Sunday, November 23, 2008

The Lost Art of Discipline Part II.

Welcome back to Togakure School!

Let's dig in.

It is better not to marry.

Today we continue with our examination of the lost art of discipline.

As previously stated, we are going to limit the discussion of this virtue to the context of married, monogamous, male-dominated marital relationships.

Before I disclose why I am focusing on married couples, I wanted to share with you highlights from an excellent article written by Mr. Robb Fedders of No Ma'am entitled, Marriage is Fraud:

... Males have a surplus of labour but a shortage of reproductive ability.

Females have a surplus of reproductive ability but a shortage of labour.

Now, perhaps, you can see why marriage is an economic contract.

The male “sells” his surplus labour to the female in exchange for her reproductive ability.

The female “sells” her reproductive ability to the male in exchange for his surplus labour.

In order to “sell” something, you first must “own it” yourself, and upon “selling it,” you are agreeing to transfer ownership of it to the buyer. This is the basis of economics, and as you can see, it is based on property rights.

In the economic contract of marriage, the female agrees to transfer the ownership of her sexual reproductive ability to the male, and she takes ownership of his surplus labour as payment for it.

So, yes, while the feminists harp on and on that women were once “owned” as chattel, there is truth to this because in a very real sense, a woman’s sexuality became the property of the husband. He very much was considered to “own” her sexuality and the products of her sexuality (children). The children of a marriage became his property, because he paid for them...

Mr. Fedders continues...


What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

If you go to a car dealership and buy a shiny new car, you might sign on the dotted line and agree to make payments for the next five years, but it is implied in the contract that you own the car.

The dealership cannot decide 6 months later that they want the car back, show up at your house, and just take it. And certainly they cannot force you to make the next 54 payments on it if they take it away from you with no breech of contract on your part. It is your property and they have no right to it. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest you signed a fraudulent contract. To suggest that you would still have to pay for gas, maintenance, and insurance after they sell it to someone else because “it is in the best interests of the car” is to suggest an insanely fraudulent contract.


But this is what we are left with in the marriage contract...

The writer sums it all up in a dramatic fashion:




If you haven't done so already, I would urge you to read the entire essay. It is, in two words, brilliant and irrefutable.

Marriage, as Mr Fedders has stated, was and is a contractual agreement [a][b][c] in which the marital parties promise to perform certain actions.

Failure to perform certain duties in past eras equated to a breach of contract. At that point, the innocent party would move to have a court of law determine fault, or who violated the obligations that the marriage contract imposed on all applicable parties (see The Law and Economics of Marriage, pp. 41-43).

However with our modern day No-Fault Divorce regime, the virtues of responsibility, duty, justice, fairness, and discipline have been thrown out the window. As Robb so eloquently states, Western marriage is a farce, a fraud, and not worth entering into nine times out of ten. If it wasn't for my traditional Japanese wife, who believes strongly in marriage and has a basic level of respect for men, I wouldn't be married today.

There is absolutely no way in hell that I would put myself on the chopping block and marry a woman born and raised in the West.

Some would point out that I have Damocles' Sword hanging over my head by simply residing in the Feminized West, and I would agree with this statement. Although my wife and I married in the ancient city of Kyoto, where the marriage laws are much more Man friendly than in the United States, my wife (because she has resided in our state for more than six months) can walk into an American courthouse, divorce me without any rhyme or reason, receive all manner of financial, legal, and "moral" support, and banish me to child support/alimony hell, at the drop of a hat. And we dare lecture the world about our "family values!"

I understand these risks, and until we leave the United States for more family friendly pastures, I live with them with a happy heart. While I have greatly reduced my risks by choosing a wife with great care, nothing is certain.

All things considered, it is better for a man not to mate or marry within the borders of the Feminized West, unless and until laws are changed, and certain virtues return to prominence.

Why the focus on married people?

If marriage is such a death trap,
you may wonder, why am I limiting my discourse to married couples?

A fair question to ask.

As I write about the lost art of discipline, I need to inform the reader that since the purpose of this post is to explore concepts that have either been ignored or have fallen out of favor with mainstream society, I am making a few assumptions that will help us in our study:

a) I am assuming that we have reached a baseline legal understanding that all human beings have worth in the eyes of God, and that all individuals, man, woman, and child have Natural Rights and Responsibilities, and that all citizens receive equal treatment under the law.

b) That marriage is recognized as a contract, with enforceable provisions, and that before any marriage takes place, all parties undergo a negotiation period so that all aspects of the union are understood and agreed to before the union takes place, including issues regarding separation, child custody, financial arrangements, and the like. Once all terms are agreed to, without duress or fraud by any party, then these terms would be binding forever unless all parties to the original agreement agree to change the terms, or unless there is a breach of contract by any one of the original parties.

c) As part of this negotiation, the dominant partner (in our case study, the man) is recognized to be the leader and the final decision maker of the marriage, and that the dominant partner fully understands the full range of responsibilities this entails, and the legal consequences of abusing his power. Unlawful assault, battery, and other violent crimes cannot be justified under any circumstances. However, the law recognizes a difference between corporal punishment and aggravated battery, and we shall in kind recognize that physical methods of discipline are not automatically in themselves immoral or unjustifiable.

More on this later.

d) The happy couple declares their intentions, vows, and promises in a public ceremony where family, friends, or other members of a group (such as a religious gathering or a BDSM collaring cermemony) are in attendance.

e) The married couple, male and female alike, strives to live up to their duties and their obligations in a spirit of good faith, affection, harmony, devotion, and loyalty, and they also make their best effort to assume that each partner has the others best interests in mind, and are also aware of the fundamental needs and differences between the male and female sex, and try their best to meet them.

If American style marriage conformed with the assumptions made above, then it would be the preferred and dominant social arrangement for the care and raising of children, the accumulation of capital, and the distribution of cultural values. If these assumptions were actually facts, marriage would become the gold standard of human relationships.

Once individuals enter into such a contract of their own free will, the virtue of discipline becomes very important. It is a basic element of the glue that holds the marriage together.

For the sake of longevity and stability, discipline is essential. And, based upon the positive economic, financial, and social capital that marriage provides in perpetuity, the long term stability of the association is in the best interests of an advanced society.

If two people are merely dating, or cohabiting without intending to make any form of long term agreement or public declaration, then there is no need for the discipline I shall describe in this series.

What claim does the boyfriend really have on the girlfriend? Has anyone else ever thought about how silly it is to talk about "my girlfriend" once one has graduated from high school or college? Should one really get pissed because his "sex-friend" is acting stupid?

My answer: Absolutely not.

When I was a single man, I had my fair share of love affairs, with women from all over the world. I was an equal opportunity womanizer.

I've experienced exquisite love, and suffered through devastating heartbreaks. I never allowed a woman to walk all over me. I was "mean" and an "asshole." If my girlfriend at the time was giving me a hard time, I would simply break it off with her. I would dump her ass. I would stop calling her. I would refuse to speak to her for weeks at a time. While one could consider these actions as discipline, or keeping your woman in check, these actions are not very practical in the context of marriage.

In any event, my basic attitude before I got married was: If I let this girl go, another will take her place. Whatever.

You know what they say... there's plenty of fish in the sea.

I remember on one occasion, after my then girlfriend decided to embarrass the Kidd in public, I got in my car and drove away, leaving her stranded in a hotel lobby somewhere.

To this day, I don't know how she managed to get home. I do recall getting a voice mail from her in which she called me an "asshole."

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya! These are the breaks.

It goes without saying that a man should not be living in the same house with his girlfriend, for theological and legal reasons [aa][bb]. But even if he is foolish enough to do so, he can always do what I did when it comes time to move on... plot and scheme in secret for months and when she isn't home, pack up and bail!

Problem solved. By the time your offending ex-girlfriend arrives home, you and your stuff will be long gone. A hastily scrawled note of "BITCH, I'M GONE!" makes the break-up official.

Basic common sense tells us that dating and cohabiting are not the same as marriage. When one ties the knot, couples declare, in front of family, friends, society, and the deity of their choice, that this man and this woman are now officially a unit. And once this occurs, the relationship takes on a greater significance to the health, wealth, and stability of Nations. It's kinda like leaving the Minor Leagues in order to play in the Majors; it's a whole different ballgame!

The bulk of the human experience confirms this to be so, and civilizations (such as ours) who ignore this fact inevitably sink into the waste bin of history.

Successful civilizations are built on strong family units. And stable family units are built upon a foundation of virtues (and not laws!) of loyalty, trust, affection, and discipline. When I mention families, married people, or similar terminology going forward, I mean specifically relationships that meet all of my previous assumptions.

For the remainder of this topic, unmarried pairings of a casual nature will not be commented upon. I leave that discussion to others.

Men and women are fundamentally different.

Our present day feminist regime has distorted the Free Marketplace of Love to such a degree that men and women find themselves in a chaotic state of disharmony and confusion.

Any successes that one may find in the familial and marital realms is in defiance of our popular culture, not because of it. "The World" is doing all it can to keep men and women weak, separated, and distrustful of one another.

Our Money Masters have very good reasons for doing so.

Consider Mr. Walter Block's lecture entitled, Is the Market Racist and Sexist: The Wage Gap and the Glass Ceiling, or Mr. Thomas Sowell's talk entitled, Gender Bias and Income Disparity: A Myth?.

Both of these gentlemen state two very important points:

A) The Free Market does not discriminate against women because of their sex. The so-called wage gap that feminists complain about endlessly is a big, fat myth.

B) There is a definite economic incentive for those who do not value marriage and family to prevent the joining of men and women in matrimony, and to discourage childbirth. Any mainstream economist will tell you that the more young people a society has, the poorer that society tends to be. The emphasis here is that less children = more economic growth (see African Economic Development, p. 109).

If we look carefully, feminists, Marxists [1][2], and Platonic philosophers have all attacked marriage and childbirth for differing, yet closely related reasons, among them being economic wealth and political power, in addition to the control of limited, yet vitally strategic resources.

In short, from the hills of Sparta to our modern day, there are powerful political, economic, and philosophical forces in direct opposition to our biological and spiritual imperative to come together, form stable familial bonds, and bear children to continue the human race.

A casualty of this never ending war between those who favor marriage and family and those who seek to destroy it is the knowledge that men and women have significant and meaningful differences. The reality is that men and women have differing and deep seated needs, wants, and desires.

The great Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard wrote:

... In his brilliant refutation of the women's liberationist Kate Millett, Irving Howe outlines several important biological differences between the sexes, differences important enough to have lasting social effects. They are

1. "the distinctive female experience of maternity" including what the anthropologist Malinowski calls an "intimate and integral connection with the child … associated with physiological effects and strong emotions";

2. "the hormonic components of our bodies as these vary not only between the sexes but at different ages within the sexes";

3. "the varying possibilities for work created by varying amounts of musculature and physical controls"; and

4. "the psychological consequences of different sexual postures and possibilities," in particular the "fundamental distinction between the active and passive sexual roles" as biologically determined in men and women respectively.[8]

Howe goes on to cite the admission by Dr. Eleanor Maccoby in her study of female intelligence that

it is quite possible that there are genetic factors that differentiate the two sexes and bear upon their intellectual performance…. For example, there is good reason to believe that boys are innately more aggressive than girls — and I mean aggressive in the broader sense, not just as it implies fighting, but as it implies dominance and initiative as well — and if this quality is one which underlies the later growth of analytic thinking, then boys have an advantage which girls … will find difficult to overcome.

Dr. Maccoby adds that "if you try to divide child training among males and females, we might find out that females need to do it and males don't."[9]

The sociologist Arnold W. Green points to the repeated emergence of what the egalitarians denounce as "stereotyped sex roles" even in communities originally dedicated to absolute equality. Thus, he cites the record of the Israeli kibbutzim:

The phenomenon is worldwide: women are concentrated in fields which require, singly or in combination, housewifely skills, patience and routine, manual dexterity, sex appeal, contact with children. The generalization holds for the Israeli kibbutz, with its established ideal of sexual equality. A "regression" to a separation of "women's work" from "men's work" occurred in the division of labor, to a state of affairs which parallels that elsewhere. The kibbutz is dominated by males and traditional male attitudes, on balance to the content of both sexes.[10]

Irving Howe unerringly perceives that at the root of the women's liberation movement is resentment against the very existence of women as a distinctive entity:

For what seems to trouble Miss Millett isn't merely the injustices women have suffered or the discriminations to which they continue to be subject. What troubles her most of all … is the sheer existence of women. Miss Millett dislikes the psychobiological distinctiveness of women, and she will go no further than to recognize — what choice is there, alas? — the inescapable differences of anatomy. She hates the perverse refusal of most women to recognize the magnitude of their humiliation, the shameful dependence they show in regard to (not very independent) men, the maddening pleasures they even take in cooking dinners for the "master group" and wiping the noses of their snotty brats. Raging against the notion that such roles and attitudes are biologically determined, since the very thought of the biological seems to her a way of forever reducing women to subordinate status, she nevertheless attributes to "culture" so staggering a range of customs, outrages, and evils that this culture comes to seem a force more immovable and ominous than biology itself...[11]

As I've written in Part I of this series, men and women have varying degrees of masculine and feminine energies. And since every woman is unique, the degree of femininity will vary from person to person. However, if we took a statistically significant sample size of women from all over the world, and placed the data on a bell curve, we would find that the majority of women would deviate to a mean measure of femininity. We would also find that, compared to men, women would rate much, much higher on the femininity scale.

Which isn't too surprising... after all, femininity is a trait of the female sex.

And so for the rest of this series, when I speak of women, I am referring only to women who would show up on the mean measurement of femininity, or in other words, your average, heterosexual female. Those women who do not fit this mold, such as the "manly" feminist women who are more masculine in spirit, or lesbian women who are attracted to femininity as opposed to masculinity, will not be considered here, as I leave the analysis of such women to others.

And vice versa, when I speak of men, I speak of men who would fall on the mean measure of masculinity. "Feminine" men, or men who are romantically and sexually attracted to other men will not be considered here, and I leave analysis of such men to others.


With a solid foundation in place, we can now talk about the good stuff.

Next time:

Why good girls like bad boys, how to be a Playa, and why being a punk is bad for your marriage.

Toku out.

No comments: