California Implodes, and the Real U.S. National Debt.

Greetings!

On this special weekend of memorials and barbecues, I hope everyone is doing well and taking a load off.

Two items I wanted to share:


U.S. Debt Clock.Org has a frightening yet fascinating page that every freedom loving American needs to visit.

Click here for the ugly truth (Hat tip to Dollarcollapse.com for the linkage).

Ladies and gents, America is broke. There is no way out of this debt trap except to either:

1) Take the bitter medicine of bankruptices, liquidations, defaults and higher interest rate costs on future borrowings or...

2) Inflate.

Guess which option Uncle Sam is going to choose?

The other item I wanted to bring to your attention is California's current budget crisis.

We all know that California has spent money like a rock star, financing its Leftist, Socialist and Feminist machine by issuing billions in Municipal Bonds.

Even though the State has requested a massive bailout from the Feds, it should be pointed out that the time is coming when even the U.S. Government will be shut out of the Debt markets.

What will happen when the country can no longer borrow extreme amounts of money cheaply and easily?

We need to pay close attention to the California situation because it is the true canary in the coal mine. What's happening in Cali on a micro level is what will probably happen to the Country on a macro level, once we suffer a crippling dollar collapse/debt default scenario.

As depressing as things seem, the economic situation will force everyone to make significant changes to their personal, financial, and political lives... and most of these changes will be for the best in the long run.

For example, government programs that don't cut the Cost/Benefit mustard are going to be cut. And most-favored-feminist programs will not be spared the Axe when that time comes.

While I definitely sympathize with the poor people who are going to suffer the most from these cuts, my hope is that they will be driven to search for the real causes to their suffering, as well as to seek out positive and productive solutions to increase the quality and happiness of their own lives, once they become free of the 80% of government programs that do nothing but reward and perpetuate failure.

Also, failed laws on the books that cost tons of money to enforce are going to be repealed. My guess is that Marijuana will be legal in California (and other States, when the crisis hits in earnest), in the near future. Non violent offenders will be released from the country's jails and prisons, and resources will be reallocated to pursue the 20% of individuals who commit 80% of serious criminal offenses.

Due process and other Constitutional protections will be strengthened because the prevailing attitude will be to keep innocent people out of the criminal justice system. More prosecutions, trials, and convictions = more dollars needed to incarcerate and feed more inmates.

And finally, public policy in this country is going to change. Feminist public policy will be out... marriage and family friendly public policy will be in. Men and women, left to fend for themselves after the collapse of private and public debt bubbles, will quickly rediscover that marriage is the oldest and best wealth creating institution. The people, and their elected representatives will relearn that a stable and equitable marriage culture saves billions of dollars and pays real social and economic dividends.

Less people will commit crimes, less children will be abused, and fewer children will grow up in poverty. More people will be happier and healthier, more secure in their personal and professional lives, and will be more self sufficient as part of a family unit.

But before all of these dividends can be realized, the government barriers to the free marketplace of love and marriage must be destroyed.

And since most are wholly ignorant as to how government has destroyed marriage and family life, it looks like a massive bond market collapse will be the corrective mechanism that brings us back to our senses.

Time marches onwards... and the interest on our massive debts compound every minute of everyday.

The more time we waste on ideas, movements, and programs that have proven themselves to be complete and utter failures, the less time, energy and resources we will have to elevate our society to spectacular heights of happiness, contentment, and satisfaction.

Too bad... so sad.

Gyokko.

The Separation of Marriage and State.

Valued readers,

Mr. Jerry Salcido, writing for Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, has published an excellent article that is required reading for those of us who are opposed to the Feminist State and its deathgrip on Marriage:

... California, like the other 49 states and most countries in the world, holds a monopoly over marriage. Who can get married and un-married is at its sole discretion, through the granting and revocation of the marriage license -- that fiat currency, if you will, whose only value derives from the powers and privileges that accompany it at the behest of the State, but which nonetheless is required to consummate human relationships.

The state's involvement with marriage is rarely questioned. Advocates and enemies of same sex marriage alike all seek the endorsement of the state, never stopping to ask why the states approval is needed at all. The reason behind this submission appears simple enough -- the philosophy ascribed by our society today which has led to the displacement of the private sector with the substitution of the state in nearly all facets concerning the rights of life, liberty, and property has taken root in the marriage issue.

Thanks to the state, marriage is no longer a covenant between two people or between two people and God. No, marriage is a state classification, which connotes state-provided benefits or detriments. Marriage is married to the state imposed tax structure and the state created probate system, and in many instances marriage defines the powers of the state over the married individuals.

This unholy union between the state and marriage has transformed marriage from an inalienable or natural right in which government's only place was as protector of that right, to a civil right in which the state became the creator of the right...

It's refreshing that the viewpoints that Senior MRAs such as Baskerville have been writing about for a long time are finally being exposed to a wider audience.

Fiat Financed government, along with the Political Feminists and others who manipulate it, has destroyed marriage in Western society. No man can marry and know that his natural rights will be protected from family court encroachment. The unimpeachable truth of this statement is supported by the volumes of evidence posted throughout this blogspot.

Seek and ye shall find.

At first, only Men's Rights Activists would dare to put two and two together. But ever so slowly, I am beginning to see "green shoots" of understanding blooming in the post Political Feminist landscape. The masses of people who are slowly coming out of their slumber are connecting the dots. Bank Bailouts, Patriot Act abuses, and the Tyranny of the Divorce court [a][b] are all manifestations of private interest groups and public entities running roughshod over any and all notions of Rights, Responsibilities, and Common Sense.

Government is a necessity for civilized living. However, the role and scope of government must be limited to securing the full and equal rights of all of its people without exception. When one group of citizens succumbs to the temptation of using government power to harass, oppress, or seek vengeance upon another group of people, unscrupulous actors within government feed upon this discord in order to maximize their own power and influence. Before long, the newly empowered government regulates all aspects of life. In short order, the controllers wind up being controlled... for their own protection of course.


Continuing with the essay:

... First, the State declares what are and are not rights. Second, even if the State recognizes that something is a right, the State can abrogate that right so long as the State has a sufficient interest. Gone is the day when government's role was to protect the individual's natural rights.

By transitioning away from a protector of rights to a provider of rights, the state has laid the groundwork for the problems that are so evident in the same sex marriage issue. If the government were to take its proper place as a protector of rights then a private union between a same sex couple which the couple calls "marriage" would be inconsequential to same sex marriage opponents, even though it may be morally repugnant to some and nonsensical to others. Likewise, refusal to recognize a private same sex union as "marriage" would be inconsequential to gays and lesbians, even though such refusal may personally offend the practitioners of same sex unions. In a free society any individual could "marry" whomever he wants by whatever procedure he desires, and the government's only role would be to make sure that in doing so he does not violate the natural rights of others.

Such a scenario, of course, assumes that the state would be acting in its proper role as protector of rights in all regards, which would mean that private contractual relationships would replace the state created systems of benefits. Marriage, in that situation, would be relevant only where the contracting parties made it so; and, the state's only role with regards to such contracts would be to ensure that the contract is enforced or to protect the parties against the other's fraud...

And this failure of the government courts to enforce the marriage contract and protect against fraud is exactly why marriage in the West is a losing proposition.

As the Wise Robb Fedders wrote in his essay Marriage is Fraud:

... A contract says that if you behave in such and such manner and don’t deviate out of that behaviour, you will be compensated with a guarantee of this and this behaviour from the other party. Step out of these guidelines and you will be legally liable, stay within them and your rights will be guaranteed.

But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?

WE HAVE A FRAUDULENT CONTRACT MASQUERADING AS MARRIAGE!

Indeed we do. And consequently, no Man should even consider entering into such a one sided and dangerous agreement.

In any event, please read Mr. Salcido's article, as it is a good one. But also recognize that it doesn't go far enough (the definitive work on the topic of the destruction of Western Marriage by the State can be found here). Not only does the State need to exit the Marriage Licensing Business, but it also needs to either protect against fraud and enforce the provisions of the Marriage Contract equally and without favoritism towards women, as is the case today, or get the hell out of the way and let private mediators weigh in on marital disputes or dissolutions.

Don't get me wrong though... I view this well written article as another positive sign that the Political Feminist jig is up. Understanding will reach the masses, and then the mangled corpse of the Political Feminist vulture will be tossed into the garbage bin, to rot and fester in its own private Hell where it belongs.

Gyokko out.

The Lost Art of Discipline VII

Greetings Gents,

Sorry I kept you waiting. Let's do this!




Food for Thought.




As I cruse the Net in between professional and personal projects that take up much of my time these days, Gyo is happy to see that MRAs have taken to Youtube in a big way. As I snoop around, I find more and more gems of information, commentary, and activism.

This is a good thing.

For example, have a look at this vid posted by Mr. Roberto Regalado entitled Interview with Roy Den Hollander on V.A.W.A and feminism.






Up next, check out the brilliant Men's Rights V-Blogger Thugtician as he speaks on what a Thug really is, as it relates directly to today's main topic.







In addition, I'd also like for you to watch Austrian Economist Walter Block counter accusations of sexism and racism in this video.

Please take a moment to watch all of these, because they talk about themes that dovetail nicely with one another. I like to think that these videos chronicle the comedy of errors that are strangling the Western Golden Goose ever so slowly and deliberately. More often than not, governments and private ideological groups work hand in hand to generate problems and impose solutions that lead to yet more problems.

For example, Block's observation that labor force inequalities between men and women could be socio-biologically based, and that the productivity and prosperity of black Americans are being undermined by the Welfare State and the War on Drugs is right on the money.

And we cannot overlook the damaging consequences of Feminism on the black family. These three manifestations are the Unholy Trifecta that has ruined the African American family for generations to come.

And what is the source of these above mentioned problems? Need I point out that ALL OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CREATED AND MAINTAINED BY GOVERNMENT?

Should I mention that without the support of fiat financed government, these social insanities would be rare and inconsequential? Would it be obvious that without government support these social initiatives WOULD NOT BE DESTROYING THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIKE THEY ARE TODAY?

Something to think about.

Happy viewing!




Announcements.




But before we get down to the nitty-gritty, I want to make a few quick announcements.

I am assembling a body of research in my spare time, as well as preparing for my CFA, Series 7, and Series 66 exams. As I prepare to "turn pro" and enter the money management business, I am also contemplating if I am going to release a book based on the topics covered on this blog, as opposed to an educational DVD of some sort.

My goal is to release a quality product that educates, entertains, and is accessible to the Average Joe on the street, in addition to being comprehensive in scope. I seek to connect the dots that tie feminists, globalists, socialists, and the money powers together.

In addition to consuming massive amounts of chicken and beer, I spend a lot of time looking after my little man. It's surprising how quickly one becomes proficient at handling and taking care of children.

And the smiles they give you... more precious than money in the bank.

(As a side note, the feminist idea that men have zero ability to care for children is the biggest line of bullshit ever sold. Fathers and children get along quite well thank you very much!)

Consequently, I might be a little slow on posting, or my commentaries might be a little shorter than usual going forward. Thanks for your understanding, and more details will be shared as time goes on.

I am also upgrading my equipment in preparation to expand my personal Men's Rights Crusade. I've seen some great Youtube videos, and I've listened to some slick podcasts... and I WANT IN!

When Gyo goes multi-media, I'll be sure to get the word out.





The Social Effects of Economic Disorder.




As our economic crises drags on endlessly, multiple news stories lend more weight to my assertion that fiat financed feminism will crack under the strain of current events, regardless of the friends in high places they currently enjoy.


The New York Times:

States Slashing Social Programs for Vulnerable

PHOENIX — Battered by the recession and the deepest and most widespread budget deficits in several decades, a large majority of states are slicing into their social safety nets — often crippling preventive efforts that officials say would save money over time...

... Ohio and other states face large cutbacks in child welfare investigations, which may mean more injured children and more taken into foster care. Despite tax increases, California has ended dental coverage for adults on Medicaid, all but guaranteeing future medical problems.

“There’s no question that we’re getting short-term savings that will result in greater long-term human and financial costs,” said Linda J. Blessing, interim chief of the Arizona Department of Economic Security, expressing the concerns of officials and community agencies around the country. “There are no good options, just less bad options.”

Arizona has one of the nation’s highest deficits in relation to its budget. As revenues sank late last year, forcing across-the-board cuts this spring, the child protection agency stopped investigating every report of potential abuse or neglect, and sharply reduced counseling of families deemed at risk of violence...

Without massive quantities of fiat financing, states and other government entities would be forced to act in cases of real need, instead of waging an all out war of terror upon fathers and families.

We know that state governments abuse the rights of men in order to obtain federal dollars. We also know that children have the highest probability of being abused when they do not live with their biological father and mother [1][2].

When we look at the facts, it becomes clear that if governments ceased their "child protection" efforts, then more children and families would be better off. Anti-male and Anti traditional family crusades only lead to incredible amounts of misery, expense, and social devastation for everyone.

The Times continues:

... The Illinois governor’s budget proposal would scale back home visits to ill-equipped first-time mothers, who are given advice over 18 months that experts say is repaid many times over in reduced child abuse and better school preparation.

“We spend $1.2 billion a year on child welfare,” said Diana M. Rauner, director of the Ounce of Prevention Fund in Chicago, which channels government money to private agencies. “You’d think we’d spend a lot of money to keep people out of that system.”

Ohio’s proposed budget “will dramatically decrease our ability to investigate reports of abuse and neglect,” with some counties losing 75 percent of their investigators, said Joel Potts, director of the Ohio Job and Family Services Directors’ Association, which represents county officials.

New York State is using stimulus money and a tax increase to avoid most of the large cuts in child care, nurse visits to inexperienced mothers and other services that were originally proposed. But if revenues keep falling by the billions, “all bets are off,” said Karen Schimke, president of the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy in Albany, which studies child and family issues...

Longtime readers know that massive quantities of fiat dollars have created more social problems than they have solved. Billions are being spent, and our society is in chaos because of this fact.

Instead of using these billions to buttress and strengthen the institutions that do the best job in educating, protecting, and elevating the well-being, happiness, and productivity of society, we funnel public dollars to public and private organizations hell bent on ripping this country to shreds, one married family at a time.

My argument is two fold: Events will force governments to axe programs that have a negative return on investment, and that the nation will be much better off when this happens.

Government has a limited number of essential duties it must perform. These are to protect life, liberty, and property. It must also provide a fair and impartial forum for the adjudication of disputes. And it must, above all, uphold the rule of law. This is critical because the law is the lowest level of human virtue.

If the government moves from a fixed set of principles to a regime of favored groups and special privileges, then we cannot be surprised when society becomes debased and all of its institutions rot from within. Virtues, currencies, religious systems, social mores and customs... all of these become more distorted and perverted as time goes on.

And, since corruption flows downhill, the nation becomes less likely to agree to the return to the rule of law as time passes. Decay and group insanity sets in.

Billions morph into Trillions... Trillions we cannot hope to ever repay. Classes of people out of favor find themselves stripped of their Natural Rights; Truth and Right are quietly murdered in their own beds. The decline becomes a self-fulling prophecy as the brainwashed masses look to a false messiah to save them; not realizing that they themselves have the power to alter their own circumstances if they would only perform the correct, important, and essential actions that lead to positive outcomes.

Through the Triple Secret of Thought, Word, and Deed, Men would think, say, and do the right things that lead to success. The only way a Man can achieve the higher levels of good are by doing the right things. Thinking, saying, and doing the wrong things lead inevitably to failure, without exception.

Instead of using our powers to violate the Universal Law, we must structure our society to be in harmony with it. We need the law on our side. We need to co-operate with the Father instead of fighting against Him. If we make the changes that need to be made, and eliminate the useless activities and ideologies which provide ever diminishing returns, our nation would quickly become rich, powerful, and enlightened beyond our wildest dreams.

Like it or not, generational change is upon us. Feminists and others who depend on the old paradigm for their daily bread are in for a very rude awakening. Those who cannot, or will not see will have their eyes opened for them in the fullness of time.



Thug Lovin.



So now I tackle the greatest mystery of the age... why do good girls like bad boys?

Before I share my opinion, I would like to highlight what others have to say about this phenomenon, a subject more complex than the Origin of the Universe, or the Loch Ness Monster...


From Ebony Magazine:

"Some women feel they need a man to prove to the world that they're worth something," says psychotherapist Vera S. Paster, co-author of Staying Married: A Guide for African-American Couples. "If they don't have a boyfriend, then they don't count. Bad men [sense] these women, and they know that they will put up with their bad behavior."

My Comment: Human beings need companionship. The American emphasis on women being strong, independent, and completely autonomous goes against basic human needs and desires. From this misunderstanding flows a multitude of errors.

The typical woman, whom I defined at the beginning of this series, would like to have a man who compliments her unique personality, and who is in possession of the genuine manliness she craves.

Unfortunately, our society has driven authentic manliness and honor completely underground. Contrary to popular belief, manly men are not born... they are groomed. The arts of manliness are taught to them by their fathers, brothers, uncles, and elders, and are reinforced by custom, religion, and law.

The No Nonsense Man, Mr. Marc Rudov, explaining how and why Manliness is a foreign concept to so many Western men writes:

The manhood brand is dead, kaput, and that is no accident. Men, who built the legal and physical infrastructure of this country from scratch, have, over the past 36 years, chosen to allow women to marginalize and overshadow them. It's as though the entire history of men was written on an Etch-a-Sketch and then shaken until erased. Maria Shriver, wife of The Terminator, has proclaimed America a woman's nation, and she is right. How pathetic...

... Men are uncomfortable confronting women as peers, because they believe — wrongly — that males are more sexual than females, that kowtowing for sex is a prerequisite. Women, naturally, exploit this male ignorance to the hilt.

Result: Men reflexively buy drinks for women, propose marriage on bended knee, assume fault in every dispute, and rubber-stamp almost every piece of anti-male legislation (think VAWA). This is manhood? ...

And in one well crafted paragraph, Mr. Rudov gives us both the problem with Western man, and how he can right himself:

... these behaviors, ironically, defeat manhood. They are substitutes for real expressions of manhood: standing up to women, disagreeing with them, saying no to them. Their fear of being rejected in the bedroom is so great, yet so unfounded, that men would rather live in a gynocracy and mourn the death of manhood than reverse this sad situation.

... Men must change their views of themselves and of women, and begin treating women like peers. Equality means equality. The Constitution states nowhere that women have special rights or privileges or protections, yet men keep granting them — each time destroying the manhood brand.

The writer has captured the essence of why today's women, many of whom desperately crave someone to share their life with, choose to remain single, or roll with the "Bad Boys" and the "Thugs" that most love to hate.

Faced with a drought of authentic manliness, and denied socially acceptable ways to secure such a man (through traditional marriage and courtship rituals), there is nothing to prevent her from going home with "That Playa Pimp" that many of us like to look down upon.

But as the saying goes: Don't hate the Player... hate the game!


Getting back to the Ebony article:

Still other women tend to fall into the superwoman trap, mistakenly minimizing the badness of the man's behavior and believing that he can be changed or redeemed by their good love. Dr. Paster bashes the thought. "It's wishful thinking," she argues.

In many cases, the law of opposites attract applies for the "good girls" who crave a little excitement in their lives and who feel that the "bad guys" are the only ones who can satisfy them.

These "good girls," who have done all the right things for the majority of their lives, are seeking a taste of the wild life without compromising their own sense of goodness. In fact, these women are attempting to live vicariously through the socially unacceptable behaviors of their men.


"A `good girl' is a woman who has followed the rules all of her life; she's been taught to go along with the status quo of what everyone else thinks she should do, be and want," says Dr. Stovall. "These women have not had an opportunity to be who they are, so they are attracted to the men who rebel against the rules, and they live vicariously through them."

Dr. Paster adds that women who have spent their entire lives pleasing others are more likely to be attracted to "bad guys."

"Being a `good girl' means you've had to forego a lot of your natural instincts, all in the interest of being good," says Dr. Paster. "Therefore, [with a `bad boy'] you can get the pleasure and excitement with someone who hasn't foregone his instincts, all while [maintaining] your image of being good..."

… Chicagoan Mike Luv, a reformed "bad boy" who is now happily married, says it's easy to understand why some men choose to transform themselves into "bad boys."

"Today's culture shows men that it's okay to be `hard' or `cool,' so some guys put on a cool act to make it seem like they're bad, because most often it's bad guys and `players' who get all the women anyway," Luv says.

Let's take a minute to review that last sentence. Why is it that these bad boys get all the women? Could it be that the majority of these men have rejected the feminist party line? Are these the guys that refuse to obey the letter and the spirit of feminist legislation and education? Do bad boys get all the girls because they offer something that 80% of today's feminist friendly men don't have?

Now what if the majority of men in this country were to awaken one morning with their manliness mindset switched fully on? What if the typical man knew what honor was, or if they really knew what women wanted and expected from them? What if law and custom supported manliness as a virtue and a strength, instead of regulating it out of existence?

Would the irresponsible bad boy, competing in the marketplace of love, have a snowball's chance in hell?

If men were in full possession of their manliness, and were proficient in the Old Skool techniques of interacting with their women, and if society adopted marriage and family life as Public Policy instead of the Feminist Friendly regime we live under now, then I assert that the Playas would have a hard time finding women willing to go their way.

Tha Pimp game would then be a small subculture living within the greater society that emphasizes marriage, family life, genuine manliness and authentic womanhood.

Moving back to the article:

.. Dr. Spivey says that sometimes "bad boys" are truly bad, but most often they are just vulnerable men wearing a mask of masculinity and aggressiveness to attract women. He explains that when it comes to love and sex, all the world's a stage, and both men and women are role-playing. He adds that the "bad boy" and "good girl" image is nothing more than an act that he refers to as "the dance."

"I think guys always want to be bad, and the badder the better because women often look for men with that kind of cutting edge," Dr. Spivey states. "But when people put on masks of success or desirability, they start to play games. It's a dance, and both men and women do it; while men are playing `bad,' women are playing `lean and mean,' `not too smart,' or `hard to get.' Men and women have a repertoire of ways to attract and engage one another. Sometimes it can be fun; sometimes it can be painful and destructive..."

Moving on, let's look at this essay from advice writer Lisa Daily:

We've all done it at one time or another. We whine to our friends about the lack of nice available guys, and then, when given the choice between a nice, sweet (safe) guy and a bad boy who makes our toes curl, we invariably go for the toe-curler. The heartbreak-waiting-to-happen. The bad boy.

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

I recently received a letter from a sweet guy who wrote,

"I've been looking for some insights to what women are looking for, because from my perspective, they often go for that which they complain about most! Got any advice for us men?"

Baby, you hit the nail right on the head.

There's good news and bad news for all you nice guys out there. Your day will come. It just may not be today… Most women actually grow out of the bad-boy phase once we hit our mid twenties. Our girlfriends start to couple off, and we start wondering if we used up our nice guy quota in college when were still torturing men for sport. That's where you come in, Mr. Sweet Guy. Because you're the guy we really want.

Here's my advice for all the nice guys:

Remember what we were wearing on our first date. Give romantic gifts on birthdays and anniversaries (and remember flower-mandatory holidays such as Valentine's Day.) Get what we're all about. Let us know what you're all about. Kill any bugs that sneak into the kitchen. Give us your coat when it gets chilly outside. And remember there's a fine line between being a nice guy and being a doormat -don't take any crap from us. After all, you don't want to be a good boy in love with a bad girl.

Please note that the majority of today's modern Western woman uses and abuses all of the "Nice Guys" that would have moved Heaven and Earth to do her bidding. Only when her looks are beginning to fade, and she is tired of the hookups and the late night booty calls, does she consider you, Mr. Nice Guy, to marry up with. In other words, nice guys wind up with sloppy seconds.

Ditto with Single Mothers, the worst event to occur on Planet Earth since the bubonic plague.

Appealing, ain't it?

On top of this, note how our intrepid columnist urges our man to do everything to make her life more comfy, and omits any responsibilities or niceties that our used-goods Partygal should be doing on his behalf.

Sound familiar?

But! Notice that at the very end, the truth comes out. The typical woman does indeed want a man who is stronger than she. While the degree of manliness desired will vary from woman to woman, she wants someone who can stand up to her, and who has confidence in himself as a man, a husband, a provider, a lover, a protector, a Sage, and a leader.

Kowtowing and kissing her buttocks (while sometimes necessary in the case of colossal fuck ups) all the time is the quickest way for a man to find himself Elimi-dated.


Finally, we find an interesting scientific hypothesis from Live Science.com:

Women's Brains Respond to Manly Men

By Sally Law, LiveScience's Science of Sex Columnist

Hormonal women are more responsive to manly men, and Kinsey Institute researchers have the brain scans to prove it.

Women participating in the Kinsey study were shown 224 photos of men's faces, some of which had been "masculinized" or "feminized" using photo-morphing software. MRI scans revealed higher levels of brain response to the masculinized photos, particularly in women who were in the phase of their menstrual cycle immediately preceding ovulation and higher fertility.

The study, published this month in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, is the first to show differences in neural activation to masculinized and feminized faces. One of the areas of the brain most activated by the images, the anterior cingulated cortex, is involved in decision-making and assessment, which indicates that women are calculating the risks and rewards related to a man with high levels of testosterone.

"Because male traits generally thought to predict good condition and even genetic quality often coincide with less desirable characteristics, women must balance potentially disparate mating priorities," writes Heather Rupp, who headed up the study. "For example, although men characterized by more masculine testosterone-linked traits may be socially dominant and physically healthy, they are also less likely to invest in offspring and to enter into a partnered relationship."

In the battle of nurture vs. nature, however, ovulating women ultimately will choose in favor of genetically strong children. At other points in the menstrual cycle, the feminized faces are preferred, indicating a dip in certain hormones and a preference for men who are willing to stick around and play catch with Junior.

"As is true for most social behaviors, both biology and social influences impact the output of behavior, and likely interact," Rupp told LiveScience.

Games Women Play.




The politically incorrect truth is that women want men who will stand up to them. We also know that they are hardwired to seek out manliness to the degree that their unique personality desires.

We also know that true Manliness nowadays is in short supply. The likelihood that the typical woman will meet a man who is in command of his masculinity isn't that great.

Not surprisingly, womenfolk stay true to their instincts and go with the bad boy, who just so happens to have the Manliness game on lockdown. While the vast majority of men are trying desperately to conform with Feminized expectations of how women say they want to be treated, the bad boys and the pimps have learned, either through direct experience or by word of mouth, that the game is to be sold, and not to be told.






In other words, those who know the whole truth about the feminine psyche, and are willing to do the things necessary to "keep their hoes in check," are out here doing what they do.

With the exception of the Pick Up Artist (PUA) types, the bad boys who are pulling the most women aren't sitting around talking about it... they are out in the field dating and mating like it's 1999. Meanwhile, the Nice Guys are sitting at home, wondering why Cupcake isn't responding to their frantic text messages of love and adoration.

While many condemn "Bad Boys" for playing the game, my thought is that our culture is mostly to blame for the good girl/bad boy phenomenon. When you destroy authentic Manliness and the marriage culture, that opens the door for bad boys and players to (pun intended) slide right in to places (and bedrooms) where they would have encountered a lot more resistance entering into back in the Olden Days. I don't blame the Playas so much because they are reacting to the games women play. Games that, for the most part, are seldom acknowledged in polite society.

Women Want Manly Men, by Hook or by Crook. If they can't find real manliness through the front door, they are going to get it from the back. And the primary way that women confirm you are "Man enough" for the job is through "Testing a man's resolve."

As we go on, I am going to share some information that is controversial and rarely discussed. Please bear with me, as I believe it is vital to our discussion of Discipline to understand why women test men, and how the Enlightened man should respond.

According to Askmen.com:

... 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!

Men don't often admit it, but they know that women control many aspects of the relationship. For example, they decide when you'll first have sex. They'll also decide IF you'll have sex! Men are ready to jump on just about anything. Women have evolved to be more discerning. Thus, along with basic physical, emotional and financial characteristics you must meet, to be truly successful, you must also be able to pass women's tests.

What are tests?

Tests are not problems for you to solve, although they seem that way at first. In fact, to pass a test, you shouldn't try to solve anything. Tests are about how you react, not about a solution. Men often react to tests by getting angry, confused, or just giving in. If you do any of these, you'll either get more tests, or she'll view you as a loser. Either way, you'll have failed her test.

Women want men they can look up to and rely on. If you have good self-esteem and present a strong, confident "male" image, then you're well on your way to passing her tests. In fact, this is really what the test is all about. It's about proving you're the man she hopes you are.

Men are confused about what women want today. I constantly hear men ask things like, "Should I be sensitive?" "Should I be emotional?" "Should I cry?" As well, I hear women screaming that they want their men to be men. It's no wonder that men are confused..."

Confused by design.

Men of old were "schooled" in Tha Game at an early age. The knowledge was handed down from the elder generation to the younger. As I recall, my older male cousins initiated me into the Secret Knowledge in my early teens. And don't get it twisted... both my mother and my grandmother had a lot of advice for me about how to deal with women. Their counsel kept me out of a lot of sticky situations.

And when I was slippin' on my pimpin' (i.e being too nice), I've had ex-girlfriends tell me straight out that, "while I appreciate you being a gentlemen, I need to see your rough side every now and again."

Happily, I've never found myself in a really bad situation with women (i.e. false rape allegations, baby momma drama, domestic altercations that involved police, etc), simply because I exercised good judgment about who I got involved with, how close I allowed these women to get to me, and when to let them go when they were in violation of my code of relationship conduct.

But all of this requires education and experience. And good, bad, or indifferent, the Art of Relationship Conduct is an underground skill kept alive only by the brave few who refuse to bow down to Political Feminism...

For the sake of readability, I'll stop here for now.

My next post will continue with this theme of women testing Men. Bad Boys all over the globe know what Tests are and how to beat them, which is one of the reasons why Good Girls like Bad Boys.

Keep Pimpin',

Gyokko.

Credit as a Public Utility.

Gang,

As most of you know, I am a libertarian leaning, free market advocating, gold hording Economic crack fiend.

Not surprisingly, I spend a lot of time on the Mises.Org site... expanding my mind with Austrian Economics.

However!

Your friend Gyokko is first and foremost a Truthseeker who ain't never scared to examine all sides of important issues... and monetary policy is no exception.

To that end, I would like to bring your attention to Mr. Richard Cook and his series of videos entitled Credit as a Public Utility.







Please take some time to watch the series, as it provides a lot of scrumptious food for thought.

My take:

Mr. Cook represents the "Liberal" solution to our debt based economic monetary system (which requires complete, total and utter abolishment like yesterday!).

This faction believes that government has a significant role to play in wresting control of the Money Power from the current private sector banking cartel to elected government representatives (aka Politicians), that government issued paper money can break the back of our current system of taxation and debt, and that our economy is productive enough to issue a dividend to every American citizen.

Shockingly, I disagree with some of Mr. Cook's interpretations of monetary history, as well as some of his ultimate solutions.

For example, his dismissals of historical monies such as gold and silver are shortsighted, and his faith in government is misplaced. He assumes that government would be filled with Statesmen who would resist the urge to lavish newly created government fiat dollars on destructive pet projects, such as feminism.

His implied preference for government issued greenbacks as legal tender is an idea I would oppose. If the country were to seriously reform the monetary system, I would much prefer a regime of competing currencies be established. The People should decide if greenbacks, gold, silver, or some other method of payment becomes the People's money in the 21st Century; not government officials who are mere Agents for the Citizenry.

However, I think that most of what he is proposing meshes well with the Austrian worldview (abolishing the Federal Reserve, outlawing fractional reserve banking, etc), as well as my own personal outlook that the Universe is one of abundance versus a hellhole of Malthusian scarcity.

If we as a nation were to do the right things, prosperity would be a foregone conclusion. If we as a nation designed and implemented the correct systems, genuine wealth creation would take care of itself. As the nation's technology and efficiency goes parabolic, humanity should be experiencing lower prices, increasing purchasing power, greater leisure and much less work.

But, before I get carried away...

Please watch the video. In these days and times, we as a people have a choice to make, and I believe that we need a variety of proposals to consider.

We can either:

1) Continue on with failed Keynesian policies of borrowing, spending, debt, inflation, socialism, communism, feminism, corporatism, and warfare or...

2) We can radically overhaul our economic system, take the best ideas from a multitude of Economic Schools, test them out in the real world, accept the best, and reject the rest.

I don't know about you, but I recommend that we go with Door Number Two!.

Our future prosperity depends on making the right choices, while we still can.

Gyokko.

The Lost Art of Discipline Part VI.

Japanese women lead the way.



Greetings!

Before we talk about why good girls like bad boys, I'd like to share this intriguing Bloomberg article with you, my Valued Reader:

Japanese Women Hunt for Husbands as Refuge From Deepening Slump

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- When Yumiko Iwate’s pay was cut last year, she and her female colleagues all agreed there was only one thing to do: find a husband.

“I want to get married soon, hopefully by the end of this year,” said Iwate, a 36-year-old employee at a mail-order retailer in Tokyo. “The recession made me realize I’m not going to make as much money as I expected, and I’d be more stable financially if I had double income to fall back on.”

Women the Japanese call “marriage-hunters” are looking to tie the knot as companies from Toyota Motor Corp. to Sony Corp. fire thousands of workers and the nation heads for its biggest annual economic contraction since 1945. Marriages surged to a five-year high of 731,000 in 2008 as wages stagnated and the unemployment rate rose for the first time in six years.

“Financial concerns are a major reason for the increase in marriage-hunting,” said Toshihiro Nagahama, chief economist at Dai-Ichi Life Research Institute in Tokyo. “Women are motivated more than ever to find a financially sound partner.”

The trend marks a reversal for women who put careers over families after Japan implemented equal labor rights 23 years ago. The number of marriages in the following decade slid 4.5 percent to an annual average of 746,000 compared with the decade before. Despite equal rights, women still make 43 percent less than men, giving them more reason to seek a partner during recessions.

‘As Good as Men’

“I know women before my generation worked so hard and pursued their careers so they could prove they’re just as good as men,” said Reiko Kubo, 25, who bought a good-luck charm at Tokyo Daijingu shrine. “They didn’t have to depend on men and that’s cool, but it’s not the path I want to follow.”

Tokyo Daijingu has come to be known as the marriage-hunters’ shrine, and the number of visitors has risen about 20 percent in the past year, said priest Yoshiyuki Karamatsu. For 5,000 yen, he will conduct a ritual to ward off bad spirits; the purification ceremony includes drinking sacred sake.

Recessions have encouraged the Japanese to wed before. Marriages rose when an asset-price bubble burst in the late 1980s and again after the technology crash in 2001. Analysts say the trend is gaining traction because the current slump is expected to spur record-high unemployment.

Economists at Dai-Ichi Life Research and JPMorgan Chase & Co. expect the jobless rate this year to surpass the postwar peak of 5.5 percent in 2003. Unemployment in January was 4.1 percent. Wages have slumped for three months, and the economy contracted an annualized 12.1 percent last quarter, the biggest drop since 1974.

Civil Weddings

Marriages are also increasing in other countries as recessions spread around the world. The number of civil weddings in London’s Westminster Register Office, the city’s most popular, rose 8.5 percent to 1,684 between April 2008 and February 2009 compared with a year earlier, according to Alison Cathcart, the superintendent registrar. “We certainly feel a lot busier,” she said.

Japan’s husband hunters are pursuing relationships the way they might search for jobs: They interview at agencies -- dating agencies, in this case. They attend networking parties or just let friends know they are ready for commitment.

Iwate started her quest in December by writing New Year’s cards to 170 acquaintances from junior high school classmates to fellow dancers at salsa lessons, asking for help finding an eligible bachelor. Her five co-workers are in on the hunt, introducing each other to potential partners and putting sticky notes on the most useful pages of the “Complete Guide to Marriage Hunting” from “an an” magazine, a weekly publication for women in their 20s and 30s.

‘Looks Shouldn’t Matter’

The issue included articles telling readers that, while it’s acceptable to choose a husband by occupation, “looks shouldn’t matter because they’re not essential to leading a married life. You need to consider men you normally wouldn’t date.”

It listed character traits by job type: “Traders tend to be adventurous and forward-looking; pharmacists conservative and stable; sushi chefs patient and creative.”

It also cautioned against playing hard to get: Being coy “is strictly forbidden; men want to seriously date women who act natural.”

Business is booming at Green, a marriage-hunting bar in Tokyo’s nightlife district of Roppongi. Men pay 11,340 yen ($115) per visit to have waiters set them up with women, who get in free. The bar is booked solid on weekends, and membership is up 26 percent this year, according to owner Yuta Honda.

Dating Agencies

Interest in O-Net, Japan’s largest dating agency, is also rising. The number of people requesting applications jumped 10 percent in the past year, according to spokesman Toshiaki Kato. Shares of Watabe Wedding Corp., a wedding-planning agency, are up 55 percent since September, while the broader Topix index has slumped 30 percent.

Marriage hunting has even attracted the attention of policy makers, who have been trying for years to increase Japan’s birthrate. Women give birth to only 1.34 children on average in their lifetimes, government data for 2007 show, well below the 2.07 required for a stable population.

A government panel charged with increasing the population met last month and invited academics to discuss the trend. Until now, efforts were focused on people with children, said Yuko Obuchi, 35, the minister in charge of the project, who is expecting her second child in September. “Marriage hunting underscores the importance of addressing unmarried people as well.”

Meanwhile, Natsuko Ono, 25, is sparing no expense to find a man. She said she’s spent 370,000 yen so far, mostly for a professional portrait and registration at a matchmaking agency.

“It sounds like a lot of money, but if you consider that it’s a way to find a husband, it’s a reasonable investment,” she said while scoping men at Green.

To contact the reporter for this story: Toru Fujioka in Tokyo at tfujioka1@bloomberg.net

Ladies and gents, this article is interesting for a number of reasons.

1) Once again, I am awed at the pragmatism of the Japanese in general, and of Japanese women in particular. Ladies from the Jp are light years ahead of their Western sisters, as usual. Instead of waiting for Depression era unemployment levels to take action, they are doing what they gotta do to secure their futures, as well as advance the interests of their men and the Japanese nation in the process.




(Adam Smith)



Adam Smith, the father of Modern Economics, wrote that "The Invisible Hand", driven by the selfish actions of millions of market participants, would lead to society being better off in the long run.

And, in Japan, the Free Marriage Marketplace is doing its job as Marriage Hunters prepare themselves for the hard economic times to come. They have not structured their society around feminist ideals to the extent that America and other Western cultures have done. And because of this fact, they will be flexible enough to survive whatever events may come, foreign imports such as feminism and "women-first" ideologies be damned.


2) American women had better take heed and emulate their Asian sisters. Unfortunately for them, the Western Marriage Market has been destroyed by the influence of Political Feminism, a massive regime of immoral and unjust government regulations, widespread cultural ignorance [1][2], and a fiat financed credit bubble of epic proportions.

Western women, encumbered by the psychobabble of feminism, Western governments, encumbered by the idiocy of feminist public policy, and Western men, brainwashed by feminism, caustic misandry, and terrified of the cultural and legal dangers of marriage, are not in a position to make the familial changes that the Japanese are making to deal with the coming global downturn.

In order for us to do what the Japanese are doing, that is, pool incomes, increase economies of scale, realize efficiencies from the division of labor that marriage tends to produce, and so forth, we would have to repeal a massive number of laws, overturn a mind numbing amount of court precedent, move heaven and earth to establish a more man and marriage friendly public policy, and reverse 40+ years of feminist mind control.

Needless to say, America and other Matriarchal nations will not and cannot change until we are DEEP into the calamity. By that time, Political Feminism, and all of its attendants and hangers on, will collapse under their own bulk. As for Western women, they will find themselves destitute and desperate as Big Daddy Government becomes increasingly unwilling to support them, by direct and indirect means, economically and politically as it has done during the fiat financed good times.

When I say that fiat financing is the root of all immorality, I'm not kidding. The truth of this assertion will become apparent to all as the American credit bubble bursts, and all of the cultural excesses that depend on such financing for sustainability will literally die on the vine. Feminism will share in this fate, as it produces economic, political, and social outcomes that will be too costly for the nation to subsidize any further.

3) Those who are doubtful that our present economic difficulties will lead to significant changes to our personal lives should pick up Michael Panzer's book When Giants Fall [3][4].

I would urge you to pick this up and take heed to the advice given therein. The book contains page after chilling page of reasons why Political Feminism, as well as many other uneconomical practices our society is engaged in, are simply doomed.

In a perfect world, the enlightened would take action to head off the many difficulties our nation faces. Unfortunately, only a small minority will know what is really going on, and will prepare accordingly. The vast majority, which includes the 85% of women whose minds have been thoroughly corrupted by feminism, are going to find themselves in a world of suffering. And worse yet, many of these, by their own thoughts, words, and deeds, will find themselves without a strong shoulder to cry on. They alone will reap the bitter harvest to come.



Why Good Girls like Bad Boys.


Picking up where we left off, we shall begin our analysis as to why the typical feminine woman chooses the Bad Boy over the Nice Guy.

Unless you have been living in a cave in Siberia, you have probably heard about the Rihanna & Chris Brown controversy.

The Smoking Gun has part of the official police report here, and internet site Ace Show Biz tells us that:

On Thursday, March 5, the same day Chris Brown appeared before Los Angeles Superior Court commissioner for a hearing in his battery case that involves Rihanna, TMZ made public a copy of the LAPD detectives' legal documents that give detail description on the assault he allegedly did to the "Umbrella" hit maker during their major argument on February 8. According to a search warrant in the case, text message from another woman that Rihanna found on Chris' phone was the trigger of the couple's blow-up.

It is claimed in the search warrants that Chris and Rihanna were driving in his rented Lamborghini when she read him a three-page text message from an unidentified woman. An argument reportedly was quick to ensue, during when Chris tried to force Rihanna out of the vehicle, but failed because she was wearing a seat belt.

Chris then allegedly shoved Rihanna's head against the passenger window and struck her several times when she turned to face him as he continued to drive. The alleged assault resulted in Rihanna's blood splattering on the interior of the car and her dress. "I'm going to beat the s--- out of you when we get home. You wait and see!" Chris reportedly threatened Rihanna...

The alleged acts of violence Mr. Brown is accused of committing, if true and in response to angry words only, are illegal, immoral, and unreasonable. If he did inflict the pain and suffering on his girlfriend that he is accused of, then he should be charged, tried by a jury of his peers, given all of the Constitutional rights defendants are entitled to in criminal cases, and if convicted, he should receive the appropriate amount of jail time based on the totality of the circumstances.

It is my personal opinion that since Chris Brown and Rihanna were only dating, and not married, neither person should be in the business of trying to control the other. Boyfriend/girlfriend relationships (just as the words boyfriend and girlfriend imply), should be casual associations between two consenting adults. If there are problems in the pairing that could potentially lead to violence, then its better for all parties involved to walk away from the relationship and move on with their lives.

No girlfriend is worth going to jail over. If she is acting bad, toss her to tha muthafuckin' curb and start over.

In the whirlwind and firestorm of media coverage concerning this incident, one very important detail has been under reported.

Rihanna might have started the conflict, and may have landed the first blow. If this is true, then circumstances change significantly.

(I wonder if Oprah and Tyra mentioned this obscure report?)

According to Mirror.co.uk:

Rihanna 'hit Chris Brown with her shoes' before his alleged assault, it's claimed

Chris Brown attacked Rihanna after she hit him with her shoes, it was claimed last night.

Welford Hart - who lives with Brown's mother - told an American newspaper that the singer was allegedly provoked by the Umbrella star.

Mr Hart told the New York Post: "When you take off your shoes and beat someone with high heels, that's going to hurt. He reacted and tried to get her to stop hitting him, but she kept screaming."

Brown, 19, has been charged with assault and making criminal threats after an attack on his 21-year-old girlfriend last month.

Details revealed in court alleged that the pair got into a fight after Rihanna found a text message from another woman. Brown allegedly then banged her head against the passenger window and repeatedly hit her in the face.

(I bet these wouldn't hurt at all...)


Let's assume for a moment that this report is true, as all of the details of intimate partner violence tend not to come to light, especially if it makes the woman look bad. And we should always remember that there are at least two sides to every story.

If the above story is true, and a grown woman did indeed beat Chris Brown in the face with Stiletto shoes, in close quarters with no easy means of escape, would not Rihanna also share part of the blame for the injuries she sustained? Would Mr. Brown not be justified in using an appropriate degree of force to stop the attack?

Would the knowledge that Rihanna was partly at fault, that she initiated the violent encounter that led to her injuries and her beloved's arrest not influence her decision to take her "Bad Boy" lover back? Would the fact that Mr. Brown defended himself against her vicious assault lead the singer to believe that attacking a grown man with pointed high heels is not an appropriate thing to do?

Would it be reasonable to assume that, based on everything that happened to her, Rihanna would think twice about attacking a grown man in a similar manner in the future?

In my personal opinion, I don't think that punching a woman repeatedly in the face or slamming her head into a dashboard is the appropriate way to deal with such an assault. However, in the heat of combat, your objective is to stop the assault before you sustain serious and permanent injury. Rihanna is in good physical condition, and could easily generate enough power, in her fury, to put an eye out, rupture an eardrum, or pierce the soft skin of the throat or face.

If I were a person who had little training or ability to stop such an attack without injuring the aggressor, I would do whatever I had to do to get her to stop, even if such counteroffensive actions would be very distasteful to society at large.

Perhaps both parities were simply out of control and took their respective actions without thinking about the consequences. While we may never know all of the details, we should slow down and analyze the situation, find out what mistakes were made, and use this incident as a teaching lesson on how not to act towards other people.

The complete facts surrounding this incident are murky. However, one thing is crystal clear: This young couple did not have the skills, training, and knowledge to properly resolve their relationship conflicts, and the lack of such skills can easily lead to violent outbursts, as we discussed previously. These two individuals acted and reacted in such a manner that reputations, bodies, and careers have been greatly damaged. We also know that Rihanna went back to her man, beatings and all. And while the relationship will probably not survive the intense public scrutiny it is now undergoing, the fact remains that she forgave Chris Brown for what he did to her that night.

The question is why? Why do so many women seek out that Thug lovin?

This is the main question... and one that we will deal with in future posts. While I have already touched on why women might seek out abusive, destructive, and life threatening relationships here; I want to focus on why most women seek out bad boys in the context of "normal" relationships, with all of their ups and downs.

What qualities make such men attractive to the typical woman? Why do nice guys lose out to "thugs" so often?

Ponder that, and I'll see you next week,

Gyokko aka "Pretty Boy Gyo."

I'm Back.

Welcome to Jeweled Tiger School.

Just as molecules below and the planets above constantly change with the times and the seasons, so does the title and the focus of this blog.

Gyokko (Gyo for short) is the pseudonym I will be using this year, and the Tiger will be my symbol.

As we read on Wiki:

The tiger replaces the lion as King of the Beasts in cultures of eastern Asia,^[97] representing royalty, fearlessness and wrath.^[98] Its forehead has a marking which resembles the Chinese character 王, which means "king"; consequently, many cartoon depictions of tigers in China and Korea are drawn with 王 on their forehead.^{[citation needed]}

Strength and fearlessness are going to be sorely needed this year. Economic calamity has gripped the entire developed world, and those with the foresight to see beyond blatant government/banker propaganda claim that we are already in Depression [1][2].

Meanwhile, those who know are frantically accumulating gold and silver;, the true currencies of the ages. China grumbles and the Fed begins its hyperinflationary campaign.

Many things have changed in my life, personally and professionally. Consequently, I hope to bring a more nuanced approach to my blogging.

I am officially a Father's Rights Advocate, and our newborn son has brought much joy to my House. Now I can understand the full heartlessness and brutality of our Matriarchal system. Now I can fully comprehend why Men are willing to go through hell and high water to challenge the awesome might of the fiat financed feminist machine.

Don't misunderstand though: Men's Rights and Fathers Rights are two aspects of One Whole. Trying to separate one group from the other is nothing more than a divide and conquer tactic that saps our strength and blunts our effectiveness. We should be supporting each other regardless of our parental status, as men everywhere hold on for dear life against the last gasps of the Political Feminist Juggernaut.

And make no mistake: the feminists have powerful friends in Washington D.C. these days. N.O.W. and their cohorts are getting a crap-ton of political payback for supporting the present Administration and Congressional majority in their rise to power [3][4][5] .

While I still stick with my thesis that feminism will soon collapse (along with our debt based economic system), I also believe that Men need to do the smart thing and lay low, stay single, stay childless, and get the hell out of the way of the rabid, insane 1000 pound Matriarchal Gorilla that is intent on rending hapless males to shreds before it expires from exhaustion, mad cow disease, and complete irrelevance.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I must inform my readers that I have deleted some posts of a highly political nature (for the moment). I have a very sensitive political position. More importantly, I work for a great group of people whom have been very good to me and obviously have no idea about my Men's Rights Activities.

My fear is that unfriendly individuals could use some of my highly inflammatory political postings to embarrass my superiors. This, for me, is a less than desirable outcome, and I have a positive duty to protect my benefactors from such an ugly scenario so long as I remain in their employ.

I am a political independent with strong free enterprise, libertarian leanings. I am a member of neither major political party, and I intend to remain independent. Going forward, however, I will not single out specific politicians or parties for criticism. When I want to criticize unfair, oppressive, and idiotic government policies, I will simply state, "the Government..." and leave it at that.

Feminism, and the harpies that promote it, on the other hand, are fair game.

While my reluctance to target specific individuals might be a little hard to understand for some, please understand that I have very good reasons for this change in policy, and at some point in the future, I will not be encumbered with the obligations I carry now.

With all that aside...

It's time to take out the feminist trash, and combat the ever increasing tide of Matriarchal propaganda.

Gyokko.

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!"

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...




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.