Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Lost Art of Discipline Part V.

(Image Courtesy of the Spanking Blog, a site for 18 year olds and over only.)

Greetings! It's been a while since my last post. Sorry about the delay: The Kidd has pressing real life obligations that I have to attend to.

Also, please note that at the end of this series of posts, I am going to take a three week hiatus. I have begun research for my book/documentary project, and I want to focus on that for a few weeks to really get things moving.

Be advised that this is an extremely long post. I would recommend that you read a little bit at a time, walk away from it, and come back. I won't be posting again until next Sunday, so feel free to relax and take your time.

Without further ado, let's get to the heart of the matter!

Two Central Themes.

Before we continue, let's briefly revisit The Lost Art of Discipline Part IV:

... Does the typical woman really want a man who complies with the letter and the spirit of these laws? If men strictly adhere to these rules and guide their conduct accordingly, is this what society really needs and wants in order to survive and thrive? Will this code of conduct contribute to the ultimate stability of long term relationships?

If we accept that the letter of the Domestic Violence law is the lowest level of human development, does the public at large want the "virtues" that these laws help to shape?

My answer to this question is: No, the typical woman would never tolerate the existence of these laws for any period of time if the average couple on the street followed the law to the letter...

... Bitch
(1) Word used to describe the act of whining excessively.

(2) Person who rides specifically in the middle of a front-seatting only car meant for 2 passengers or less.

(3) Modern-day servant; A person who performs tasks for another, usually degrading in status.

(4) Term used to exclaim hardship.

(1) "Stop bitching Todd!"
(2) "Can I ride bitch?"
(3) "Bring my friend and I some vodka bitch"
(4) *Peron tells story to other cellmate, depicting how they came to be there, cellmate says* "Ain't that a Bitch!"


  • An exceedingly whipped guy who does/wears/thinks/says whatever his girlfriend tells him to.

The next few posts are going to make two key arguments:

1) While women (and men) want and deserve to be protected from unexpected, unprovoked, and traumatic attacks against their person, and that they expect laws such as those that prohibit Assault, Battery, Rape, and Murder, to be on the books to protect them from such violent crime; the typical woman, in real life, do not want the unintended social consequences that unconstitutional, deceitfully conceived, poorly written and unjustly enforced Domestic Violence laws have created.

The difference between laws prohibiting Assault, Battery, and Murder and the bulk of Domestic Violence law is varied and profound.

Traditional criminal law involves rules, procedures and institutions designed to provide maximum protection for the Defendant, and requires the Prosecutor to substantially prove his case.

Probable cause, various forms of evidence, constitutional safeguards, rules of evidence and court, the presumption of innocence, burdens of proof, the Jury system... all of these things can typically be found in criminal proceedings. Constitutional rights are (more or less) respected and upheld during trials for Assault, Rape, and other traditional criminal offenses.

Domestic Violence laws, on the other hand, may or may not offer basic constitutional protections. It has been conclusively proven that men are discriminated against when it comes to Restraining Order proceedings. Loss of employment, property, and liberty have been known to occur on accusations alone. And even if the jurisdiction where your DV case is being tried considers DV to be a criminal rather than a civil offense (insuring more traditional constitutional protections and a jury trial), the perception that Domestic Violence laws are nothing more than weapons for always-innocent-women to be used against always-in-the-wrong men is a powerful psychological tool that women use to leverage their power over men.

While they may seemingly benefit from this perversion of the justice system in the short run, the vast majority of women who desire a long term, committed relationship with a man in full possession of his manliness lose out in the long term, as we shall see in the next few posts on this topic.

2) Women want a man that will stand up to them if that is required. The typical feminine woman, who possesses a unique mixture of masculine and feminine energies, wants a man who is stronger than she. The strength of the man she wants will depend on her own level of strength.

When women ask the question, Can you handle this?

They aren't asking because they are idly curious... they really want to know if you are able and willing to do so.

If a woman finds herself with a man that isn't able to "handle" her, then, after a time, she will more than likely begin to seek out someone who can, or she will begin prodding your defenses until you either shape up, or ship out. This tendency, which we will discuss at length, is why Good Girls like Bad Boys.

Why women really don't want the climate Domestic Violence hysteria has created.

Aiight then... so it's time for Toku "Pretty Boy" Gakure to start breakin' it down.

Picking up where The Lost Art of Discipline Part IV left off, I'm going to continue with my commentary on the article entitled, About Domestic Violence Against Men:

... A Common Dynamic: How Violence ERUPTS

There are a number of commonly reported interactions in which violence against men erupts. Here is one example that illustrates a common dynamic.

The woman is mildly distressed and upset. The man notices her distress and then worries she may become angry.

The correct thing to do here is to take care of business right off the bat. The wise man, understanding women to have ever changing moods and feelings...

... will be skillful and understanding of this fact. He will attempt to either 1) listen to her complaint so she can feel better and he can go back to playing his Xbox360 or 2) attempt to discern his woman's real intentions. Is she upset just because or is it something she wants him to do or say?

Or, is she being difficult in an effort to draw his undivided attention? In the S&M world, this behavior is called Bratting.

As a brief aside, I think that the S&M, D/s, and DD practitioners have much to teach those who live in the "Vanilla" world about love and relationships. The way I see it, these various schools have kept alive traditions that used to be common knowledge about how men and women interact with one another, about discipline and respect, about negotiation and why it is such a critical part of any relationship, and other tricks of the trade that have fell into general disuse and neglect. Roles are clearly defined and mutually agreed to, and the differences between discipline and abuse are discussed, debated, and codified.

Much of the knowledge that these "players" possess was part of the unspoken yet widely understood body of relational skills that were driven underground with the Advent of the Feminist Religion.

Were there real abuses that occurred back in the day? Definitely.

Were there real wrongs that needed to be righted? Absolutely.

However, among the many failings of feminism is that in their quest for power and influence, they drove much of the good and positive relationship skills underground. It has become taboo to argue with a woman, to express one's opinion, or to put her in check if her actions are destructive towards herself and others. Today's modern woman can do no wrong, and there is literally no force in the Western World that can restrain her.

Women have been empowered alright, but power corrupts, and the absolute cultural power of today's American woman has corrupted her absolutely. Justice, morality, and discipline have been sacrificed to the Mad goddess of Feminism.

The logical outcome of the cultural and legal enslavement of today's man is that he is afraid to challenge his woman. He does not want to place himself, and his House in jeopardy. He is well aware of the penalties of disobedience: involuntary divorce, the forcible removal of his seed, the mandatory tribute that he must pay to the High Priests of Feminist Public Policy.

If getting married in the West is the act of a fool, only a bigger fool would anger his all-powerful Mistress and suffer her wrath.

Thusly, the logical choice for the married/cohabiting man is to avoid conflict whenever possible.

The woman attempts to communicate and discuss her feelings. She wants to talk, feel supported and feel less alone. She initially attributes some of her distress or problems to him.

Again, the Wise Man, with his understanding of the feminine nature, would engage in dialogue with his woman and bring her back to a state of harmony.

Unfortunately, most of the relationship skills needed to pull this off are not common knowledge. Dealing with woman is not a science; it is an Art in the full sense of the word.

This Art requires experience, skillfulness, and a range of appropriate tools from which he can choose. Sadly, the typical man in the West has been woefully undereducated as to how to deal with the opposite sex. And so, he chooses to either avoid conflict, which ultimately cannot be done, or he attempts to "solve" the problem in a way that only escalates an already delicate situation.

The woman, on the other hand, expects the man to automatically understand the "feminine rulebook." She wants him to be able to look past the external appearances, and see that which she is unable or unwilling to express directly. She wants him to "man up" and help her with her emotional load, which is considerably heavy at times. And, to add even more confusion, the help she might require will change with the situation. With her, it is a question of appropriate action, and she (rightly, wrongly, or indifferently) expects her man to know what that appropriate action is and see it through to completion.

When her needs are not being met; when she is not being "manhandled" properly, her frustration levels begin to skyrocket with disastrous consequences.

Conflict between man and woman, when it comes, cannot be avoided. It will manifest one way or another. And the longer it festers, the more explosive and damaging it will be when all Hell breaks loose!

The man begins to feel defensive, shuts down emotionally and attempts to deal with the problems rationally. He feels a fight is coming on. The woman feels uncared for, ignored and then gets angry.

Let it be known... Men are emotional creatures too. We have feelings!

We feel hurt, happiness, loss, fear, joy, and exhilaration. We are not dead, unemotional beings that trudge through life in a bleak, soulless fashion. We love, and love deeply. We hate and hate fiercely.

So then, why is the man, in this scenario, shutting down his feelings in response to his woman's distress?

I say there are two reasons:

1) The man does not want to hurt his partner. He is well aware of his greater physical strength and his mental toughness. He does not view his woman as an enemy to be beaten down into the dust. He knows he could break his woman in two if he were so inclined.

Consequently, he is shutting down to avoid any unseemly actions, physical or verbal, towards his increasingly volatile partner.

2) He is well aware of his inferior legal and cultural position. He does not want to end up on the front page of his local paper. He understands that he has everything to lose, and nothing to gain from a confrontation with his significant other. Mindful of the Domestic Violence hysteria that dominates the landscape, he is motivated to do everything he can to avoid conflict, which is ultimately impossible to do. He is calculating ways of avoiding the battle, and thinking of possible outcomes if he engages her... all of which would be negative for him, and his House.

Note how the woman resents his effort to rationally comply with legal and cultural norms!

He is doing everything the DV advocates scream that men should do: remain calm and avoid conflict. He is complying with DV law, which makes frightening a woman physically and verbally a criminal/civil offense. He is doing what the prevailing culture says is the right thing to do. There is no physical abuse taking place, and he is doing nothing to encumber the woman in any way.

And yet, in our hypothetical scenario, the woman is getting more and more volatile by the minute. And we can clearly see that the typical woman does not want the typical man to obey the letter and the spirit of Domestic Violence laws to the letter. Not many women would long tolerate a man who does so.

Is it becoming more clear as to why the unintended consequences of our Domestic Violence culture are so destructive to the harmony of men and women?

She wants him to share the problem and he doesn't feel he has a problem. The man will attempt to remain unemotional and stay in control of himself. He avoids accepting any blame for how she feels. He is also worried that she may explode at any moment and that she will certainly do so if he talks about his feelings.

From the man's point of view, there is no problem. He has deadened his emotional responses to his woman. He is not willing or able to share in her emotions at this point, for previously mentioned behavoral, legal, and cultural reasons. He has compartmentalized his empathy and his manliness in order to comply with the spirit and the letter of the laws of his country.

He would like to wave a wand and make her anger and frustration go away. He might also be thinking about how he can end the relationship in a clean and confrontation free manner. There is no reason to stick around if his woman is going to continuously fly off the handle, and put himself and everything he has worked for in legal and moral jeopardy!

While the Wise Man would have the tools in his toolbox to deal with and diffuse relationship conflict before things get nuclear, the average man simply doesn't have the arsenal to engage his woman in honest dialouge without making things worse. Therefore, he makes the logical choice to deep freeze his emotions and his feelings.

All of this logical decisionmaking is incredibly appaling to his woman. She wants to feel his emotion. She wants his engagement. Above all, she wants to feel his manliness. She wants him to go to his toolbox and select the appropriate action needed to bring the relationship back to a state of harmony.

The typical woman is not a lone wolf. She is deeply involved with relationships of all kinds, be it relationships with men, family ties, socializing at work, or shopping with her girlfriends from college. She cares a great deal about her relationships, and to see the man to whom she is surrendering her body on a regular basis completely stonewall her (again, to avoid legal and cultural liability) is incredibily offensive to her. It is a slap in the face. It is unacceptable.

Just as there can be no Yang (masculine) without Yin (feminine), there can be no harmony and balance if one person is emotionalizing and the other is stonewalling.

Conflicts can only resolved. They cannot be avoided.

I heard, on an Asian televison show once that, "when chased, one runs. And when one runs, the other cannot help but to pursue."

This concept is true here. If the man attempts to "run" from the relationship issue, then the woman will "chase" him and drag his real feelings out of him, DV laws and Feminist public policy be damned!

Again, the man is doing all he can to avoid legal and cultural liability. And yet, this compliance with law and custom is extremely insulting to the woman. No woman will long tolerate a man who complies with the letter and the spirit of DV law 100%!

The man will start talking about her problem as if she could feel better if she would only listen to him and stop acting so upset. He fails to understand how she feels and tries to remain calm. He tells her to calm down and ends up looking insensitive. She begins to wonder if he has any feelings at all.

Again, this misunderstanding is a function of (intentional and unintentional) ignorance.

1) The woman is ignorant of the great and terrible legal liability that will befall the man if he were foolish enough to give her the opposition that she craves. Even if she would never call the police on her lover in a million years, a neighbor might hear them quarreling and pick up a phone. Someone might walk by and see the altercation. Children might be present, and he doesn't want his child to blab to some underpaid and overzealous school social worker.

The risk/return ratio doesn't add up... there is no incentive to deal with the present conflict at hand in the way she needs and desires. It's not a question of the man not having feelings... it is a question of compliance with legal and cultural mandates that have been imposed upon him by society at large. Mandates, it should be noted, that allow no appropriate and necessary human conflict, disagreement, and interaction between man and woman.

2) The man is ignorant about how to handle conflict with his woman by means of appropriate action. If talking with her is the best way to resolving the issue, then he should talk to her. If listening to her is the best way to meet her needs, then he should listen. If discipline is required, such as scolding her about her compulsive gambling habit, or if more physical methods are required, then he should take the appropriate action required and bring the situation to a close. Physical methods of discipline should not injure or cause permanent harm, they should be appropriate and justified by the situation, and they should be mutually agreed upon in advance by both parties without duress or intimidation.

Unfortunately, the discipline side of things that might be the most appropriate way to handle a given conflict are the actions that are prohibited by law and should not be undertaken from a legal standpoint. The liability is simply too great to take the risk.

Even if one is justified "in getting physical", the legal and cultural ramifications absolutely prohibit such action. The end result:

The woman is increasingly upset and frustrated by the man, who is doing nothing more than using DV law as guides for proper conduct.

She tells him that he thinks he's perfect. He says he is not perfect. She calls him insensitive. He stares at her and says nothing but looks irritated.

The woman is frustrated that he won't reveal his feelings and that he acts like he is in control. On the other hand, the man feels out of control and like there is no room for anybody's feelings in the conversation but hers. Communication breaks down and the woman begins to insult the man.

Now the situation is rapidly spinning out of control. The lack of manliness (encouraged by law and custom) on the part of the Man to engage and diffuse the conflict has led to a potentially explosive situation. The conflict he desperately sought to avoid is rushing upon him with all the speed and power of a freight train.

There are only three options at this point... retreat to another room, get the hell out of the house or risk going to the Big House. All three of these options are unsatisfactory to man and woman alike.

And I say again... all of this because the man sought to comply with the letter and the spirit of cultural and legal norms.

When the man finally expresses his disapproval and attempts to end the fight. The woman becomes enraged and may throw something. The man will usually endure insults and interactions like this for weeks or months. This whole pattern becomes a recurrent and all too familiar experience.

The happy, law abiding couple is moving faster on the Highway to Hell...

The man becomes increasingly sensitive to how the woman acts and becomes avoidant and unsupportive. The man begins to believe that there is nothing he can do and that it may be all his fault. His frustration and anger can build for months ike this.
There is nothing he can do because his culture and his legal system has given him wholly inadequate tools to handle the situation. His relationship is deteriorating simply because he has chosen to follow the letter and the spirit of DV law. He does not want to verbally or physically do anything which would go against Feminist public policy.

The Snake has been Defanged, and the stability of his House is crumbling about him as a result. And, irony of ironies, his woman, the beneficiary of the Feminist State, is at once the victim and the agent of his destruction.

After all... No good deed goes unpunished.

This risk of violence increases when the woman insults the man in front of their children, threatens the man's relationship with his children, or she refuses to control her abusive behavior when the children are present.
At this stage, the only legal options for the man would be to either accept his own emasculation, or leave the relationship. Other appropriate actions to break the woman out of the intolerable habit of debasing his honor, or to defend himself against the woman's violent behavior, are illegal and unjustified according to our social and legal codes.

Note how the woman has lost all respect for the man at this point. How could this be? I thought the typical woman wanted her man to obey the letter and the spirit of DV laws at all times? I thought that the typical woman wanted a man who would never argue, disagree, or correct her? Why then is she so unhappy? Why is she not satisfied with her man's legally and socially required responses to her attempts to instigate conflict?

Many men have thought that if they were a "good guy", then their wife or girlfriend would respect them for it, and that their relationships would be better off. Many such men have had this theory tragically disproved when their marriages imploded upon them. Being a good guy isn't enough. Blindly obeying Feminist public policy destroys more relationships than it saves.

She may call him a terrible father or an awful husband in front of the children. Eventually he feels enraged not only because of how she treats him, but how her behavior is harming the children. At some point the man may throw something, punch a wall, or slam his fist down loudly to vent his anger and to communicate that he has reached his limits. Up till now she has never listened to what he had to say. He decides that maybe she will stop if she can see just how angry he has become. Rather than recognizing that he has reached his limits, expressing his anger physically has the opposite effect. For a long time the man has tried to hide his anger. Why should the woman believe he really means it? After all, he has put up with her abuse for a long time and done nothing.

Getting close to the Dangerzone!!

The relationship, to put things bluntly, is a dead man walking at this point. The woman has lost all respect for the man, the man has lost all respect for himself, and, worst of all, the children are all caught up in the drama, which could very well effect their future relationships for the worst.

Instead of realizing that things have gotten out of control, the woman may approach him and say something like, "What are you gonna do. Hit me? Go ahead. I'll call the police and you'll never see your children again." Once he expressed his anger physically, the situation became dangerous for him and for her. The door to violence has opened wide. He should walk away. When he does walk away, she ends up more angry than ever, will scream obscenities at him and strike him repeatedly. She may even strike him with an object.

At this stage, all is lost. The man can either move out, or take the beatings. He becomes aware of how weak his legal and moral position really is, and the ailing relationship can only be reversed with great time, energy, and expense that both parties may not have at this point.

And all of this has come to pass because of legally and culturally sanctioned ignorance.

Another family destroyed, and yet more children scarred because of all powerful Feminist Public Policy.

Conclusion for Part V.

I realize that this was a very long post, and I thank you for bearing with me. This is such an important and neglected topic that it deserves a lengthy and thorough treatment.

As we have seen in the hypothetical, yet extremely common scenario above, real life relationships cannot survive if a man adheres to DV laws and cultural expectations to the letter. Following the spirit and the letter of the law leads to anger, frustration, and the ultimate destruction of the pairing.

And most importantly, the destructive agent in this scenario is the woman, who is deeply offended by the various logical measures the man implements in order to comply with Feminist public policy. She does not want a 100% DV compliant man, nor does she appreciate the unintended consequences that flow from such legislation.

What she wants is a real man who is capable and comfortable with himself and his manliness. She wants a man who is able to choose the appropriate actions needed to preserve the harmony and the longevity of the relationship. When this leadership and manliness is lacking, then she will almost unconsciously pick and pick at the man until he either implodes, or gives her what she wants, which includes genuine emotion, the willingness to solve difficulties in the appropriate way, and the ability to dispense discipline when it is needed and appropriate.

Without these qualities, she will do everything in her power to either build her man up, or tear him down and find another man who is stronger.

I know this sounds politically incorrect and incredibly old-skool... but real life experience bears out the truth of my words on a daily basis.

I realize that the hypothetical scenario above is just one example of how real life plays out. So consequently, our investigation will continue in Part VI.

In the next post, we will explore my second point:

2) Women want a man that will stand up to them if that is required. The typical feminine woman, who possesses a unique mixture of masculine and feminine energies, wants a man that is stronger than she. The strength of the man she wants will depend on her own strength.

Until next time,

Toku "Pretty Boy" Gakure.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Matriarchy Kills.

Dear Readers,

I made the claim in a post entitled the Art of Discipline IV:

... If we ignore the well documented fact [4][5][6] that these various [Domestic Violence] statutes are written and enforced in such a way as to violate the Natural Rights of men, there is still the question of the unintended consequences of such legislation, and if this is a policy that the public truly wishes to live by...

And if this line of questioning is outrageous to some, what I am going to say next is going to really be shocking...

Matriarchy Kills.

You might have seen this very tragic article (from CBS):

Cops: Dad Killed Son Over Child Support

Man Accused Of Murdering Toddler To Avoid Paying; Earlier Claimed He Had Been Kidnapped

(AP) A man who initially told police gunmen kidnapped his 2½-year-old son was arrested Saturday, accused of committing an "extremely hideous" murder because he was ordered to pay child support, Police Superintendent Warren Riley said.

Danny Platt confessed, told police where to find the child's body and has been booked on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Ja' Shawn Powell, police said.

"He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support," which he recently had been ordered to do, Riley said.

Riley said he did not know the amount of child support and would not describe how the boy was killed, saying the coroner would do that after the autopsy was complete. The coroner's spokesman did not immediately return a call.

"The mother is in a safe place," Riley said.

Although he had visiting rights, Platt, 22, of New Orleans, had never visited the boy until he picked him up Friday, Riley said...

A shocking, sad story to say the least.

It goes without saying that no situation or injustice can justify killing one's own flesh and blood, as this man is accused of doing. Even if all the power of the Matriarchy is upon one, the children are innocent and should be protected from the injustice of the Feminist machine as much as humanly possible.

Writer Jarvis DeBerry, adds more detail to this tragic tale:

... I read that Danny Platt claims he had "a whole bunch of reasons" for slitting the throat of his 2-year-old son Ja'Shawn Powell and allowing the toddler to bleed to death.

"I'm sorry about killing my baby," Platt reportedly said on his way to jail Saturday night where he was booked with first-degree murder. "I had a lot of pressure on me." Then, he made his preposterous claim that his reasons for killing his child were numerous.

But apparently Platt's reasons did not include the $4,000 in child support he owed the boy's mother, Daniella Powell. "No, sir," Platt answered when he was asked Saturday night if he killed the boy to avoid paying child support.

She was entitled to it, of course, but Powell says she wasn't deliberately seeking it from her child's father. She had applied for food stamps and for Medicaid for Ja'Shawn, and when she listed the father's information, the state government rightfully sought payment from him. The state was deducting about $100 from each of Platt's weekly paychecks. But we have Platt's word that the forced deduction was not what Ja'Shawn's murder was about.

Even if it wasn't about paying back child support in particular, it's clear that he was trying to get back at the baby's mother in general. There is nothing Ja'Shawn could have done to his father to make Platt kill him.

In fact, to hear Ja'Shawn's mother tell it, the boy adored his mostly absent daddy and, despite Platt's infrequent visits, considered the man his protector and his enforcer. "I'm going to tell my daddy on you," was Ja'Shawn's threat to cousins who had crossed him. Such a threat indicates the faith Ja'Shawn had in Platt, a faith betrayed when his father knifed him to death...

Many who are commenting on this case are dancing around the real issues. Tired mantras such as "use a condom if you don't want to pay child support," "a real man takes responsibility for his child," or, like Mr. DeBerry states repeatedly, a woman deserves, at all times and without merit, child support from a man are uttered over and over again until they lose all meaning and border upon the ridiculous.

The State, after all, is right to seize the fruits of a man's labor (and his loins, in most cases) in order to enforce feminist public policy. A woman is automatically entitled to child support; no matter what the circumstances.

Let's review what public policy is and why it is so important:

... as I stated in my previous post on The Law, the issue of whether men have constitutional rights that should be upheld even in the face of bigoted, misguided, and ill-informed opposition has long been settled.

Allow me to state my position once more: MEN IN THE FEMINIZED WEST HAVE NO NATURAL RIGHTS. PERIOD.

Men are allowed to have rights so long as they do not go against what the Mob declares they should have. Our Democratic system, on many occasions has stated this to be so.

Indeed, feminism and anti-male hatred is a matter of public policy, to be upheld at all times and in all circumstances.

So what is public policy?

>A principle that no person or government official can legally perform an act that tends to injure the public.

Public policy manifests the common sense and common conscience of the citizens as a whole that extends throughout the state and is applied to matters of public health, safety, and welfare. It is general, well-settled public opinion relating to the duties of citizens to their fellow citizens. It imports something that fluctuates with the changing economic needs, social customs, and moral aspirations of the people. Public policy enters into, and influences, the enactment, execution, and interpretation of legislation.

Notice how the ideal of public policy directly contrasts with the Republican idea that men are entitled to fundamental, inalienable, natural rights which cannot be set aside or violated in any cases whatever.

Understand that we live in the Mob Rule of Feminized Democracy, and not in a Constitutional Republic as many of us have been led to believe.

Now some may ask, is feminism a "third pillar" of American public policy?

I would say that it is. Firstly, one must consider how whenever feminist family values and claims of equal protection and due process come into conflict in American courts of law, feminism almost always trumps any and all of its challengers.

Even if feminist policies violate the most sacred and time honored concepts of right and justice, it doesn't matter. Feminism, By Thunder, must not be harmed! The privileges of women must be upheld, no matter how great the injustice!

And how does our "Justice" system enforce feminist public policy?

Let's turn to the unflappable Baskerville for his perspective on the multi-headed Hydra of the divorce, child support, and domestic violence Regime which has wrought terror to countless souls:

... Unilateral divorce (and the feminist inescapably involves government agents forcibly removing legally innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It inherently abrogates not only the inviolability of marriage but the very concept of private life.

By far the most serious consequences involve children, who have become the principal weapons of the divorce machinery. Invariably the first action of a divorce court, once a divorce is filed, is to separate the children from one of their parents, usually the father. Until this happens, no one in the machinery acquires any power or earnings. The first principle and first action of divorce court therefore: Remove the father.

This happens even if the father is innocent of any legal wrongdoing and is simply sitting in his own home minding his own business. The state seizes control of his children with no burden of proof to justify why. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) falls on the father to demonstrate why they should be returned.

Though obfuscated with legal jargon (losing “custody”), what this means is that a legally unimpeachable parent can suddenly be arrested for seeing his own children without government authorization. Following from this, he can be arrested for failure or inability to conform to a variety of additional judicial directives that apply to no one but him. He can be arrested for domestic violence or child abuse, even if no evidence is presented that he has committed any. He can be arrested for not paying child support, even if the amount exceeds his means (and which may amount to most of his salary). He can even be arrested for not paying an attorney or a psychotherapist he has not hired.

The New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell.” Take the case of Marvin Singer, who was jailed without trial for not paying an attorney he never hired $100,000—only half of what the court claimed he “owes.” In Virginia, one father was ordered to pay two years’ worth of his salary to a lawyer he also did not hire for a divorce he did not request. Once arrested, the father is summarily jailed. There is no formal charge, no jury, and no trial.

Family court judges’ contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating,” he told his colleagues at a judges’ training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Generated Hysteria

Why do we hear almost nothing about this? Aside from media that sympathize with the divorce revolution, the multi-billion-dollar divorce industry also commands a huge government-funded propaganda machine that has distorted our view of what is happening.

The growth of the divorce machinery during the 1970s and 1980s did not follow but preceded (in other words, it generated) a series of hysterias against parents—especially fathers—so hideous and inflammatory that no one, left or right, dared question them or defend those accused: child abuse and molestation, wife-beating, and nonpayment of “child support.” Each of these hysterias has been propagated largely by feminists, bar associations, and social work bureaucracies, whose federal funding is generously shared with state and local law-enforcement officials.

The parent on the receiving end of such accusations—even in the absence of any formal charge, evidence, or conviction—not only loses his children summarily and often permanently; he also finds himself abandoned by friends and family members, parishioners and pastors, co-workers and employers (and he may well lose his job)—all terrified to be associated with an accused “pedophile,” “batterer,” or “deadbeat dad.”

It is not clear that these nefarious figures are other than bogeymen created by divorce interests, well aware that not only the public generally but conservatives and family advocates in particular are a soft touch when it comes to anything concerning irresponsible behavior or sexual perversion.

Christians are especially vulnerable to credulity about such accusations, because they are disposed to see moral breakdown behind social ills. Moral breakdown certainly does lie behind the divorce epidemic (of which more shortly), but it is far deeper than anything addressed by cheap witch-hunts against government-designated malefactors.

It is also largely credulity and fear that leads Congress by overwhelming majorities to appropriate billions for anti-family programs in response to these hysterias. The massive federal funds devoted to domestic violence, child abuse, and child-support enforcement are little more than what Phyllis Schlafly calls “feminist pork,” taxpayer subsidies on family dissolution that also trample due process protections. Family law may technically be the purview of states, but it is driven by federal policies and funded by a Congress fearful of accusations that it is not doing enough against pedophiles, batterers, and deadbeats.

In fact, each of these figures is largely a hoax, a creation of feminist ideology disseminated at taxpayers’ expense and unchallenged by journalists, academics, civil libertarians, and family advocates who are either unaware of the reality or cowed into silence. Indeed, so diabolical are these hysterias that some family advocates simply accept them as additional evidence of the family crisis.

But while sensational examples can be found of anything, there is simply no evidence that the family and fatherhood crisis is caused primarily or even significantly by fathers abandoning their families, beating their wives, and molesting their children. Irrefutable evidence indicates that it is driven almost entirely by divorce courts forcibly separating parents from their children and using these false accusations as a rationalization...

And just so we can keep things in perspective, I would invite you to watch these videos to see what we do to men who disobey the Matriarchal State.

And guess what... you might be next.

Now it should be noted that I have written much about the destruction of the black American family. It is a dead institution; so ancient and forgotten that it has become the stuff of myth and legend. Tourists flock to museums where artifacts related to it are on ready display, drawing huge crowds...

Sorry, sorry. I'm getting a little carried away here. My sincerest apologies.

Anyway, the feminist Matriarchal regime has done a thorough job in grinding the Male led African-American family into the dust. And, thanks to a host of child support, domestic violence, vice and divorce laws, the chances are extremely high that a black man (or any man for that matter) who attempts to express his fundamental biological imperatives to mate, procreate, and marry will be severely punished for doing so.

Let us count the ways:

"Doing the Right Thing" and getting married + American woman in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Divorce Court.

Avoiding marriage and the Divorce Courts + having children out of Wedlock in the Feminized West = Eventual trip to Child Support Court.

Failure to keep up with Child Support payments = Poverty and Imprisonment.

Living in close proximity with a woman in the Feminized West = High probability of ending up in Domestic Violence Court (for violations both real and imagined, mostly imagined).

Paying a woman for no-strings-attached sex = High probability of ending up in a criminal court. Poverty and Imprisonment soon follows.

Smoking a little Bud to cope with the stress brought on by marriage, being a father, or living with an American woman = Extremely high risk of Poverty and Imprisonment.

So it really doesn't matter how a black man chooses to relate to the opposite sex in the Matriarchal West... his probability of running afoul of feminist public policy is ridiculously high. And once he does, his honor, his livelihood, his children, and his liberty will most likely be confiscated by the Regime.

So what's the point of trying to form stable relationships and families? Why do the right thing when all of the institutions in society are set up to work against you? Why is society so hypocritical, urging young men to mate, marry, and procreate, and then punishing them when they do?

How is the average man supposed to deal with all of these contradictions? How can a man accept that society has basically set him up for failure?

What would you do if you found your entire world crashing around you? How would you cope if you all of a sudden found out that the entire world is against you? Accusing you of being a wicked, evil, frightening, or malevolent person? Discriminating against you simply because you had the terrible misfortune of being born a man?

What would you do?


I'm not saying that anyone is in the right if they commit violent acts, like Mr. Danny Platt is accused of doing. Indeed, if Mr. Platt is guilty of murdering his son because he refused to pay child support, he will find that God will punish him greatly for violating the Universal Law in so heinous a way.


We need more information here. Was he pushed to the edge? Did he act out of desperation? Is there more to this case than meets the eye? Did the mother of the child use the boy as leverage to dominate, humiliate, and control Mr. Platt as so many mothers are apt to do these days?

Did the overwhelming onslaught of the feminist Matriarchal Juggernaut get the best of him? Did overzealous Child Support Enforcement workers decide to loot Mr. Platt's pockets until nothing but lint was left in them?

Maybe we will never know all the answers to these questions. But it is obvious to me that we need to go deeper into this mystery.

Our Matriarchal feminist public policy has very serious, sometimes deadly consequences. Our feminist experiment has unleashed unintended outcomes that have cost our society dearly... financially, morally, spiritually, politically, and socially.

We need to start asking why shocking stories like these are coming to light more and more often. We should be asking ourselves the question:

What would make a man commit such a violent act against his own seed?

A critical and honest search for the answer to this question leads directly to feminist public policy; a harsh and hypocritical system which has stifled all dissent and suspended all attempts at rational examination.

Again and again, I submit that this public policy is hateful, biased, untrue, and useless. Society does not want what feminism has wrought; however most are too ignorant to see that the corruption comes from Fiat Financed feminist public policy. They have been brainwashed into defending a corrupt institution that creates the vast majority of their familial ills.

The herd doesn't see the predators nipping at their heels, until they feel the invisible and irresistible jaws of feminist public policy upon them.

And without any aid or comfort from their fellow sheep, they fall into the abyss.

We cannot excuse violent behavior, such as murder. We must arrest on probable cause, try according to Constitutional principles, and sentence those found guilty by a jury of their peers to the maximum penalty the law allows.

However. We must also examine the causes and motivations of violent acts. If we find, during the course of critical, honest, and open examination, that our institutions and culture create favorable conditions for criminal conduct of this nature, then we must act and purge the evil from our midst.

Failure to remove laws, policies, and institutions that contribute to tragedies such as these place all of society, and all of our children, at risk.

End Feminist Public Policy NOW.


Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Total Ron Paul Pwnage!!

So much ownage... so little time.

Only Ron Paul could totally pimp smack the House Financial Services Committee and get away with it.

The day America rejected this man is the day when America chose utter destruction...

Monday, January 5, 2009

2008 Financial Report of the United States.

Ladies and gents,

The 2008 Financial Report of the United States is out.

Digg in!!

As I briefly skim the contents, it looks like more of the same bad news.

Revenues are flat, expenses are rising, and our future liabilities, such as interest payments on Federal debt, Social Security, Medicare, and the like are going through the roof.

In other words, the government is beyond bankrupt.

This also means that it has three ways of resolving this crisis:

1) Default on their obligations

2) Downsize dramatically, slash expenditures and increase revenues

3) Print money to meet ever increasing payables due

Dear Readers, I believe that option 3 is the path our government is going to take. However, Fedgov might be forced into option 1 by its many creditors, who might force the country into receivership [1][2] in order to liquidate its assets.

Option 2 will only happen if the People wake up, rise up, and force incompetent and corrupt business and government leaders to give up the reins of power. While I am optomistic that the masses will finally impose much needed discipline upon the political elites, one wonders when the Revolution will actually begin.

Speaking of financial issues, please be sure to check out the January 3, 2009 Financial Sense broadcast. These fine gents have uploaded hours of need-to-know financial information that you won't find in any of the mainstream publications.

If you can make it through all of the podcasts, then you will know everything you need to know about what's going to happen both economically and politically going forward, and can plan accordingly.

Also, one will come to the understanding that Political Feminism is a Dead Hag Walking. There is no possible way that any populace is going to continue to fund and propagate an ideological system that ruins and impoverishes so many people.

Indeed, men and women are going to be clinging to each other as they shiver in the dark, wondering how they are going to survive the tribulations that are to come. Old Skool Manliness is set to make a roaring comeback.

Quite simply, it is going to be every family unit for themselves. The Matriarchal State, financed by huge quantities of Fiat Money and Credit, will quickly become obsolete.

It will implode upon itself like a house of cards, and I for one can't wait.

Toku out.

Friday, January 2, 2009

Happy New Year!


Most esteemed Readers,

We here at Togakure School pray that you will have a happy, successful, and prosperous 2009.

And, for your holiday viewing, I would like to present a Bloomberg interview with Mr. Niall Ferguson, courtesy of

Please pay close attention to the 11:00 minute mark. Mr. Ferguson discusses Bond Markets and how they lead to the rise and fall of empires.

The Debt Market is where the action is. When the Bond Markets go bust, the American Empire will go down with it.

But in any event, please take a look when you have time. It is worth watching.


Thank you for visiting Togakure School... and we hope that you will continue to check back with us in the New Year.


Toku and family.