Prequel: Tyranny of Tolerance part II.

Moving on with the groundwork.

My MRA friend wrote:

Now we turn to the next step in the Cultural Marxist master plan to separate Men from their families:

ABORTION.

Judge Dierker, in his masterwork The Tyranny of Tolerance writes:

“…in 1973, in a masterpiece of revisionist legal history, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is a constitutional right. Criticism of Roe v. Wade has been unremitting and unanswerable since the decision was handed down.

Unfortunately, unlike the famous rulings in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which also ignored established law in striking down a statute disliked by a majority of the Supreme Court, and in Plessy v Ferguson, which ignored the plain language and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, Roe remains on the books (p. 56)."

“Roe purported to identify a corollary to a right of privacy, subsumed under the liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As the rationale of Roe evolved, however, it became clear that what was at issue was not the right of privacy. What privacy is there in the destruction of unborn life? A pregnancy, absent intervention of a syringe, requires the participation of two people, and results in the creation of a third—who had, even in the womb, formerly enjoyed legal protections and indeed legal rights, foremost of which had been the right to inherit (p. 57)."

Let's break this down.

The classic feminist argument for abortion is “My Body, My Choice.”

And I must acknowledge that feminists and pro-abortioners are, in general, are very eloquent in their arguments.

As an example, my good friend Renegade Evolution argues:

"A Woman’s Right of Domain over Her own Body:

To me, this goes so above and beyond the right to have a safe, legal abortion, but we will start there. Surprise! I believe in every woman’s right to have a safe and legal abortion. That is a big decision, a life altering choice. But it should be her choice to make.

Such a choice does come with great responsibility though. I think a woman in a relationship owes it to her partner to discuss these things, to hear his opinion and consider it and take it into account. It takes two people to make a baby, and in some cases, I really think it should be two people deciding what to do if egg and sperm hook up in such a manner.

Yes, ultimately it is her body and her decision, but her life is not the only one that will be affected by that decision, be it to have the baby or not, and she needs to consider and remember that. That being said, it is not the government’s choice, or the churches, or society as a whole. It is hers. All those other folks need to keep their laws and morality off her body and out of her decision."

Her words are a very good articulation of the typical pro abortion view on this topic.

However, I have to say that this line of reasoning is quite wrong.

Even the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, which we will examine shortly, does NOT acknowledge that a woman is a law unto herself with respect to this issue.

It is my position that even feminists understand the ultimate reality of abortion... that it is the untimely killing of unborn children.

I wrote previously:

“…By lobbying against selective abortion, feminists prove what the pro-life folks have been screaming for years:

That aborted babies are not lifeless clumps of flesh, but actual human beings, deserving of legal protection.

This admission diametrically opposes the idea that a woman has the "right to choose". A woman does not have the right to choose murder, because no woman is justified for murdering another human being. Women ARE NOT special people who are exempt from the laws of God and man.

This admission, that these girl babies are human beings with a right to exist, is an implied acceptance of the fact that a woman, upon accepting a man's life-giving sperm and being impregnated by his seed, is no longer sovereign in her person.

She becomes just one piece of a Triad: Mother--Father--Child.

Her body is no longer her own. The unborn child, and the father of that child, via a sacred marriage covenant, both have claim over her. She is no longer autonomous, but beholden to both.

The Mistress becomes a handmaiden.

This is something that no feminist can ever accept. To the feminist, a woman is an autonomous being beholden to no one.”

It is understood that a woman is NOT sovereign over her body once she becomes pregnant. This misunderstanding is the result of deliberate lies advanced by zealous advocates of abortion.

The role of men in reproduction was very much acknowledged as sacred for untold ages until Roe v. Wade and similar decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court.

So much so, that male fertility was worshipped by the ancients, and the idea of man as the giver of life is embodied even today in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions.

Legal codes have acknowledged the special relationship between Husbands, wives, and children for thousands of years.

When the fullness of time and human experience is brought to bear on this, the most sensitive of topics, the slogan of “My body, My choice” is nothing more than an extreme display of selfishness, narcissism, and delusion of the highest order.

No mortal human being is autonomous. Not one.

Ten Thousand Rivers flow into the Sea. Even the tiniest raindrop causes a ripple.

The sooner that all people remember this, the happier we will all be.

But, I digress.

Getting back to the Tyranny of Tolerance, we find out why Roe is so important to Cultural Marxists and Feminists alike:

“No, at stake with Roe were the “reproductive rights” of women, to the exclusion of husbands and fathers, and perforce to the exclusion of traditional ideas of the family. Part and parcel of the marriage contract is the procreation of children. This is not some artifact of Roman Catholic doctrine; it was a real and vital part of the marriage contract under the law. To be sure, no one could be compelled by the government to procreate, but certainly a great object of the marriage contract was children, born and reared within the marriage. Roe nullifies the central purpose of the marriage contract, and the correlative rights on obligations of the husband and wife in that regard (p. 57).”

Notice, dear readers, that Mr. Dierker references the word CONTRACT, something we discussed previously.

Marriage, up until Roe v. Wade, was a contract between the Husband and the wife, with rights and responsibilities thereof.

At this point, I want to review the concept of Just Noticeable Difference and the ideal of Bastardy:

“In psychophysics, a just noticeable difference, customarily abbreviated with lowercase letters as jnd, is the smallest difference in a specified modality of sensory input that is detectable by a human being or other animal. It is also known as the difference limen or the differential threshold…

…The jnd is a statistical, rather than an exact quantity: from trial to trial, the difference that a given person notices will vary somewhat, and it is therefore necessary to conduct many trials in order to determine the threshold. The jnd usually reported is the difference that a person notices on 50% of trials. If a different proportion is used, this should be included in the description—for example one might report the value of the "75% jnd"...

... This modern attack on the family as the fundamental prop of society surely began with the employment of the liberals’ favorite tool, the equal protection clause.

This weapon was used to attack the very essence of the family, the idea that children of a marriage occupied a status at once different from and superior to illegitimate children. (Oh, by the way, the modern, politically correct law school profs don’t use the term “illegitimate,” since that term is obviously “insensitive” and even worse, “normative.” The old law frankly used the term “bastards,” but now we use the phrase “nonmarital children,” so that we don’t imply that bastardy carries any sort of taint.)

In the 1968 case Levy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that barred unacknowledged illegitimate children from filing actions for the wrongful death of the parent. Delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice William O Douglass wrote: “[W]e have been extremely sensitive when it comes to basic civil rights and have not hesitated to stike down an invidious classification even though it had history and tradition on its side.” This is liberal law in a nutshell. History and tradition count for nothing; the language of the Constitution itself counts for little; the only criterion is whether a ruling will advance the liberal agenda (p.52-53)."

One will note the creeping effect the decision on bastardy (which I am one, by the way, so don’t get all offended). If one were to argue that the children of unmarried parents should be called Bastards, they would look like Darth Vader stealing candy from babies.

And yet, the concept of children born in wedlock, vs. children born outside of it is of crucial importance to a host of legal, moral, and philosophical issues.

Just. Noticeable. Difference.

The first step: remove the differentiation between out of wedlock and legitimate children.

The next step: use the concept of on demand abortion to lay the groundwork for stripping Men of the marital rights that they have enjoyed for millennium.

Baby steps.

Slow and steady wins the race right?

The crucial thing to remember in all this is that woman is sovereign over her person UNLESS she surrenders some of it to her Husband via the Martial Contract.

The great bulk of the Rights of Man rests on this very idea.

So of course, this pillar of the law was next in line to be liquidated. Here is where the Rights of man became terminally ill.

Roe v Wade was nothing but the pretext.

The prophet Muhammad said; "War is deceit."

Don’t ever forget it.

Let’s look at the actual Roe v. Wade decision shall we?

A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life...

... A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies.

Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

Held:

1. While 28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
(a) Contrary to appellee's contention, the natural termination of Roe's pregnancy did not moot her suit. Litigation involving pregnancy, which is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," is an exception to the usual federal rule that an actual controversy must exist at review stages and not simply when the action is initiated. Pp. 124-125...

…Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions.

She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated…

…On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does' complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief. 314 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex. 1970).

…The appellee notes, however, that the record does not disclose that Roe was pregnant at the time of the District Court hearing on May 22, 1970, 6 or on the following June 17 when the court's opinion and judgment were filed. And he suggests that Roe's case must now be moot because she and all other members of her class are no longer subject to any 1970 pregnancy

…But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid.

Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).

We, therefore, agree with the District Court that Jane Roe had standing to undertake this litigation, that she presented a justiciable controversy, and that the termination of her 1970 pregnancy has not rendered her case moot.

… Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion…

... The third reason is the State's interest(via it's Police Power to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals--) -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone...

... The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra…

…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.

There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive.

The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life…

…B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned.

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly…

…With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly.

The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72.”

The reasoning of this case, as any man can see, is as weak as water. The outcome, even more pathetic.

No wonder feminist groups are so worried that it will be overturned! The Roe v. Wade decision isn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

Clearly, Justice Blackmun and company were grasping for straws.

Consider what the Concerned Women for America has to say about the Roe v Wade decision:

In his preparation to write the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun spent an entire summer studying the international history of abortion law and reading textbooks in the Mayo Clinic medical library.

Blackmun identified the salient issue that stood in the way of Roe prevailing on the theory that abortion is a constitutional right. He wrote, "If this suggestion of personhood (fetus) is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed by the Amendment."1

In order to deny the unborn status as "persons" protected by the 14th Amendment, the Court first had to dehumanize them. The majority did so by pretending that no one could agree on when human life begins.

Blackmun penned a statement that reads more like that of a high school student who flunked a biology exam than a jurist looking for truth:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.2

One of many pro-fetal-life sources Blackmun cited and dismissed was the American Medical Association's (AMA's) Committee on Criminal Abortion Report of 1859, which referred to "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being." The AMA adopted resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws.

In 1970, an AMA Committee noted "polarization of the medical profession on this controversial issue." It was "felt to be influenced by the rapid changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to make abortion more freely available."3

And it gets worse. The unborn, Blackmun decreed with a straight face, are merely "potential life" until "viability," the time when "the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."4

Not subject to cross-examination, Blackmun wasn't made to explain how "potential life," i.e., non-life, is capable of development.

Blackmun's inconsistency could hardly be more obvious when compared to this statement about the "developing young":

[T]he pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy or bedroom possession of obscene material or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstaub and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned.5

You'd think that Blackmun, former general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, would have found persuasive Dr. Hymie Gordon, the Mayo Clinic's chief geneticist, who wrote:

From the moment of fertilization, when the deoxyribose nucleic acids from the spermatozoon and the ovum come together to form the zygote, the pattern of the individual's constitutional development is irrevocably determined, his future health, his future intellectual potential, even his future criminal proclivities are all dependent on the sequence of the purine and pryrimidine bases in the original set of DNA molecules of the unicellular individual.

True, environmental influences both during the intra-uterine period and after birth modify the individual's constitution and continue to do so right until his death, but it is at the moment of conception that the individual's capacity to these exogenous influences is established. Even at that early stage, the complexity of the living cell is so great that it is beyond our comprehension. It is a privilege to be allowed to protect and nurture it.6

Blackmun also "missed" Louis Pasteur's work on biogenesis:

The superstition that life arose from nonliving matter was scientifically disproved a long time ago by Louis Pasteur and others. It became a principle of science, we read in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology under biogenesis, "that a living organism can only arise from other living organisms similar to itself (i.e., that like gives rise to like) and can never originate from nonliving material" (Oxford University Press, 2000).7

Life begins at conception, period.

And the fetus, barring termination, miscarriage, or stillbirth, WILL become a little boy or a little girl.

Feminists know the evil they do when they advocate abortion as if the unborn child was nothing more than a mass of tissue.

As an example, every time a feminist rails about the evils of Selective Abortion, where girl children are aborted in favor of boy children, they acknowledge that those “little clumps of cells” are indeed, living, potential human beings…

Worthy of legal protection.

Roe v. Wade, in other words, is meaningless LEFTIST BULLSHIT.

And the claims of feminists, and even conservative women, that abortion is, "My body, My choice", are absolutely WRONG...

Ok then!

The prequel is officially over.

Next time:

Introductions, Mission Statements, babes, and more Tyranny of Tolerance!

Thanks for reading, make yourselves at home, and Godspeed.

Kumogakure School: A Day in the Life VI.

This is a continuation in a series, and the last installment can be found here.

Space Fans and Thrill Seekers,

Like any good accountant, Kumo is tying up loose ends in order to meet the end of the year deadline. Looking back, we here at Kumogakure School have covered a lot of ground.

We talked about the Platonic origins of feminism, discussed how the Supreme Court has terminated the rights of Men, looked at pressing economic issues facing the nation, took a brief look at the differences between civil rights and Natural rights [a][b], threw our insignificant support behind Representative Ron Paul for President, watched a lot of hott flicks [1][2] in our quest for Truth, explained why marriage is a HUGE no-no [3][4], looked at the CFR and other shadowy organizations that seek to dominate our lives and create a less perfect North American Union [5][6], and discovered Kumogakure's origins via the modern day Miracle of DNA testing.

We also demolished the myth of domestic violence into very small pieces, chronicled the link between feminism and the awful discipline of Eugenics, touched on why Jihadism is a threat of our own making [c][d][e][f], talked about polygamy and why it should be considered as a viable family organization model, discussed the fact that BOTH political parties, the Redumblicans and the Femocrats, SUCK, crusaded for the common sense regulation and legalization of that Magical Green Herb [g][h]... and a whole lot of other stuff.

In summary: It's been a busy 2007.

Now that we've reflected, let's get down to business!

I was dreaming.

About what, I can't be sure. However, it was a beautiful one... until I heard a voice saying：

「 起きて。。。起きて下さい！」

Coming out of my dreamworld, I recognized the voice of my young wife telling me to wake up:

「ねー起きる時間でございます。」

And with that reminder, that it was time to wake up and prepare for the coming of another day, I jumped out of bed, pausing briefly to give thanks to God for life, health, and wealth. Stripping out of my sleeping kimono （着物）, I stepped into the piping hot shower that my wife had already prepared before waking me up...

Comrades,

It's been said on this blog that it is better not to marry, and that advice still stands. State run marriage in this day and age is an ABSOLUTE NO-NO. No good can come from it, only heartache, suffering, and loss.

Loss of children, loss of property, loss of liberty, and in a few rare cases, loss of life as well.

Because the law is basically society's way of telling its citizenry how they should guide their conduct, it should be understood that society does not want successful marriages. If society wanted marriage to be strong and stable, our laws would reflect this desire.

This in itself isn't necessarily a bad or a negative situation.




(Kemetian Sage Ptah-Hotep)


As African sage Ptah-Hotep tells us in Maxim 9 of The Wisdom of Ptah-Hotep:

On the silence necessary to the fortunate and the happy fate of the childless:

If you plough your field and, thanks to God's intervention, your harvest (sons and daughters) is abundant, don't boast about it to your neighbors, for it is the quiet man who inspires respect. As for the man who stays self possessed despite great riches, in a court of law he will know how to win a case with the swiftness of a crocodile.

Don't blame or critize those who have no children, nor boast about your own offspring. There are many unhappy fathers and as many unhappy mothers; a woman without children is more serene. God grants spiritual growth to the solitary, wheras the head of a family clan prays anxiously to find a successor.

With this understanding, truly enlightened men heed the will of society and become Happy Bachelors, and remain content until the end of their days, or until marriage and family life comes back into season, whichever comes first.

The whole purpose of this Day in the Life series is to advise those men that still wish to marry in spite of the dangers how to minimize their risk. And the sad truth is that the most successful marriages in the West now-a-days are those involving a Western man and a foreign woman who is born and raised outside of cultures ravaged by the Feminist Supervirus.

In previous posts in the series we listed the best ways to meet and marry the foreign bride of your dreams. Today, I want to show you my everyday married life.

Why?

Because many men in the West have no idea what it's like to have an actual WIFE that does WIFELY stuff such as cooking and cleaning, doing the laundry, managing the household, shopping for groceries, taking care of business in the bedroom, making sure that both herself and her house are pleasing to her husband, who takes pride in being feminine, and a host of other things.

Many men today (if they foolishly marry a daughter of the West) will probably end up with a woman that is more manly than they are, who can't cook worth a damn, who has no interest in keeping in shape and may be on some form of mood altering drugs, that will become greatly disinterested in sex, who will have craptastic ideas about what being a good mother is all about...

You get the idea.

I know I have women readers, and if this description doesn't apply to you, please don't be offended. But the fact of the matter is that 85.9978% of Western women are simply inferior as wives compared to their foreign sisters. The non-feminist woman, who more than likely has been trained to be a wife from a very early age, wins the wife-and-mother game HANDS DOWN.

But again, it must be stressed that marriage to ANY woman is to be avoided while you live in the Matriarchal West. The legal penalties for failing at the marriage game are staggering [1][2].

Understand this, Dear Reader. The Law is the Law, and there will be no mercy if your bride (of any persuasion) decides to take your ass to divorce court.

N.O.N.E.

You will be much better off if you marry overseas in a non matriarchal jurisdiction AND STAY THERE. For those that can do it, Expatriation wouldn't be such a bad move, seeing as how the United States and much of the Western world is staring Economic Armageddon dead in the face!

After getting out of the shower, I began my daily ritual of getting dressed, brushing my teeth, washing my hands and gargling in the Japanese manner, and combing out my natural Nubian locks to perfection.

Entering into the living room, I noticed that my wife had already turned the TV to CNBC, and breakfast was laying on the table. Joining her on the couch, we discussed the Stock Market, Forex, and the unfolding credit crisis that will surely lead to a credit implosion, destroying the wealth of millions of people.

As we talked, I was intrigued as always about how quickly she catches on to new topics that would confuse most people. Being a graduate of a prestigious Kyoto university with an extremely high grade point average helps a great deal, but more importantly, being raised in a culture that values education and learning helps her to absorb information that much quicker.

Yes, I though to myself, she will make an excellent teacher for our children...

The fact that my young wife is a very intelligent woman and a university graduate brings up an important point.

Her university, while providing her with an excellent education, also reinforced the idea that someday, she will become a wife and mother, and tailored her educational experience appropriately. She was trained to be able to hold a job in the real world (with further study, she could become a diplomat if she so chooses), or tutor her children at home if and when she left the work force to become a full time mother. This is a theme that can be found in most traditional, non-feminist cultures that I have encountered.

Whereas in our university system, Women's Studies and other Feminist brainwashing that takes place at our so called "Institutions of Higher Learning" do their best to DESTORY any thoughts that their female students might have about marriage and childbearing in favor of a careerism that eclipses any alternative goals that a woman may aspire to, such as the aforementioned marriage and childbearing.

Personally, I don't mind if a woman works herself to death, or ends up childless, or if she becomes a stay at home and has 15 kids. What people do with their private lives is their own business. However, women should keep in mind that they live in a (dwindling) marriage market in which they are the Price Takers, and not the Price Setters. Men ask women to marry them, and not the other way around. And since women, via feminism, have made marriage a legal nightmare for men to be involved in, their value as "marriage material" is eroding by the day, thanks to the deadweight loss that feminist legislation and jurisprudence has placed upon matrimony.

The end result of all this "liberation" is that both women and marriage have increasingly become less desired by men. Ironic ain't it?

So ladies, if you want to get married and beat out the competition, I would suggest that you elevate your mind and step your game up.

Because in distant lands, such as Japan, the culture, and the educational system from elementary through university, reinforces the skills that a woman needs to be a wife. As a result, men like me who are lucky enough to find women like these are the winners; whereas women who buy into the feminist party line square up to be the biggest losers.

Kind of like how those women on The Bachelor lost out, bigtime.

Don't sleep: More Kumo homelife goodness to come.

On Father's Day.

Today is the day when Americans are supposed to honor thy father. Since I've been a Men's Rights Activist, I've made it a point to scan Google News to see what the news media has to say about a holiday that has been perverted beyond recognition.

Right off the bat, we find:

Maybe We Should Have A “Fatherless Day”

by Thomas D. Segel (6/13/08)

My thoughts exactly. After all, this country has spent the last 40 years or so eradicating fatherhood from American culture.

Mr. Segel writes:

... It (Father's Day) will be a day of Dad’s favorite activities and will be filed away in our respective memory banks as one of those very special family events. That is…with the exception of those 24 million-plus children in America that remain fatherless.

The negative impact of life’s forces on children in fatherless homes is staggering. Though studies of these problems span the past ten years, nothing much has changed for the better in these young lives. With family separations increasing though divorce or abandonment, more children are added to the fatherless list with every passing day...

While I agree with the author's sentiment, I gotta say... Didn't he get the Memo? Fatherhood is nothing more than a Patriarchal institution that embodies slavery, rape, abuse, psychological trauma, and God knows what else.

Nevermind that the feminist ideology that has utterly destroyed the concept of fatherhood has been known to be false in many cases, over exaggerated in others, and hell bent on eliminating men from all positions of power, authority, and influence.

Nevermind that children really need, want, and desire a close relationship with their fathers, and that children who are raised with their fathers are much better off than those who are not.

Nevermind that, biologically and metaphysically, Men are just as important in the conception, birthing, and raising of children as women are.

Without a Man's life giving sperm, no woman in the world can conceive and give birth to a child.

Without the aid and assistance of Men, women are not in a position to survive while she is carrying a baby. Her condition is such that she would be vulnerable to a host of internal and external dangers. Be it morning sickness, the extra hours of sleep that a pregnant woman's body requires, or other physical conditions that come about with pregnancy, she is not fit to fight a battle, hunt for food, or stave off the various kinds of two and four legged predators that inhabit this world.

In addition, women owe their comfortable modern existence to the male engineers, inventors, architects, and others who designed, constructed, and currently maintain the trappings of modern civilization that ironically have led women to believe that they are totally autonomous beings beholden to no one.

However, when disaster strikes, and the lights go off, it always amuses me to see how quickly women bellow for those damn, despicable males to get up, get out, and fix whatever happens to be broken.

Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that women are worthless and have no part to play in the drama of creating new life. It is obvious to all that women are designed to nourish and sustain the seed that the man has planted, and that she will give the child his very first meal at her breast. She also endures the nine months of discomfort, sickness, and other changes that naturally occur. For everything that she does, it should be acknowledged and respected.

However, for modern women to trumpet, at every opportunity, that they are the sole givers of life, is ridiculous, for reasons I have written about previously.

The Sexes have different, and complementary roles. Men and women have something vital to contribute that the other lacks, and, at the highest levels of philosophy, it is understood that the two parts unite (literally) to create something whole.



(Goddess Nut, representation of the sky and space, is separated from the God Geb, representation of earth and stability. Note the erect phallus of Geb, indicating that the lovers were only recently separated from their sexual (Tantric) embrace.)



This idea of the man as lifegiving rain, and woman as the fertile soil of the earth, is a teaching that the ancients understood. Or, in the case of the Kemetians, they pictured the Heavens as female manifesting in the form of the Goddess Nut, and the Earth as being Male in the form of the God Geb (which makes sense when you consider how Men can settle down on the couch and be totally at ease for long periods of time, and how men are not easily "moved" physically or ideologically, whereas a woman tends to be more mobile, less settled, and easily ever changing in mood and action).

Or, looking at it from a biological perspective, of the usual 46 human Chromosomes found in cellular matter, 23 of those come from the father, and 23 come from the mother. Hence, children are not just the sole property of the mother. They belong, in equal measure, to their father and their mother. This understanding contradicts the cultural and legal presumption [1][2] of this Matriarchy, that assumes that children belong to their mother alone.

This is a wrongheaded and disastrous way of thinking. Spiritually and materially, children need, want, and deserve both of their parents, unless there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a jury of the citizenry, that one or both parents are unfit to take care of them.

There is no Natural or Moral right for the State, or an individual, to sever the ties between mother, father, and child, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Justice demands that the rights of mothers and the rights of fathers to their children be equally protected, without prejudice. If an individual parent voluntarily decides, without duress or coercion, to abandon their child, that's one thing. But to use the force of the State to forcibly separate a father from his child, is a great crime that does not go unpunished.

Civilized society pays the price for the selfish acts of its members. And, without recognition and repentance, the guilty members suffer the penalty of having no civilized society at all. Such is the Law of Karma. Punishment comes with the teaching, and none with blood on their hands can escape it.

Speaking of collapsing civilization, we read in the Wall Street Journal:

The Tragedy of America's Disappearing Fathers
By JUAN WILLIAMS

June 14, 2008; Page A11

... As we celebrate Father's Day tomorrow, we should reflect upon a sad fact: It is now common to meet young people in our big city schools, foster-care homes and juvenile centers who do not know their dads. Most of those children have come face-to-face with their father at some point; but most have little regular contact with the man, or have any faith that he loves or cares about them.

When fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like "throwaway people." In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them. The stories are like letters to unknown dads – some filled with imaginary scenes about what it might be like to have a dad who comes home and puts his arm around you or plays with you.

They feel like they've been thrown away, Mr. Myers says, because "they don't have a father to push them, discipline them, and they give up trying to succeed . . . they don't see themselves as wanted." A regular theme of their stories is that they feel safer in a foster care home or juvenile detention center than on the outside, because they have no father to hold together the family. There is no one at home...

I can certainly sympathize with this view... because I am one of those children. For the past 30 years, I have never celebrated a Father's Day with my own father. I never knew what it was like to have that male presence at home. I didn't have the spiritual, financial, and moral support that a good father brings to the table.

And, while my mother did her very best raising me, and while I turned out to be a good kid with a college education and a professional career, I know, in my heart of hearts, that I could have gone much further, much faster in life with the aid and comfort of my father, and I would have done so without all of the effort that I had to expend just to make up for the psychological and material damage that living without a father has caused.

It makes my blood absolutely boil when I hear women, feminists, and traitorous manginas say that fathers are expendable, and that fathers aren't needed, or that women can raise children on their own with no problems.

BULL-MUTHAFUCKIN'-SHIT!

I can understand theoretically that a woman can raise a child without its father. I can also understand theoretically that people can live without both arms and both legs. I understand that those who lose a leg can strengthen themselves to compensate but...

WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT TO THEMSELVES IF THEY COULD HELP IT? WHY IS IT THAT WE CUT THE PSYCHO-SPIRITUAL ARMS OF OFF LITTLE BABIES AND SYSTEMATICALLY ROB THEM OF THEIR FATHERS JUST TO SATISFY THE WHIMS OF MENTALLY ILL FEMINISTS AND THEIR ILK?

Why?

I'll tell you why. It's because of selfish women who think only of themselves, and selfish men who refuse to stand up and fight what is blatantly unjust. It's because of manginas who allow their pride and their honor to be tarnished, day after day by people who hold them in contempt for allowing it. It's because of those in the legal system who pervert justice for their own financial and political gain. It's because of women who have been brainwashed and bamboozled into believing that they have to do everything on their own, and who refuse to look inside themselves in order to discover what being a woman, and what femininity, is all about. It's because of the masses of people who neither know or care about the internal hemorrhaging that all of this family injustice is causing. It's especially because of politcal commentators and newshounds that report on the collapse of fatherhood, but never reveal to the people the real causes of this epidemic: political feminism, corruption in the legal system, overstepping of Constitutional barriers, and the philosophy of family destruction that has been advanced by countless theorizers.


In summary:

This Father's Day has special significance for me, because, for the first time in my life, I have a reason to celebrate it.

Yes, I am no longer just a Men's Rights Activist: I am also a Father's Rights Activist now.

And it is my duty to fight the powers that be, and resist the social and political trends that would separate me from my precious child. It is my duty to teach my child right from wrong, and to make them aware of the cultural and legal systems that seek to corrupt them, especially if my child just happens to be a boy.

Yes, I am even MORE FIRED UP than I was just a few short weeks ago!

And guess what? My wife is a down ass chick who has been enlightened. She is immune from the poison of the Fematrix.




(Yeah, act stupid if you want to... We Devour all challengers for lunch!)


No matter where you may be, Dear Readers, we wish you a Happy Father's Day. And to all of those in the struggle, or who can't see your kids for whatever the reason...

Be Strong, and Keep On Going!

Toku and Family.

This is Your Brain...

Greetings and welcome to another installment of Jeweled Tiger School!!

I am your host, Gyokko the Kidd.

Without further ado, lets get 'er done!




Brainwork.





Here lately, I have emphasized the need to become more critical, more self aware, and more self determined. In other words, it is high time that Men Go Their Own Way, delete feminist and other self-defeating programming from their memory banks and society at large, and actually become the Masters of their own destiny.

As I have laid out in other postings, the process of creation and realization of key goals and objectives is out there. Certain enterprising individuals and groups are actively using these principles to win the game of life, and so must you.

Here's a little something about me:

Some of you might have already figured out that I belong to a certain organization. Every so often, I change the name of this blog to reflect certain branches of knowledge that this group teaches.

But for those who haven't noticed, click here to find out more about the Path that I follow. Please note that the content of this blog in no way represents the organization referenced above. My opinions are strictly my own.

Contained within the schools of knowledge that I have studied for over a decade is a principle known as Sanmitsu [1][2]. This is one of the ways in which certain Japanese warriors in dark costumes took care of business.

Thought energy, word energy, and physical energy (effort) come together in harmony, and the energies are amplified because the three waves of energy do not contradict one another. With self directed focus, commitment, and intention, the non physical is made manifest. This is one of the primary reasons why these certain individuals were widely feared in ancient Japan, and why their fame (and their art) has survived to modern times. Click here for more information.

Forgive me for digressing, but I am sharing all this with you, Dear Reader, for a number of important reasons.

1) By knowing my philosophical background, it will be easier for you to follow my thought process, and where I am coming from. You will also know why I emphasize certain principles more than others.

2) By understanding that the above mentioned principle of Sanmitsu has been tested over a vast time period and under extreme conditions, you can be confident that it is anything but "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. The principle works, and I would like to see enlightened men use it in their own lives, instead of constantly falling victim to it.

How do you think the feminists, socialists, and money men succeeded in undermining Western Civilization? Through Committed Thoughts, Well Chosen Words, and Countless Deeds over the course of centuries.

3) To encourage you to take control of your conscious and subconscious mental processes. As the Christians say, life is constant Spiritual Warfare. Those of us fighting the Fempire are really fighting a battle of the Spirit. We are constantly being programmed by family, friends, institutions, religions, corporations, and governments to feel, think, and behave in a certain way.

It would be one thing if the messages out there were empowering, enlightening, and beneficial for humankind. Unfortunately, the reality is that 80% of the programming available is wrong, flawed, and designed to control and subdue you. The instructions given are usually NOT in your best interests.

Feminism is a prime example of a philosophy built upon lies and deceit. It is an ideology that silences dissent and produces a host of negative outcomes, simply because 80% of the people buy into it. They Think feminism, Speak feminism, and Act according to feminist dogma.

Your duty, as an enlightened person who knows the facts about feminism, is to completely purge it from your mental processes, and to help others purge femi-fascism from their memory banks.

The various levels of mind are key to this whole struggle. Everything in this Universe literally depends on it. We have free will, and we must choose, very carefully, what we ultimately believe in because...

What we believe is what we will ultimately end up with.

See here for more info on the Biology of Belief.





Single Parents and the Brain.

From the Wall Street Journal:


This Is Your Brain Without Dad


... Conventional wisdom holds that two parents are better than one. Scientists are now finding that growing up without a father actually changes the way your brain develops.

German biologist Anna Katharina Braun and others are conducting research on animals that are typically raised by two parents, in the hopes of better understanding the impact on humans of being raised by a single parent. Dr. Braun's work focuses on degus, small rodents related to guinea pigs and chinchillas, because mother and father degus naturally raise their babies together.
[LAB] Matt Collins

When deprived of their father, the degu pups exhibit both short- and long-term changes in nerve-cell growth in different regions of the brain. Dr. Braun, director of the Institute of Biology at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, and her colleagues are also looking at how these physical changes affect offspring behavior.

Their preliminary analysis indicates that fatherless degu pups exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents...

... Dr. Braun and her colleagues found that in the two-parent families, the degu mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways, including sleeping next to or crouching over them, licking and grooming them, and playing with them. The fathers even exhibited a "nursing-type" position.

When the mother was a single parent, the frequency of her interactions with her pups didn't change much, which means that those pups experienced significantly less touching and interaction than those with two parents.

The researchers then looked at the neurons—cells that send and receive messages between the brain and the body—of some pups at day 21, around the time they were weaned from their mothers, and others at day 90, which is considered adulthood for the species.

Neurons have branches, known as dendrites, that conduct electrical signals received from other nerve cells to the body, or trunk, of the neuron. The leaves of the dendrites are protrusions called dendritic spines that receive messages and serve as the contact between neurons.

Dr. Braun's group found that at 21 days, the fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines compared to animals raised by both parents, though they "caught up" by day 90. However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

"It just shows that parents are leaving footprints on the brain of their kids," says Dr. Braun, 54 years old.

The neuronal differences were observed in a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is related to emotional responses and fear, and the orbitofrontal cortex, or OFC, the brain's decision-making center...

... 'A Horse Without a Rider'

The balance between these two brain parts is critical to normal emotional and cognitive functioning, according to Dr. Braun. If the OFC isn't active, the amygdala "goes crazy, like a horse without a rider," she says. In the case of the fatherless pups, there were fewer dendritic spines in the OFC, while the dendrite trees in the amygdala grew more and longer branches.

A preliminary analysis of the degus' behavior showed that fatherless animals seemed to have a lack of impulse control, Dr. Braun says. And, when they played with siblings, they engaged in more play-fighting or aggressive behavior.

In a separate study in Dr. Braun's lab conducted by post-doctoral researcher Joerg Bock, degu pups were removed from their caregivers for one hour a day. Just this small amount of stress leads the pups to exhibit more hyperactive behaviors and less focused attention, compared to those who aren't separated, Dr. Braun says. They also exhibit changes in their brain.

The basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells are identical in their function. "So on that level we can assume that what happens in the animal's brain when it's raised in an impoverished environment ... should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain," Dr. Braun says.

Other researchers, such as Xia Zhang, a senior scientist at the University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, and his colleagues in China, have observed different consequences using voles, mouselike rodents that also naturally co-parent. (Fewer than 10% of species raise their offspring with two parents.)

Voles deprived of their fathers—either from birth or later on in childhood—exhibited more anxious behaviors and were less social, spending less time engaging with stranger voles that were placed in their cage, according to a study by Dr. Zhang and his colleagues that was published in July in the journal Behavioral Processes.

Of course, the frontal cortex—where thinking and decision-making take place—is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations.

"The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies...

It amazes me how people can contradict themselves. Earlier in the piece, we have this comment:

"The basic wiring between the brain regions in the degus is the same as in humans, and the nerve cells are identical in their function. "So on that level we can assume that what happens in the animal's brain when it's raised in an impoverished environment ... should be very similar to what happens in our children's brain," Dr. Braun says."

And later, we have peoples who are desperate to negate the damning implications of this research:

"Of course, the frontal cortex—where thinking and decision-making take place—is more complex in humans than it is in other animals. Thus, says Dr. Braun, it is important to be "really careful" about extrapolating the recent findings to human populations.

"The minute you get into stuff with extensive social and environmental components, the social differences between humans and animals are massive," says Simon Chapple, a senior economist in the social policy division of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-country grouping of the world's largest economies."

Yes, caution should be warranted, and more extensive research should be carried out to see how fatherlessness affects brain development in human children.

HOWEVER.

Because research such as this greatly undercuts the legitimacy of Feminist theory and Feminist Public Policy, those who wish to continue said theories and policies are quick to backpedal with the "Humans are different" argument.

Nevermind the fact that if these findings had ZERO implications for humanity, the Journal would have ZERO interest in it and wouldn't even publish the story to begin with.

The "Humans are different" argument makes no sense in this case because we KNOW that the 80% (not an exact percentage, but a shorthand reference to the 80/20 principle) of children brought up in single parent families have all manner of negative outcomes in terms of wealth, health, crime, and relationships, just to name a few [1][2][3], just like the animals in the study.

Consider this article from Time Magazine:

Is There Hope for the American Marriage?


... the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in May that births to unmarried women have reached an astonishing 39.7%. (See pictures of love in the animal kingdom.)

How much does this matter? More than words can say. There is no other single force causing as much measurable hardship and human misery in this country as the collapse of marriage. It hurts children, it reduces mothers' financial security, and it has landed with particular devastation on those who can bear it least: the nation's underclass.

The Marriage Gap

The poor and the middle class are very different in the ways they have forsaken marriage. The poor are doing it by uncoupling parenthood from marriage, and the financially secure are doing it by blasting apart their unions if the principals aren't having fun anymore.

The growing tendency of the poor to have children before marriage — the vast majority of unmarried women having babies are undereducated and have low incomes — is a catastrophic approach to life, as three Presidents in a row have tried to convince them. Bill Clinton's welfare-to-work program encouraged marriage, George W. Bush spent millions to promote marriage, and Barack Obama has spoken powerfully on the need for men to stay with their children: "We need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one." (See snapshots from a very special wedding.)

The reason for these appeals to lasting unions is simple: on every single significant outcome related to short-term well-being and long-term success, children from intact, two-parent families outperform those from single-parent households. Longevity, drug abuse, school performance and dropout rates, teen pregnancy, criminal behavior and incarceration — if you can measure it, a sociologist has; and in all cases, the kids living with both parents drastically outperform the others.

Few things hamper a child as much as not having a father at home. "As a feminist, I didn't want to believe it," says Maria Kefalas, a sociologist who studies marriage and family issues and co-authored a seminal book on low-income mothers called Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. "Women always tell me, 'I can be a mother and a father to a child,' but it's not true." Growing up without a father has a deep psychological effect on a child. "The mom may not need that man," Kefalas says, "but her children still do."

This turns out to be true across the economic spectrum. The groundbreaking research on the effects of divorce on children from middle- and upper-income households comes from a surprising source: a Princeton sociologist and single mother named Sara McLanahan, who decided to study the fates of these children with the tacit assumption that once you control for income, being part of a single-parent household does not adversely affect kids. The results — which she published in the 1994 book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps — were surprising. "Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent," she found, "are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or educational background....

The outcomes for the experimental animals raised without a father were empirically negative. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the outcomes for human children raised without a father are overwhelmingly negative. We know that the animals in question and human beings share similar brain wiring.

Because we know all of this, is it reasonable then to say that we shouldn't use this study as another piece of evidence that, in the case of human children, fathers are needed, on a biological level, for them to achieve maximum levels of health, wealth, social stability, and happiness?

Would it be unreasonable to say that, because human brains and social structures are more complex and evolved, the impact of fatherlessness is more damaging and harmful for human children (and society) than for the lab rats (Degu) profiled in this study?

I want to address one more point in the WSJ article before I move on:

Risk of Delinquency

Still, the prevalence of single-parent households has researchers looking at possible consequences for children. An OECD report found that just 57% of children in the U.S. live with both parents, among the lowest percentages of the world's richest nations.

The report, which sparked some controversy when it was released in September, found that children in single-parent households have an increased risk of delinquency and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, as well as poorer scholastic performance.

The OECD also analyzed data from 122 separate studies and found that there was variability in the negative effects on children of living in a single-parent home; on average, the OECD found, the magnitude of the impact was relatively small. On a standardized intelligence test with a median score of 100 points, for example, a child in a single-parent family would be about 3.5 points worse off than a similar child in a two-parent family, according to Dr. Chapple, who co-wrote the report.

Dr. Braun's goal for future research is to figure out whether degu pups' brains can be rewired by introducing a substitute caregiver, such as a grandmother, or whether other social and emotional enrichment can help "repair" the fatherless pups, she says. Human children may be sent to day care, for instance, which can help them form stable friendships with their peers and other adults.

The bottom line, says Dr. Braun, is that parents need to fuel their children's brains with talk, touch and sensitive stimulation that involves give and take.

Parents, she says, "are the sculptors of their children's brains."

Note the following passage:

Dr. Braun's goal for future research is to figure out whether degu pups' brains can be rewired by introducing a substitute caregiver, such as a grandmother, or whether other social and emotional enrichment can help "repair" the fatherless pups, she says. Human children may be sent to day care, for instance, which can help them form stable friendships with their peers and other adults.

If, at some point in the future, research is conducted to find a way to help the children of single mothers (like me) and the children of divorce heal the ugly scars that our man hating culture and feminist public policy has imposed upon them, it would be absolute madness to think that someone in a lab could ultimately create a cure-all in a laboratory to help our children while at the same time keeping the aforementioned Misandric culture and feminist public policy that creates 80% of the problems in place!

It would save everyone a lot of time, energy, and resources if we abolished feminism right now. We have more than enough evidence to do so, and we have thousands of years of human social history that shows that stable marriage and family culture leads to long term positive outcomes.

The easiest and best way to prevent the negative outcomes of children raised in single parent homes is to STOP SEPARATING FATHERS FROM THEIR CHILDREN via involuntary divorce, domestic violence laws, and cultural bullying. KILL FEMINISM, AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY KILL THE PROBLEM.

Imagine, for a moment, that a coalition of Big Government types and ideologists who believed that right arms were inherently violent and dangerous passed a law that decreed that innocent children should have their potentially dangerous right arm removed when they reached the tender age of two years old. Imagine how society would be negatively impacted by the legion of children who are missing right arms.

Now finally, imagine the billions of dollars that would be spent in researching, testing, and manufacturing artificial arms to replace the arms that were removed, by force of law and bizarre custom, FOR NO GOOD REASON!

THIS, my friends, is where we are at today. Ideology, bad economic theory, and public policy are coming together to fuck up the lives of millions of innocent children (and fathers). And I am quite sure that some batshit insane feminists would have the audacity to suggest at some point that the solution to the problems that THEY caused initially is to do more "research" in order to repair the damage that was unnecessarily caused in the first place (notice the similarity of this kind of thinking to our totally ass backwards economic policy).

If anything, the ultimate goal of society should be to find out if human children are neurologically impacted (which I'm sure they are) by the removal of their fathers. And, if the research confirms it, add the study to the mountain of reasons why feminist public policy should be completely abolished forever and ever.

Before we move on, this story is interesting to me because it is another piece of evidence that points to an obvious conclusion: Fathers are needed in the lives of their children, and this is a biological and a spiritual need. All the daycare and all the government welfare kool-aid in this world will not change this important fact.





Where mind and matter meet.





And for my next act, I want to merge the importance of critical and careful programming of the conscious and subconscious mind with the implications that this Wall Street Journal story raises.


I would like to briefly quote from Dr. Bruce Lipton's fascinating book, the Biology of Belief:

... Frontier science is confirming what mothers and enlightened fathers have known forever, that parents do matter, despite best selling books that try to convince us otherwise. To quote Dr. Thomas Verny, a pioneer in the field of prenatal and perinatal psychiatry: "Findings in the peer-reviewed literature over the course of decades establish, beyond any doubt, that parents have overwhelming influence on the mental and physical attributes of the children they raise." (Verny and Kelly 1981) (p. 125).

And that influence starts, says Verny, not after children are born, but BEFORE (author's emphasis) children are born (p. 126).

... experimental psychologists and neuroscientists are demolishing the myth that that infants cannot remember--or for that matter learn--and along with it the notion that parents are simply spectators in the unfolding of their children's lives. The fetal and infant nervous system has vast sensory and learning capabilities and a kind of memory that neuroscientists call implicit memory... "the quality of life in the womb, our temporary home before we were born, programs our susceptibility to coronary artery disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, and a multitude of other conditions in later life," writes Dr. Peter W Nathanielsz in Life in the Womb, Origins of Health and Disease (p. 126)."


... parents can improve the prenatal environment. In doing so they act as genetic engineers for their children... influences continue after the child is born because parents continue to influence their child's environment. In particular, fascinating new research is emphasizing the importance of good parenting in the development in the brain. "For the growing brain of a young child, the social world supplies the most important experiences influencing the expression of genes, which determines how neurons connect to one another in creating the neuronal pathways which give rise to mental activity," writes Dr. Daniel J Siegal in The Developing Mind (p. 127-128).

The Author goes on to explain the brain wave activity in children, the conscious and subconscious mind and how it is programmed, and a ton of other news you can really use.

Sounds a lot like the Wall Street Journal piece... doesn't it?? Young brain development, environmental factors, parental influence trumping supposedly predetermined genetic predestination...

Ladies and gents, I would highly recommend that you pick up this book. Don't walk... RUN and get a copy today. Your mind will never be the same again. Be sure to read it carefully, and reflect on the full implications of the information presented there.

How much damage has our policies of abortion on demand, involuntary divorce, and single mother subsidization really inflicted upon our nation? Can the full criminality of this entire Matriarchal regime be fully calculated?

Read the book, and you be the judge.



Conclusion.



UNDERSTAND.


Feminism is flat out and totally wrong. It is based on lies. It is based on false premises. The errors of feminism are infinite and plainly obvious. There is no excuse for any thinking individual to buy into or support this hate filled ideology.

The feminist lie of "children don't no need fathers" has been debunked all to hell. The truth is out there. There is no need to give feminism any credibility or credence in your conscious or your subconscious mind. De-program thyself! Banish feminist theory from your heart and mind forever.

And don't forget... you have a duty to yourself, your children, and your fellow man (and woman) to slay feminist ideology and public policy wherever you find it.

Your babies are being brainwashed by flawed, false, and outdated feminist theory. Men are going to jail everyday due to flawed and wrongheaded feminist public policy.

IT IS YOUR DUTY to oppose feminism by any means you can, within the boundaries of legality and common sense.

And finally, understand that YOU have tremendous power over yourself and those who are in your care. Know, Understand, and Obey the Universal Law.

You have the authority, the ability, the power, and the responsibility to elevate yourself and those you love to tha next level. You, Dear Reader, can and must work with the Father to make things happen.

Feminists can't hold you down forever. Governments who are out of control will be brought to heel eventually. Economic mismanagement won't last forever.

Understand the power you have to make the best out your personal circumstances. I can point out principles that have worked for me; but at the end of the day, your Thoughts, your Words, and your Deeds are the only ones that matter in your world and those who live in it. Choose correctly, and with great care.

Kind Regards,

Gyokko.

Sex, Sensibility, and Real Street Stories.

Greetings Sports fans!

I hope that everyone is doing well. As usual, I have a lot to say, so let's get to it!




Black Single Mothers: Public Enemy Number One.



Before I speak my mind, let's take minute to listen to Sarge WP's comments on the subject.





It ain't no secret that the black American family in America has been completely destroyed [1][2][3]. While some of you might think that I am overreacting, I'm quite serious when I state that the black American family unit is dead and buried, never to return.

What else can be said when 70% of a people's children are born outside of marriage?

As Sarge explains in the Youtube vid, cultural norms (or lack thereof) are passed on from parent to child. In most societies, the basic family pattern consists of the father, his wife (or wives), and his children. The ideal feminist Matriarchal family [4][5] unit consisting of mothers and children only, is extremely rare and politically, culturally, and economically inferior when compared to families where fathers are present and involved in the lives of their children. History has proven that societies where marriage (and married fathers) is the norm far surpass those that have a weak marriage culture whenever the two come into close contact.

The mightiest and most prosperous civilizations always had strong marriage cultures, and vigorous male involvement in all aspects of civil, religious, and family life.

There is documented evidence that pre-historical African civilizations were strongly matriarchal (see Massey), in terms of lineage, theology, and political structure. And while many African cultures (certainly not all, as Africa is a huge continent with many religious and cultural variables) maintain the trappings of Matriarchy, one would be hard pressed to find the idealized feminist family unit consisting of solely mothers and their offspring; and marriage as an institution is the [6][7][8] dominant form of family organization throughout Africa and the rest of the world.




(Traditional South African Wedding)




(Traditional Village Wedding)





It should be understood that the African woman has always held a place of honor and wields considerable influence in family affairs (Some have suggested that this cultural trait has been leveraged by feminists in modern times for maximum destructive effect, a plausible idea as feminists just love to exploit a society's norms or shortcomings in order to achieve their goals).

However some feminists and other misguided commentators have ignorantly argued that the American social paradigm, in which black women bear and raise the vast majority of children outside of wedlock, and use the power of the State, and the court of Anti-Male public opinion to push fathers out of their children's lives, is nothing more than an "expression of holistic, natural, and traditional African culture" or some other pretentious claim.


To that idea I say... BULLSHIT. The social structure of 2008 America, that has been fueled by feminism and welfarism, is in complete and utter disharmony with the traditional and modern African mind.

Sadly, many in the black community, thanks to a incompetent and corrupt black elite, pro-feminist propaganda in the popular media, and the traditional expectation that the black woman wears the pants in any given situation, have come to believe that having a 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is right and natural; nevermind that some of the most powerful blacks in America are married and live a lifestyle that the average 'Hood dweller would never even imagine is possible. And, worst of all, these highly successful people not only denounce black men as a group for their "irresponsibility" and their failure "to do tha right thing", they also do absolutely nothing to combat the prevailing attitude amongst the black masses that "marriage is for white people."

In my humble opinion, the whole situation smacks of one rule for me, and another for thee!


Now with all that said, let me tell you a story about what black single mothers, drenched in the toxic waste of black feminism, high on Misandry, and backed up by the full force of the State, teach their daughters on a daily basis. Hopefully, by the end of this morality play, you will understand and take heed when I say that dating single mothers, divorced women, or the children of said women is an absolute No No! Women like these have, more often than not, been taught from an early age to hate men and make their lives miserable.

And with the full power of the State at their command, they can make your life very miserable indeed.

Marriage to such a woman will most likely turn out to be a complete MISSION FAILURE...



It was a quiet day at the office, and Toku was putting the finishing touches on his Spending Projections Excel spreadsheet.

The door suddenly opened, and Renee swept into the office, with her six year old daughter in tow.

Toku, having had his fair share of negative experiences with children that have no respect for men, or no home training to speak of, focused on his work and shut them out of his mind completely as Renee introduced her child to the other women in the office.

While making nice-nice and receiving candy and presents from the office ladies, one co-worker, a devout Christian police officer and mother of five kids, spoke to the child in a conspiratorial whisper:

"Here's some candy for you... just for little girls. If a boy tried to get some candy from me, I'd arrest him! But it's ok for you because we don't arrest little girls, only boys..."

After more pleasantries (and treats) were exchanged, Renee came to my desk and spoke those dreaded words...

Renee:

"Say Hi to Toku Mikailah!"

Me:

"Hi Mikailah, how are you?"

Mikailah:

"Get away from me! I don't like stupid boys!!!"

Me, thinking to myself:

** Sigh ** Another child of a single mother who has no respect for her elders, who will grow up hating men for the rest of her life, will probably get pregnant and become a statistic before she graduates high school, and will most likely drag whatever man is stupid enough to impregnate her through the child support court for the remainder of his working life.

Never fails!


Renee: (Complete silence. No reprimand or apology for allowing her daughter to talk to a 30 year old man like I just graduated from kindergarten the day before yesterday.)

After a few uncomfortable moments of silence, I turned back to my work and pretended that the exchange never happened. All the women in the office grinned and were very pleased that Mikailah put another damnable man in his subserviant place. You go girl!!

Renee, remembering that she had a child support hearing to attend at 2:30, starts out of the door.

Renee:

"Say bye to everyone!"

Child: Taking a last glance at all the women in the office and ignoring my existence:

"Bye!!"

All co-workers except me: "BYE Honey! Good luck with your hearing! I hope your no-good bastard of an ex-husband gets his ass locked up this time!"

Renee and child smiling and utterly content, walked out of the office.

Toku saved his completed worksheet, and contemplated the difficulties that lie ahead for both Renee and her daughter...


Please note, Dear Reader, that this is based on my real life experiences, for what it's worth.

Because I work with an office full of women, I hear EVERYTHING. The level of Misandry is unbelievable, but it is especially bad when the divorced single mothers open their mouths to spew their hatred against men, which happens a lot.

When it comes to what they teach their children about men... think of Parental Alienation Syndrome on steroids!

Sadly, the real losers in all this are the daughters of single mothers. Every one I have ever met showed nothing but disrespect and contempt for men; much of it learned from their parental unit. They are taught, from an early age, not to marry, not to show respect towards elder men, not to believe that a man could ever do anything good, or that a man could hold their best interests at heart.

Nor are they taught how to distinguish the good guys from the bad boy thugs. All men are equally bad in their eyes; and so they learn too late that there is a difference. Or, they mistake or mistrust a man's kindness, so they equate kindness with weakness and torture the poor schmoe in a multitude of ways.

In other words, the wellspring of acceptance, compassion, and kindness, that every child starts out with, is poisoned to the point where hostility towards men and marriage becomes second nature.

And because of this training, many black women grow up fearful and hostile towards men. They shun marriage and traditional family values; and are utterly toxic on a mental, physical, and spiritual level. Not to say that all women are like this of course, but I would be comfortable in asserting that 80% of the population are not worth dealing with, and are best avoided by men seeking a loving lifelong companion.

Just in case you want a second opinion, please listen as this gentlemen explains that this toxic attitude is one of the biggest reasons why black men avoid black women.





Again, I must stress that women of African extraction are not inherently evil. Far from it. Those of you who have been with black women born and raised OUTSIDE OF THIS COUNTRY know what I'm talking about.

And I'm not saying that 100% of black American women are rude and uncouth. There ARE good black women out there. But like I've said before, 80% of black American women are simply not pleasant to be around... much less mate, marry, and raise children with. As a matter of fact, the wrong woman is definitely hazardous to your health.

The main issue here is that post feminist black American women have been taught, from childhood, to be totally unpleasant at best, and downright violent at worst. And keep in mind that her cultural conditioning is accepted and encouraged by both law and custom. So-called black leaders, such as Cosby, Obama, and others, aid and abet this bad behavior. And woe be unto the innocent man who attempts to change her... restraining orders and domestic violence charges await the foolish one who dares to resist her tyranny, right, wrong, or indifferent.

So, to bring the point home...

a) The death of the American black family has created a vacuum

b) The new cultural norm is single parenthood for black women (aided, abetted, and subsidized by Fedgov and other government entities)

c) The daughters of single mothers are, from an early age, instilled with an attitude of misandry and hostility against marriage

d) Which leads to the continuation of the cycle of out of wedlock childbirth in the black community

e) Which impoverishes and weakens the black American community as a whole leading to more crime, more poverty, and more dependence on government and so-called leaders who are setting up their followers for even greater failure and misery.

Although there are many brave souls who are challenging this vicious circle, one wonders how successful they will be in raising the consciousnesses of the people. And so, you, Dear Reader, should take responsibility to change this situation in your own life, and follow a two pronged plan for effecting mass change.

Unless or until cultural attitudes and laws are reformed to protect and uphold the rights and responsibilities of men, the best thing guys of all races can do to protect themselves is to not meet, mate with, or marry Westernized, feminized women, of any color, and actively encourage their male peers to follow their example.

Blog, write, record Youtube videos, rap songs or poems... do whatever you gotta do to get the word out.

Once this is done, then you can activate the second part of the plan. Since the Awakened man understands that there is a whole wide world of women that are traditionally minded, incredibly kind, in great physical condition, and are more than happy to spend quality time with him, he will then devote his time and energy to seeking out these women instead of setting himself up for failure trying to force American women to change their ways, or even worse, sacrificing himself on the alter of Misandry in a vain attempt to earn their respect and their devotion.

Ultimately, you can't control what women do... but you can always control what you do. You have all the powers of Creation at your command, and you can always choose to Go Your Own Way.

Those who understand this power would change up the familiar saying of "Out of Sight, Out of Mind" to "Out of Mind, Out of Sight." As soon as you decide to honor the request of today's Western woman by staying as far away from her as possible, and choosing to seek out companionship in greener pastures, you are already well on your way.

I know that this can work for you, because it worked for me... big time.

And while obstacles, such as the unconstitutional IMBRA law, seek to keep American men alone and unhappy, there are ways to circumvent such petty regulations in order to find the woman of your dreams.

Or, if you are so inclined, you can travel to exotic destinations and rent the services of a professional until your heart is content.

There is happiness to be found in this world... but the only way you can be successful is to do the correct things, and commit yourself to the right people. And those who KNOW what is right, have to do what is right; even when it is difficult or unpleasant, even if 80% of the world is completely dead set against it.

And from where I'm sitting, marriage and relationships with thoroughly Feminized women, of any color or creed, will not lead to success... only to pain and hardship.

Take heed.




Togakure School: A Day in the Life.



Here at Togakure School, we tend to stick to the hard facts, and shy away from using our life experiences to support our ideals. However, I wanted to take a time out for a minute in order to share this bit of everyday life with you.

As I was driving home from a hard day's work, I began to catalog a list of items I would need for various projects. If my speculations paid off, myself, wife, and cub would be in a very comfortable position in the face of looming economic hard times.

Two new laptops, a 500GB hard drive, a Nintendo Wii...

You get the idea.

So, I says to myself, the quickest way to raise the needed cash would be to get a part time job and earn the money (as I've adopted a cash vs. credit purchase policy). I figured I could work a few months, get all the equipment I needed, and quit shortly thereafter.

Good plan, I said to myself.


As I walked in my front door, I saw my wife sitting in a classical Seiza pose, as Japanese girls often do. She uttered words of welcome, accompanied by a deep bow. I returned her bow, took off my shoes at the door, sat down cross-legged beside her, and informed her of my intention to find part time work.

My wife, being the kind hearted woman she is, was appalled.

An extra job? Didn't I work long hours already? she asked.

I did indeed, I replied. However, in order to complete my projects (and boost our income) in a timely manner, I would need to finance the needed items. I told her that this would be the best way to do so without resorting to credit.

My young wife would not hear of it. What if I became ill from overwork? There must be a better way.

After much discussion, it was determined that she would work additional hours at her part time job, instead of only working one day a week.

I protested, as I worried about her health and the well being of our unborn child.

You should rest, I told her. But, being Japanese, she politely refused to listen. I asked her repeatedly was she sure this was what she wanted to do. I searched her face (a must when communicating with Asian women, as the eyes never lie) for signs that she was only being polite in her offer to increase her scheduled working hours.

Finally, I was assured that she was sincere when she said that I shouldn't worry about getting a part time job.

The conversation concluded, she rose from her seated position and went into the kitchen to prepare dinner from scratch. I went into the bathroom in order to prepare my nightly bath, as I pondered the feasibility of my plans for world conquest...

So what's yer point? you ask.

The moral here, Dear Reader, is manifold:

a) There are women in the world who love, respect, and appreciate their men enough to support him in a cheerful and loving manner.

b) There are women in the world who think of others instead of thinking only about themselves and their own comfort.

c) There are women in the world who understand that the man that loved them enough to marry them usually has their best interests at heart.

d) There are women in the world who fit the definition of the words wife and helpmate.

American women, in their mad dash to destroy Patriarchy in particular and men in general, have lost sight of the fact that a man, if properly appreciated and encouraged, will move heaven and earth to provide for her and her offspring in a manner that no other institution, such as Fedgov, or the local domestic violence shelter, could ever hope to match.

And as a consequence: Man, woman, child and society are much better off.

By sharing with you a bit of my personal life, I want to convey to my readers the happiness, warmth, kindness and loyalty that the cultivated man and the well groomed woman bring to the table.

Most of all, I want men to know that the woman of their dreams does exist. But unfortunately, thanks to insane feminist brainwashing, the man who seeks a lifelong mate will need to travel far in order to meet her. Women of my wife's caliber are incredibly few and far between in the Feminized West. If you should have such a woman on your team, be sure to take the time to appreciate her.

A real woman is a treasure indeed. Good luck gents, and good hunting!




Polygyny and why it's good for you!



Speaking of wives... Men over the centuries have discovered that sometimes, two (or more) wives are better than one.


An African proverb states:

To have one wife is to be one-eyed.

While I've explained, in detail, my reasons for supporting the ancient practice of Polygyny elsewhere, I do want to take a few moments and share some additional information with you, my Valuable Reader.





(One of the fringe benefits of multiple wives...)





From the National Business Review:

Polygamy key to long life
NBR Staff | Friday August 22 2008 - 03:57pm

New research suggests men from polygamous cultures outlive those from monogamous ones by 12 percent on average, according to a report from New Scientist.

Ecologist Virpi Lummaa from the University of Sheffield, UK, studied men aged 60+ from 189 countries on a monogamy scale of one to four – from totally monogamous to mostly polygamous for her research, presented to the International Society for Behavioral Ecology’s annual meeting in New York.

Lummaa and colleague Andy Russell also removed a country’s gross domestic product and average income to try and weed out the effects of better diet and healthcare from monogamous Western states.

Lummaa took pains to emphasise that their monogamy score is “a crude first stab”, and said they are trying to find different ways to assess marriage patterns – so their conclusions may change with further analysis.

It’s possible men who father children in the 60’s and 70’s take better care of themselves because of their dependents, conversely evolutionary forces may select for longer-lived men in polygamous cultures, according to the report.

Chris Wilson, an evolutionary anthropologist from Cornell University in New York who attended the talk said to New Scientist, "It's a valid hypothesis and good prediction."

He added that enjoying the loving attention of several wives who depend on their aging husband’s position in a social hierarchy may be the best explanation.

"It doesn't surprise me that men in those societies live longer than men in monogamous societies, where they become widowed and have nobody to care for them."

Interesting indeed.

We already know that marriage increases a man's lifespan, and we also know that sexual activity is essential for good mental and physical well-being, in addition to the biological importance of regular sexual activity for men in general.

So then, is a man more likely to have frequent "relations" in the confines of a monogamous or a polygamous marriage? The jury seems to be out on this question, but, as I argued previously, there may be a time in a married relationship when the wife is unable or unwilling to meet the man's very real sexual desires. In that case then, is a man justified if he takes another wife or concubine? And more importantly, should society punish a man who takes a mistress, another wife, or a concubine in his hour of need?

If we look at history, tradition, and religion, cultures across space and time have answered that it is permissible to take additional wives, and no, men should not be punished in draconian fashion for doing so. But in modern day America, the polygamous option, which has benefits (and drawbacks) for both men and women, has been forbidden by Supreme Court fiat.

Now isn't it strange, Dear Reader, that the right of men to take more than one wife, and to even be a part of monogamous married life, has been stripped away by the same corrupt institution?

Have not the Courts, who have ruled that Men are subject to child support slave labor, also decided that adults cannot choose to freely enter into polygamous unions?

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

In my opinion, if legal age, consenting adults wish to enter into polygamous unions, then it is their right to do so, although I do support limits to the practice for the sake of social harmony.

After all, Three's Company, four is a crowd!

In any event, I don't claim that polygamy, as a system, is superior to monogamy or celibacy. What I am saying however, is that for certain individuals, it can be the right lifestyle choice, and to prevent free people from exercising their rights by government decree is just as bad as when the rights of men are stripped away from them by the ignorant majority.

For me, in the final analysis, it's the principle of freedom coupled with responsibility that matters.


Togakure sez...


Be sure to check back next time as we discuss Rugged Men, womanly women, and why being a Punk is bad for your social life!

Peace.