But once I gave up my career, I lost prestige both in society and in the eyes of my wife. It was as if I had no value.

"There were times in our marriage when I felt as if I was being treated like a subservient Victorian housewife. I'd be criticised if the washing wasn't hung out exactly how my wife wanted it and she used to check to make sure that I had cleaned the house perfectly, checking for dust and badly-washed plates.

"My wife was a real control freak and she wanted everything to be done perfectly. My standards weren't good enough, even though I had run a house perfectly successfully on my own before I met her. I spent my days cooking and cleaning, as well as doing everything for our daughter."

David is still very bitter about the outcome of their divorce.

"Even though I had been looking after my daughter for two years, when it came to our divorce the judge assumed my wife should be the one to have custody of our child - just because she's a mother," he says.

"This was despite the fact she was working full-time, and I had been the primary carer. Now that she has full custody of Alexandra, she works part-time from home. It is a situation that makes me weep - I miss my daughter so much."

He now lives alone, in the little cottage he owned before he married, and sees Alexandra only every other week.

"She lives 110 miles away from me, away from the friends she made when she lived in our village, and my family, in the area that was her home. I'm allowed to see her for two weekends a month. That means a round trip for me of more than 200 miles. It is annihilating me, both emotionally and physically."

If current trends are anything to go by, the number of men deciding to become househusbands is set to rise even more dramatically.

But how many of those men - who no doubt start out by regarding themselves as paragons of sensitive modern manhood - will end up wishing they had never left the office at all?

This was a gut-wrenching read, but every word is enlightening.

Kumogakure told ya'll that men are the natural leaders that God, Blessed be He, appointed to rule the Earth. Be it one wife or many, most men are capable and able leaders of those in their care.

And women know the truth of this as well, but its not very nice or politically correct to say what is obviously on the minds of many women worldwide[1][2][3]. Feminine women want Manly men.

Were things all peaches and cream when Men held the reins at home? Of course not. Men are not saints, and there were plenty of injustices that occured during Patriarchal rule. Domestic violence and other unsavory stuff went on behind closed doors, but men as a class made sure that women were protected.

From laws against wife-beating, to the fault based divorce system that protected women and children from the sudden loss of the breadwinner, to social security laws that made sure that widows and their children were somewhat taken care of in the event of the death of the provider, Men in power made sure that women who chose to stay at home received at least a minimum of protection.

However, the issues that this article brings up go much deeper. Men who (foolishly, in my view) chose to become "house-husbands," have very, very little social, legal, and moral support.

Just read the comments.

Furthermore, this grand experiment will never be widely accepted. The idea that the Man is supposed to manage and provide for his House is too deeply rooted in the human psyche. It is essential to the human spirit, an unbending Universal Law that Men and women, feminist attempts to the contrary, shall not break, on any wide and meaningful scale.