Jeweled Tiger School
« Previous EntriesArticle Summary
- Political Feminism: A Dead Lady Walking. [2010-May-23]
- The Money Show. [2010-Mar-14]
- Goldbug! and the Financial Report of the United States 2009. [2010-Feb-28]
- The Lost Art of Discipline VIII – End. [2010-Feb-7]
- My first Youtube video. [2010-Jan-24]
- Happy New Year 2010! – あけましておめでとうございます！ [2010-Jan-10]
- Grass Eating Men, Eye of the Tiger, and the Return of the Patriarchy. [2009-Dec-13]
- What the F^&k now?? [2009-Dec-5]
- Forecasting the End of Feminism [2009-Nov-29]
- National Inflation Association presents: The Dollar Bubble. [2009-Nov-24]
- « Previous Articles
Political Feminism: A Dead Lady Walking.
Sunday, May 23rd, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
It's been a while since I've written anything, and I apologize for the delay.
However, I wanted to sit back and think about current events. I wanted to see if the flurry of daily happenings were just random in nature, or if they formed potential trends that could be used to construct a forecast that might be useful to MRAs around the globe.
After much contemplation, I believe that my long standing thesis still stands: Political Feminism as we know it today is on its last legs. The deathgrip they currently have on economics, politics, and the court of public opinion is weakening, in spite of desperate Leftist efforts to solidify their socialist policies at the highest levels of government.
Perhaps they didn't get the memo: the days of one ideological faction utilizing the mechanics of command and compulsion to push their social agenda forcibly upon the masses are rapidly coming to a close.
World events, and even the very heavens have decreed that the age of deception and ideologically sanctioned devastation will soon end. However, MRAs should be advised that the final outcome will most likely surprise all of us, and that the final product will be years in the making. My personal guess is that we will see a "new normal" with respect to social arrangements. I think that a return to 1950's style family values is unlikely, and that new arrangements will be made to conform to new realities.
Which is fine with me, because the age of men as beasts of burden and corporate wage slaves will be put firmly behind us, and this is a good thing. Victory for men, in my mind, includes freedom to pursue our personal goals and objectives, freedom from Misandry and prejudice, respect and honor for all things masculine, and a new public policy where rights and responsibilities are upheld for men and women alike.
As we go forward, let me say that this post is my opinion and speculation only, and that I do not claim my positions are 100% right on the money. These are my educated guesses about the future, which is unknown and uncertain. But I hope you enjoy them nonetheless!
The Big Picture.
Kirigakure has numerous forecasting tools at his disposal, one of which is traditional Western Astrology.
Please see the following videos hosted by Northwatuppa:
The Astrologer's bottom line: times are changing, and political ideologies which have driven policy (and ran roughshod over the rights of Men, children, and others), will soon be broken down.
My take: Men should continue to push for change, as conditions are ripe for us to right wrongs, and create something new that works a thousand times better than the corrupt system we live under today.
Current events seem to confirm that a massive restructuring is underway as we speak.
Barometer of change: Killer California.
California has a well deserved reputation of being a Leftist, Socialist paradise. For decades, the State has embarked on a number of Leftist social actions, including No Fault Divorce:
California No-Fault Divorce
California was first in nation to approve 'irreconcilable differences' as grounds for divorce
Historically, divorces in California could only be granted within specific parameters, such as adultery and mental cruelty. Those limitations were removed in 1970. Today, a divorce is granted on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences." Irreconcilable differences are any grounds the court determines to be substantial reasons for the marriage not to continue. (A marriage may also be dissolved on the grounds of incurable insanity -- but only if the husband or wife can prove by competent medical or psychiatric testimony that the insane spouse was incurably insane at the time of the marriage.)
California was the first state to implement the concept of a "no-fault divorce." In effect, this means a married person may terminate the marriage even if the other person disagrees. California no-fault divorce acknowledges that both husband and wife have contributed in some way to the marriage's breakdown, so one party is no longer "punished" -- financially and otherwise -- for being solely to blame for the marriage's failure.
California No-fault divorce acknowledges that both husband and wife have contributed in some way to the breakdown of the marriage, so one party is no longer "punished" -- financially and otherwise -- for being solely to blame for the marriage's failure...
Interestingly enough, we now have a petition sponsored by Mr. John Marcotte that would eliminate No Fault Marriage. Check out his website here.
Will it pass? Probably not, at least this time around. But the very idea of No Fault Divorce, the most sacred of Feminist public policies, coming under attack (perhaps even in jest in this case) in the most impregnable bastion of Political Feminism speaks volumes about the hate movement's future prospects.
The time will soon be ripe for Political Feminist gains to be repealed, and I expect the debate about Political Feminist public policy to intensify as economic conditions worsen and force individuals to consolidate in order to survive, similar to shrewd moves being made by Japanese women to ride out the economic storm that looms on the horizon.
Speaking of legal action, committed organizations such as Fathers and Families continue to slowly undermine Political Feminist public policy in California and other states.
The Fathers and Families website tells us that:
Fathers & Families Is 5 for 5 so far in Current California Legislative Session
May 11th, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director
Fathers & Families has co-sponsored and/or been instrumental in introducing and working for the passage of five family court reform bills in the current California legislative session. Our bills address child custody reform, child support reform, protection from family court financial abuses, and others. Below is our progress:
1) SB 1188–Passed Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent
2) SB 1355–Passed Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously
3) AB 2416–Passed Assembly by unanimous consent, passed Assembly Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent
4) SB 578–Passed Senate Judiciary Committee
5) SB 580–Passed Senate Judiciary Committee
These victories did not happen by accident. They are the result of months and years of planning and lobbying by Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson and assistant legislative representative Nicole Silverman.
As we’ve repeatedly seen, California family law has an enormous impact on the laws of other states–California victories are national victories. F & F is creating real, tangible family court reform today, but our deep, professional involvement in Sacramento requires money–contribute to the organization which fights for you by clicking here.
Again, for feminists to suffer such political defeats on their home turf confirms their terminal illness. All that remains is for the Perfect Storm to erupt and crush the ship of Political Feminism; and sent it to the bottom of the sea forever and ever.
So what's driving all of these changes? There are many answers to that question, but the looming bankruptcy of the State of California definitely plays a part.
From Mish:
L.A. Controller Says City Could Run Out of Cash by May 5
Los Angeles is in deep trouble. The situation has gotten so grim that the city controller says L.A. to Run Out of Cash in a Month.
Los Angeles will run out of cash on May 5, city Controller Wendy Greuel said today in a release in which she requested a $90 million transfer of reserve funds to pay bills.
“The question I have been asked most often during the budget crisis is, ‘When will the city run out of money?” Greuel said in the e-mailed release. “Unfortunately, we finally have the answer.”
From the Independent Voters Network:
California budget crisis: it's worse than you think
by Bob Morris
Mon, May 17th 2010
Last Friday, Gov. Schwarzenegger detailed the brutal budget cuts coming, saying the state doesn’t have the money, and that the current system is broken and must be repaired. Further, he said he will not sign a budget that does not contain substantial pension, budget, and tax reform.
He singled out CalPERS, the public pension system, as needing reform. By law, CalPERS can force the state to make up any shortfall, and for the coming fiscal year, that will amount to almost $7 billion.
Among the cuts Schwarzenegger proposes is to completely eliminate (not just cut back) welfare, cutting pay for state workers even further (many already have furlough days, which essentially are pay cuts), eliminating subsidized child care for all children but pre-schoolers, cut in-home care for the elderly and disabled, and more...
The San Francisco Chronicle chimes in:
Open Forum: Budget cuts reduce opportunities for California's women and families
By Judy Patrick and Sande Smith
The governor's revision to the state budget is unconscionable. By completely eliminating CalWORKS, California's welfare-to-work program, along with all child-care assistance, it unfairly saddles working mothers and families with balancing the budget and thwarts opportunities for low-income women to move themselves and their families out of poverty.
CalWORKS has had a life-changing effect for people like Deborha Valarde. A single mother of two, she is a full-time student at Chabot College, where she is working on her degree in human services. CalWORKS assistance has helped her to get her education, provided critical supports so that she can hold down a job, and put her on the path to self-sufficiency. "CalWORKS has enabled me to start to get back on my feet again. If the CalWORKS program ends, a lot of single parents, including myself, will be left with nothing and nowhere to turn."
The California Budget Project's report, "How the Other Half Fared: The Impact of the Great Recession on Women," finds that from 2006-2009, the unemployment rate for California’s women doubled from 5 percent to 10 percent -- its highest level in a generation.
California's single mothers were hit particularly hard, with their unemployment rate rising to 15 percent. In addition, job losses among men meant that married women, whose incomes were often secondary and smaller than their partners, increasingly became the sole breadwinners for their families.
Yet where will these families turn? California's safety net is already shredded. While the recession has cast millions into prolonged unemployment, the social services and cash assistance that provided critical lifelines to those who have lost their salaries and health insurance have been steadily cut.
Then there's this from KPBS.Org:
California’s Domestic Violence Shelters Lose All State Funding
MAUREEN CAVANAUGH (Host): I'm Maureen Cavanaugh, and you're listening to These Days on KPBS. Former San Diego City Attorney Casey Gwinn had harsh words for Governor Schwarzenegger in a reaction to news that all funding had been cut for the state's domestic violence shelters. Gwinn, now CEO of the National Family Justice Center Alliance said, quote, this is life and death and the governor has chosen death in the name of fiscal responsibility. The cost of one domestic violence murder in San Diego County will far exceed the money he will save by cutting the budgets of all the shelters, unquote. In a line item veto last month, the governor eradicated all domestic violence shelter funding in an effort to balance California's troubled budget. The shelters were expecting a reduction from the state but the 100 percent cut was shocking. A few of the state's shelters will have to close. Most of the others will struggle to hang on but experts in the field of domestic violence are warning the impact of the cuts will be felt throughout our community. My guests to discuss the issue are KPBS health reporter Kenny Goldberg. And welcome, Kenny.
KENNY GOLDBERG (KPBS Health Reporter): Hi.
CAVANAUGH: Heather Finley is CEO of the YWCA of San Diego. Heather, welcome to These Days.
HEATHER FINLAY (CEO, YWCA of San Diego): Thank you very much.
CAVANAUGH: Heather has brought with her a former client from one of the shelters who we will call Sarah. And good morning, Sarah.
SARAH: Good morning.
CAVANAUGH: And later we'll speak with State Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco. But first, Kenny, let me start with you. Tell us what happened to the state funding for the domestic violence shelters. How much money has been eliminated from the budget?
GOLDBERG: Well, we're talking about more than $20 million, about $20.4 million, to be precise, and that was all the state funding for 94 domestic violence shelters statewide that the governor wiped out when he signed a line item veto.
CAVANAUGH: And what are the ramifications here? We're talking about 94 shelters but how many in San Diego?
GOLDBERG: Well, there's at least five that I'm aware of in San Diego and I'm told that most of them will probably survive although they're probably going to have to cut some of their services. I mean, these aren't just overnight homes for battered women and their children. They provide traditional housing, legal advice, counseling, a whole lot of other services. What I'm told is that some of the domestic violence shelters in more rural parts of California that are more dependent, more wholly dependent, on state funding probably will have to close.
CAVANAUGH: Now you recently did a feature on KPBS about the defunding of the shelters and for that feature you visited a shelter called Carol's House in North County. Tell us a little bit about that shelter and what it's like...
A quick Google search confirms that funding for domestic violence shelters in Killer Kali have yet to be restored.
It seems that Political Feminism is suffering on all fronts, and as California goes, so does the nation. Looking around the country, States such as Illinois are so broke that they can't even pay their bills!
As time goes on, the funding needs of the States will be so great that they will demand that the Federal government print up billions of new dollars to bail them out. And while Fedgov might indeed come to their aid, the time is coming soon when not even Uncle Sam will be able to continue throwing good money after bad.
There's nothing like a bond crisis to focus the mind, and once the Government is cut off from the debt markets, the entire nation will be forced to conserve any and all financial resources available. That means, on the Federal level, that multi billion dollar programs such as VAWA will be on the chopping block.
Governments will have to "outsource" the responsibilities of child rearing, child care, and child education back to the biological parents of each and every child that lives within its borders.
In order to insure that children have the best possible start in life (and to prevent the expenditure of scarce resources), governments and societies will relearn the simple truth that that marriage is the basis for a healthy, happy, prosperous and just society.
Uncle Sam and the Several States will soon find that they can no longer support a Harem of single mothers and children. Instead, they will soon realize that it is far less costly to encourage and support a marriage culture, instead of destroying and undermining it at every possible opportunity, as is the case today.
Make no mistake, the transition from feminism to a normal marriage culture will be painful for many single mothers with children, but such change is inevitable. Political Feminism is dying, so it would be best for everyone if these women flee the sinking ship starting today!
Indeed, many of these women would be wise to follow the example of their Japanese sisters referenced above, as well as to actively work to create a social and legal culture where Men feel secure in marrying single mothers and helping to raise their children.
If women foolishly continue to defend and uphold Political feminist law and custom, they will suffer mightily during these rapidly changing times.
Also in the near future, governments will need to reduce their law enforcement, incarceration, and judicial budgets [a][b][c]. Consequently, we will see certain laws either ignored or repealed outright, such as the failed "War on Drugs," legislation, or Political Feminist inspired domestic violence laws.
These governmental entities will be forced to make double damn sure that only real crimes and offenses enter the criminal justice system, which means that Political Feminist sacred cows, such as restraining orders and the like, will be either reformed or repealed entirely. In any event, the power and influence of Political Feminism will be brought to heel in a major way, and the humbling of the Political Feminist Hag might come sooner than we expect.
The Breakdown.
For a very long time, we as a people have consumed more than we have produced. We depended on governments, academia, religious organizations and corporations to mold our minds and shape our agendas, even as these agendas were harmful to our real health, wealth, spirituality and happiness. We allowed the values of discipline, entrepreneurship, self reliance, and other old school virtues to exit our minds, run down our spines and be flushed out through our behinds.
There are many causes to our current malaise, including our refusal to obey the Universal Laws that govern creation. As an example of our cultural ignorance, we as a society refuse to accept even the basic and simple truth that men and women are two parts of a opposite, yet complementary whole.
When the basis of a society (the family unit) is marked for termination, then all other institutions of that society will rot away and crumble. As the civilizational decline picks up speed, governments borrow, tax, and spend, corporations profit, religious leaders preach sermons about trivial things while ignoring the real issues, and academia educates the citizenry to believe that failed policies and theories are in fact the only true and correct ways to approach the many problems the civilization faces.
Markets and economies are composed of people that employ physical, educational, and financial capital. People acquire these forms of capital from various places, but the bedrock of all forms of capital is the family unit. It has been proven beyond doubt that family formation controls for educational achievement, financial and capital formation, health, and social skills.
So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the family units of a nation are producing inferior human, financial, and educational capital, then that nation will not have a vibrant economy, financial system, social system, religious system, or legal system. It becomes clear that as the family is attacked and destroyed systematically, the consequences of that action flow through the entire society like a cancer.
However, current events cannot continue as they are. We will reach the tipping point, and tough decisions will have to be made going forward.
As I see it, all the indicators point to the end of Political Feminism. The feminists, try as they might, cannot avoid their fate, and, as Men rebuild the a new social order from the ashes of the old, the feminists will find their power and influence greatly diminished.
We are seeing this process unfold before our very eyes.
Fear not gentlemen... the end of Political Feminism is at hand!
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
The Money Show.
Sunday, March 14th, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
Greetings Friends!
Today's post is going to focus on money. What it is, what it does, who controls it, how it finances feminist public policy [a][b], and what can be done to fix our monetary system so it contributes to maximum wealth, health, freedom, and happiness.
What is Money?
This is probably one of the most hotly debated topics in Economics and Finance. The two main schools of thought can be more or less divided into two camps:
1) Supporters of Fiat currencies issued by governments
2) Supporters of commodity backed money chosen by either free markets or by a government to serve as money.
To further your understanding of these two types of systems, I would refer you to Ellen Brown's webpage with respect to Fiat money, and I would refer you this podcast from Mises.org in support of commodity money.
Just so everyone knows where I stand in this great debate, I side with the Austrian School and its theory of Commodity money. The biggest problem I have with fiat money is that there is no basis underlying the electronic and paper money that governments circulate in a purely fiat regime.
For example, while many Libertarians such as myself favor money backed by gold or silver, the writings of Murray Rothbard clearly state that the commodity used doesn't matter.
He wrote:
4. The Monetary Unit
We have seen that every good is "in supply" if it can be divided into units, each of which is homogeneous with every other. Goods can be bought and sold only in terms of such units, and those goods which are indivisible and unique may be described as being in a supply of one unit only. Tangible commodities are generally traded in terms of units of weight, such as tons, pounds, ounces, grains, grams, etc. The money commodity is no exception to this rule. The most universally traded commodity in the community, it is bought and sold always in terms of units of its weight. It is characteristic of units of weight, as of other metrical scales, that each unit is convertible into every other. Thus, one pound equals 16 ounces; and one ounce equals 437.5 grains, or 28.35 grams. Therefore, if Jones sells his tractor for 15 pounds of gold, he may also be described as having sold the tractor for 240 ounces of gold, or for 6,804 grams of gold, etc.
It is clear that the size of the unit of the money commodity chosen for any transaction is irrelevant for economic analysis and is purely a matter of convenience for the various parties. All the units will be units of weight, and they will be convertible into pounds, ounces, etc., by multiplying or dividing by some constant number, and therefore all will be convertible into one another in the same manner...
And, extrapolating from Mr. Rothbard's analysis, it doesn't matter what the commodity is, so long as it meets certain attributes that societies have traditionally looked for in a monetary unit.
What does matter, in my opinion, is that the monetary unit (i.e. gold and silver) is the basis for whatever transactions take place. It is the ultimate unit of account. If you asked an accountant what is the basis of any given transaction, he would immediately tell you that the source document is the bedrock of whatever financial event took place.
In other words, if a check was cashed for $100,000, the accountant who would audit that transaction would request to see the check that was cashed. He's looking for signatures. He wants to hold the tangible document in his hand. If there is no source document, then there is no basis for the transaction.
And this is the strength of commodity money, and the great weakness of fiat money. There is no tangible item of value that backs up millions, billions, or trillions of paper dollars if the system is a purely fiat one.
China, as an example, has over two trillion dollars worth of foreign currency reserves. All of these promises are in fiat tender. Almost all of these reserves are in debt based, not asset based money.
Since the reserves China has are nothing more than promises to pay from the Central Bank that issued the dollar, yen, Euro, or whatever in the first place, what happens if the countries involved simply defaulted on their obligations? What if the Central Banks simply press a few buttons and create (see Case Against the Fed, p. 139 onwards.) trillions of additional dollars, Euros, or Pounds Sterling?
What is the basis of the reserves China has? What guarantees its value? How can China guard against the dilution of their reserves' purchasing power?
Under our present system, there is nothing that individuals or states can do to preserve the value of their holdings over time. There is nothing behind each individual piece of paper to back them up. Nations can never keep score, as unlimited amounts money can be created. Money, in this event, becomes worthless.
So, in my opinion, Fiat money is not real money because it does not meet all three of my tests of what money is supposed to be:
1) A store of value over time
2) A medium of exchange
3) A stable unit of account and economic calculation.
Because Fiat money is only good as a medium of exchange, Fiat money, in my view, is an EPIC FAIL.
What Does Money Do?
As alluded to above, money has multiple functions. It is a yardstick for financial transactions, performance and value. It is a means to transport wealth over time and space. It is the oil of commerce, and makes indirect exchange possible. Without money, economic and financial activities would be extremely difficult, time consuming, and inefficient.
Money is also like voting. In a free market, consumers spend money on the goods and services of their choice. If consumers aren't willing to spend money on a good or service, it acts like a vote of no confidence and the good or service goes away. In a sense, consumers in a free market, by spending money, tell producers and entrepreneurs how they should be directing their time, energy and resources.
This is why it is important for any monetary unit to be able to perform all of the functions of money listed above without interference or distortion inherent in such movements such as Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Corporatism, Unionism, and yes, Political Feminism.
This is why Fiat Money and inflation are so disastrous, as they impede the free market (i.e you and me) from pulling the levers of economic activity. Inflationism leads to bad decision making on the part of producers. It also robs savings from everyday people, which isn't good because savings is the foundation of capital formation. It's my contention that billions of individual people, each acting in their own economic best interest, can determine and regulate the economy much better than any small group of people acting in collusion to advance their own limited agendas.
Who Controls Our Money?
In a perfect world, consumers and citizens would control their money through their personal saving and spending activities. They would also create governments that would protect the rights of consumers and citizens to maintain control over their personal financial and economic decisions. Laws would be passed outlawing fraud, force, theft, and most importantly, monetary debasement. These laws would be strictly enforced.
Unfortunately, we live in a world of Fiat money, Wall Street Shenanigans, and massive government bailouts. Capital is NOT finding its way to its most productive uses... it's finding its way into the pockets of the well connected global elite.
And so, we need to discuss who really controls our money supply.
There are two institutions that control the economic resources of American citizens:
The Federal Reserve and the Bank of International Settlements.
Please visit these links to learn more about the Fed:
Goldseek radio (skip to 1:00:16)
Mises.org's numerous criticisms of the Fed
Secrets of the Temple
Secrets of the Federal Reserve
Even more.
Links on the Bank of International Settlements:
Articles by Joan Veon
Bilderberg.org resource page
Interestingly, the Bank of International Settlements has a much lower profile than our local Federal Reserve. In any case, please take some time to visit these links. You'll quickly understand who really controls our money supply and why.
Fiat Financing and Feminist Public Policy
Among other economically draining activities, such as endless wars, fiat financing makes feminist public policy possible. The fact of the matter is that our Matriarchal Fempire requires a vast amount of time, energy and resources.
The Federal government alone will dole out $438 million (see here, page 16) if the Congress fully funds 2011 proposed spending levels.
Lets look at the big picture.
According to Transform Communities.org, 1.6 billion dollars was spent in VAWA related programs from 1994 to 1999.
So, assuming that we have an average spend of $320 million per year ($1.6 billion/5 years), over a fifteen year period (1994 to 2009), we can roughly guestimate that 4.8 billion ($320 million * 15 years) was spent, at the Federal Level, on VAWA initiatives. We should probably assume that massive quantities of money have been spent at the state and local levels, and we should add in the massive costs of divorce that legislation such as VAWA has generated directly and indirectly.
Let's make some assumptions.
If, over a fifteen year period, we have spent $4.8 billion on VAWA programs, and we have spent $1.7 trillion ($112 billion * 15 years) for divorce related expenditures, and we assume that state and local government spent 30% of whatever Fedgov directly contributes in grant dollars (not a hard number but a best guess based on this Congressional Budget Office report), then we can guess that state and local governments have spent ($4.8 billion *.30) $1.4 billion on feminist public policy projects.
Based on all of this rough back of the envelope analysis, I would guess that, over this fifteen year period, the total cost for all this would be a cool $1.731 Trillion dollars. Going forward, assuming no major changes to spending levels, I would say that an average $115 billion dollars a year will be spent to maintain feminist public policy. Note that I am not taking inflation into account, so the true cost is and will be much higher.
By the way, it should be noted that annual expenditures for the negative outcomes VAWA contributes to add up to a much larger number than the so called "savings" that some claim that VAWA legislation has brought about.
On an annual basis, alleged VAWA annual average savings come out to: ($14.8 billion/ 5 years) $2.9 billion per year.
$2.9 billion "saved" - $115 billion spent = -$112.1 billion dollars annually.
Soo... where are all these dollars coming from? 1) Borrowing money from abroad and 2) Printing money.
All things are possible through Fiat Financing. Under a free market system of sound money, such expenditures by governments would be heavily scrutinized and watched like a hawk. In an inflationary fiat money regime, such as ours... nobody cares.
Spend all you want... We'll borrow and print more!
What can we do to fix the problem??
Most everyone knows by now that we have serious monetary problems. So what to do about them?
There seem to be two schools of thought.
Ellen Brown and Steven Zarlenga seem to be heading the charge for a pure fiat currency that is issued and managed directly by the government instead of the private Federal Reserve.
Listen to their ideas on Gnostic Media.
Financial Commentator Richard C Cook also has some interesting ideas for Monetary Reform that lean towards the Brown and Zarlenga position.
On the other side, there are the followers of classical sound money economics, such as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and others who advocate private banking, asset backed money, and the abolishment of the Federal Reserve.
Click here, here, here, and here for more information.
I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which path of reform you will champion.
As for me, I personally prefer the ideas proposed by Ron Paul and others, but I am open minded enough to propose that we take the best of both worlds, put them to the test in the real world, keep what works, and jettison what doesn't.
In later posts, I will explain in detail my own ideas for reform. But the important thing for now is to spend some time with the information provided, and think of your OWN ideals for a new way forward.
It is my opinion that the current system will collapse under its own unsustainable weight, and all people will need to be prepared to join the debate and make double damn sure that our new economic system provides the maximum amount of wealth, prosperity, happiness, and leisure for all people, instead of just serving the interests of a few well connected businessmen, academics, and politicians.
Thanks for reading,
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
Goldbug! and the Financial Report of the United States 2009.
Sunday, February 28th, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
During my brief hiatus, I have been keeping my eye on events in Europe and its current financial crisis.
I believe that the problems Greece is currently experiencing is a dress rehearsal for the massive bond market collapse that America will experience in the near future.
To that end, I wanted to share these powerful and disturbing interviews of Mr. James Dines as he talks about his latest book, Goldbug [1][2][3].
It's my opinion that Mr. Dines gets to the heart of our looming financial disaster in a very compact and easy to understand manner. Must listen material!
Financial Report of the United States Government 2009.
Speaking of American indebtedness, I'm pleased to report that the 2009 Financial Report of the United States Government is out. Click here to read it for yourself.
Case in point: Page vii of the report states:
2 The Federal Reserve is an independent organization and not considered a part of the Federal reporting entity. As such, their financial results are not consolidated into the Government’s financial statements.
Nice to see that Fedgov is admitting what many have known for years: The Federal Reserve is a private, for profit enterprise.
Anywho, if you compare this year's report to the last few years (which I have linked on my sidebar under Finance and Economics), you will quickly realize that the Government is bankrupt, and we have incurred massive debts that we can never possibly repay without debt default or the massive printing of money.
Either way, it's good to be a Goldbug!!
Happy reading,
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
The Lost Art of Discipline VIII – End.
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
(Image courtesy of Daikinbakuju.)
Greetings Ladies and Gents,
Sorry about the massive delay. In between working, studying, child rearing and investing, I completely upgraded all of my home office equipment, which involved a lot of set-up time.
Now that a former bedroom has been completely transformed into a fully functioning office, I'm ready to rock!
Since I've been known to prognosticate, let me just say that I believe that telecommuting from home, based on current internet and computer technologies, will be the new wave of the future.
Why commute, waste fuel, and blow money on office space when your workforce can submit industrial strength reports, spreadsheets, etc from anywhere in the world via email, skype, web-based ERP systems or Google Apps?
Not only can individuals and organizations save a ton of money, folks will quickly realize that one can do a tremendous amount of work in a very short period of time. Will the Four Hour Workweek become the norm rather than the exception? Indeed, is the end of work itself virtually upon us??
Only time will tell.
In any event, I'll stop digressing... 'cause Kirigakure is back at you with that real talk!! Today's post is the last in a series [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].
Previously, we've talked about discipline as a virtue, why it is a much needed ingredient in any successful relationship, how feminist public policy has outlawed discipline between man and woman, how the lack of discipline is destroying relationships across the Western world, and why good girls hook up with the bad boys who give them a twisted version of the discipline they crave.
All of this leads us to today's subjects: 1) Further exploration of why good girls like bad boys, 2) why women test men to see if the man is going to give them the discipline they need, want, and desire, 3) and what must be done to reintroduce discipline as a virtue into modern relationships.
Why Good Girls like Bad Boys, Continued.
Mr. F Roger Devlin, in his thought provoking paper, Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, writes:
Women often speak of seeking "commitment” from men, but this would seem to imply a preference for marriage-minded men over others. (Michelle) Langley observed the very opposite tendency in her interviewees:
They often form relationships with men who are emotionally inaccessible. Instead of choosing men who are interested in developing a relationship, these women choose men who make them feel insecure. Insecurity can create motivation and excitement. Women who seek excitement in their marriages (and many do) will often forego the possibility of real relationships for the excitement of fantasy relationships…. It’s not uncommon for women to pine for men who shy away from commitment, while they shun the attention given to them by men who are willing and ready to make a commitment.
If we replace the word "excitement" with manliness or thumos, then we have another observation that supports my contention that women seek and desire a man who is stronger than they, and is able to express his manliness through thought, word, and deed. I would also add that a woman needs to feel respect for her man, and be secure in the knowledge that he is prepared to discipline her as circumstances warrant.
Mr. Devlin continues:
... Langley distinguishes, based upon her interviews, four typical stages in marital breakdown.
1) The wives begin to feel vaguely that “something is missing in their lives.” Then they experience a loss of interest in sexual relations with their husbands.
Part of that missing something, would be the manliness that initially attracted her to him in the first place. As discussed previously, a man, under pain of legal sanction, must keep his emotion and his thumos firmly under wraps. As his woman loses respect for him, the magic sex factory shuts down.
Getting back to the essay:
Like other observers of the contemporary scene, the author notes the pervasiveness of female anger. “It’s impossible…to understand anything about women in this country today, unless you understand that a) they’re angry, and b) their anger is directed at men. Women today aren’t seeking equality. They want retribution-revenge."
At this point, I would like to share a passage written by Dr. Robin Skinner:
Men must stand up for themselves instead of cowering in a corner, hoping the women's movement disappears like a bad dream, and international family therapy pioneer, Dr Robin Skynner, said yesterday.
Women around the world were waiting for men to engage in the debate and fight back like real men, Dr Skynner told the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists conference in Wellington.
"For the family to work well, men still need to retain some aspects of the traditional male role and fathering functions," he said. "Women seem to desire this too, and appear to feel sexually repelled, or certainly not attracted, if the man ceases to retain some element of his assertiveness"...
... In family therapy, women were encouraged to spell out their men's faults, and for a while the men would stonewall but eventually fight back.
"Women were always pleased when their men at least fought back and became men."
Letting the anger out also freed up the positive feelings they had for each other and often revived their sex life.
"Women don't want men to fizzle away," Dr Skynner said. "They want men to be men still. They want a man who's a man, and sticks up for himself in more ways than one. If he doesn't they despise him. That's what men have to do, they have to fight it out."
Unfortunately, men are prohibited by law and custom from taking the appropriate actions to confront and dissolve female anger, complacency, and boredom. Our entire culture, from television broadcasting to feminist public policy, literally brainwashes us to avoid taking the appropriate actions that would prevent much infidelity, discord, and strife. It seems that our society has mandated an all or nothing approach that helps to produce complete male passiveness and female resentment, or, in some cases, drives women and men alike to commit heinous acts of violence against one another as tempers flare and things get out of control.
Either way, political feminists win, and men and their families lose.
Mr. Devin informs us that:
Much of this [female anger] is due to feminist indoctrination. An ideological regime (and feminism may now, I think, legitimately be called a regime) paints the past in the darkest colors possible in order to camouflage its own failures...
No arguments there. The author continues:
It should also be pointed out that the very terms “retribution” and “revenge” imply that husbands have wronged their wives somehow. If this is not the case, and Langley admits that today it mostly is not, the proper terms for the women’s behavior would be “wanton cruelty” or “sadism.” This supposition is strengthened by some of the author’s own observations: “I’ve noticed that once a woman reaches a certain point, not only does her anger persist, she wants to continually punish and inflict pain on whomever has angered her…. The men that I talked to often used the word evil to describe the behavior of their wives...”If someone is attacking you in a cruel and sadistic manner, the ordinary response would be to fight back, either in a physical or a literal sense. And, on a larger scale, liberal governments have traditionally defended its citizens against wanton acts of cruelty whether it be libel, slander, or assaults against property and person, and supported those who defended themselves by legal, intellectual, or physical means.
Unfortunately, in our time, men and men's natural rights are fair game. Men have no rights, property, reputation or honor that are worthy of defending in the face of female onslaught.
Consider rumors surrounding Tiger Woods' marital dispute at his home [1]. Contemplate the now proven FACT that Rhianna started her now infamous domestic battle royale with singer Chris Brown [2]. Note the fact that these two men have been widely mocked and dragged through the mud as enemies of women. Note that the women involved in these incidents (allegedly, in the case of Elin Woods), have been absolved of any potential blame, responsibility, or accountability for any actions that could be considered acts of domestic violence.
After all, there is NO EXCUSE for domestic violence... except when the perpetrator is a woman.
Indeed, as E Belfort Bax pointed out, back in 1913, Western law and culture has failed to uphold a man's honor in the face of female accusation.
It goes without saying that, when one class of humanity has the right and privilege to abuse and oppress another class with impunity, they will cheerfully do so. And naturally, the oppressor will despise the oppressed for their weakness, and for their acceptance of cruel and sadistic torment.
Men will receive no respect unless and until they stand up for themselves, as well as for one another, and impose much needed discipline upon their wayward female counterparts, as well as upon the politicians and institutions that are abusing their power and using their high offices to enslave the male masses. Unless and until we do so, women will become even more angry, and government, business, and academia will become more controlling, usurping, and totalitarian.
After all, what politician respects the rights of a class of people, if the downtrodden group accepts their second class status?
Getting back to our article, Rotating Polyandry and Its Enforcers, we read that:
... Women may want men to make them happy, but they do not say, and probably do not know themselves, how this might be accomplished. “Women want men to read their minds—or, more accurately, their emotions—because it’s what they do, easily…. Females want males to anticipate their needs and desires.” (Obeying their every command is not enough.)
And here is the crucial point. The Wise man must know and understand female behavior in order to survive in a long term relationship as defined at the beginning of this series. Dating is one thing... marriage with children is quite another.
However, feminist propaganda has taught men that they should obey their wives' every command, say "Yes Dear" as a response to everything, and avoid conflict at all costs. The fact of the matter is that men must know and understand HOW WOMEN REALLY ARE, WHAT THEY REALLY NEED, AND WHAT THEY REALLY WANT. And, the politically incorrect truth is that women need men that are unafraid to correct them and put them in their place when their hormone driven minds decide to embark on foolish, selfish, or self destructive behavior.
(More on the Female Brain.)
(Even more.)
This is the cold reality that political feminist society and political feminist public policy refuse to acknowledge. Indeed, as many Men's Rights commentators have pointed out, men themselves refuse to recognize the truth because it is much easier to "love 'em and leave 'em" than to put in the sometimes difficult and dangerous work of inter-relationship conflict management.
Whoever said that men seek "Patriarchal Domination" as a matter of course must not have lived with a woman for very long. Any man who has successfully dealt with the full fury of female insensibility will tell you that it is extremely stressful to deal with the difficult, moody, or demanding women in their lives. Be it tongue-lashings, the silent treatment, or small objects hurled through the air with the greatest of ease, women have a profound ability to drive a man absolutely crazy, even if he is the most knowledgeable and Zen like gentleman to ever walk God's green Earth.
The path that I and others like me have chosen, i.e. Male Headship of one's household, is NOT easy by any means.
Indeed, it is much, much easier to let sleeping women lie than to enter the Lion's Den!
But I digress.
Mr. Devin proceeds to detail for us what men SHOULD NOT be doing in the face of irrational female behavior:
... most men blamed themselves and “beat themselves up” for the things they thought they had done wrong in the marriage. Their initial response to their wives’ stated unhappiness was to try to make them happy. “In most cases, their husbands launched futile attempts to make their wives happy by being more attentive, spending more time at home and helping out around the house.
Regardless of these women’s past and present complaints, the last thing they wanted was to spend more time with their husbands.” (Langley notes that wives do often complain that “my spouse doesn’t pay attention to me,” but calls this code for “I want another man.”)
In fact, wives often became angry precisely over their husbands’ efforts to please them, because this increased their own feelings of guilt for infidelity. Some also perceived the similarity between this behavior and their own earlier efforts to get their husbands to “commit;” women know better than anyone that efforts to please can be a form of manipulation.
The women sometimes responded with a kind of countermanipulation: “they thought if they were cold and treated their husbands terribly, the men would leave, or ask them to leave.” Sometimes this happens—which, incidentally, explains why divorce initiation statistics can be misleading. A significant portion of the roughly thirty percent of divorces which are formally male-initiated result from the wife deliberately maneuvering her husband into taking the step...
But it is not always easy for women to obtain a divorce in this manner: “Some of the women couldn’t believe the things their husbands were willing to put up with.” (So much for men not being committed.) The author recounts cases where women deliberately tried to provoke their husbands into striking them because they calculated it would be to their advantage in the looming child-custody dispute.
One reason husbands may be so difficult to provoke today is that they realize the only result will be a jail term for “domestic abuse” or a restraining order preventing them from seeing their children.
Most of the men didn’t have anyone to talk to other than their wives, which is why I believe they tried so desperately to hold on to them…. Some of the men were so dependent on their wives, they didn’t think they could live without them, but one thing all the men shared was a fear of losing their children.
The men I interviewed feared losing their family, but the women didn’t seem to have that fear. The women thought of it as losing their husbands, not their family. More often than not, the men were forced to move out of their homes and away from their kids. They lost all of their attachment bonds and felt as though they were losing their whole identity.
Many of the men became suicidal when their wife left and remained so for a long time afterwards. A few of the men said that they felt homicidal.
On the other hand, “the word used by the majority of women I interviewed to describe their husbands [was] ‘pathetic.’” When the full extent of their husband’s emotional dependence upon them comes out, women are not moved or gratified; they feel contempt for what they see as weakness.
This is powerful stuff gentlemen... I would urge you to download and read Mr. Devin's writing in its entirety, as he has much more to say on this topic.
For our purposes however, let us understand that the typical woman, as defined at the beginning of this series, HATES A WEAK MAN, AND RESPECTS A MAN THAT IS STRONGER THAN SHE. This is the cold truth, and all the political feminist propaganda in the world will not change this important fact. Once respect has been lost, the relationship is, without a major miracle, doomed to Splitsville.
In our modern political feminist landscape, the vast majority of men who refuse to obey political feminist social graces are the "bad boys", the pimps, and the Playas. Their very unwillingness to bow down and conform to the rules of political feminist social intercourse is what makes them so appealing to so many women in our day and age. And, incidentally, I care not if a woman says she disagrees with this thesis... the actions of the 80% (i.e. the majority) of her sisters speaks much louder than mere words of protest.
It doesn't matter what women say. It does matter what women actually do.
Testing a Man's Resolve.
And now, we get to the heart of the matter. What's a man to do, once he comes into the understanding of what woman is, and how she really wants to be treated?
To start our discussion, let's begin with this tract from website Fondly and Firmly.com:
Without giving examples or going into detail, a recurring theme is women who nag or taunt their men. For those men who negotiate, plead or try to avoid this taunting, the process may seem to be interminable. In fact I believe it is not interminable at all: those men who respond decisively find that this stops the woman's troubling behaviour immediately. This deliberately annoying, frustrating, unpleasant and anti-social behaviour by women is what I now call the "test the man's resolve mode". It is an all-too-common feature of man-woman relationships - though I know of some relationships, including some of my own in the past, where the woman did not behave like this at all.
This "test the man's resolve mode" is not necessarily done deliberately or consciously. Unless the man does respond decisively, the taunting can lead - over time - to irrevocable breakdown and loss of love. It can also cause the man to loose control and hit the woman in a dangerous fashion - in a way which is entirely out of character. This is a decisive response - although not the cool, controlled, authoritative physical response which would best have satisfied the mental processes which were driving the woman's nagging, taunting or occasionally violent behaviour.
The "test the man's resolve mode" is usually emotional taunting, complaining about things not being right, complaining about his behaviour or attitudes, pestering him to do something impossible or pointless. Sometimes - according to some surveys, quite often - the woman initiates physical violence.
Whatever the barbs directed at the man, lets assume for the purposes of this discussion that the provocation is without any rational justification. It is however keenly pursued by the women, who feels that it is her right or that she has not alternative but to combat or pressure her man as best she can...
Many women cannot abide men who do not stand their ground. Many women fall out of love with a man who doesn't deal decisively with the shit a woman can dish out.
Men who may be emotionally ready to deal properly with this crap - thanks to their biological inheritance and perhaps what they have learnt from their father - may not in fact act demonstratively since they are trying to be nice sensitive guys. Things can then develop rapidly along tragic lines - with a spiral of more provocation and violent outbursts and quite likely destruction of trust and/or the relationship.
This in-built, instinctive "man testing" mechanism, (Lord forgive them for they know not what they do) is obviously an evolutionary advantage since women need a man who can defend her and her children against wild animals and the Hun. She does not want to find out that her man is weak when the Hun come over the horizon - the automatic test method has evolved to detect signs of weakness during ordinary life, when the Hun are likely to be far away and while she has time to seek out another man. (A successful quest leads to the most dangerous manoeuvre in a woman's life - buttering up the new man, without arousing aggression in the first and then leaving the first one for the second without getting killed in the process - but this is getting off topic.)
So she leaves the man who does not act decisively and falls in love with the biggest brute she can find, often dreaming that she can win his heart and make him tender and caring towards her, but remain a pushy bastard towards everyone else. Such a bloke, if he is truly the leading, action packed man she seeks, won't take any nonsense when she (instinctively and non-deliberately) taunts him...
So here we are. We know that the women in our lives are going to test us, whether we like it or not. The challenge is, how do we manage these inevitable conflicts in an appropriate and responsible way? How can men deal with these tests without resorting to wanton and unwelcome violence, or without indirectly contributing to total relationship breakdown?
These are thorny questions, but we need to start asking them and start coming up with solutions that will enable marriages and long term relationships to survive and thrive in the 21st Century.
As I will discuss in future posts, I believe that political feminism is on its way out, and that social, economic, and political upheaval will be the main drivers of evolutionary change.
As we speak, Bond market bubbles around the world appear to be ready to burst. I believe that when sovereign debt defaults begin in earnest, it will force widespread and massive social and political change.
Ultimately, I think that strong families are going to be the bedrock for peace and economic prosperity in a new age. And, in order for man and woman to live together in harmony, virtues such as discipline, long legislated out of the social compact, will need to be relearned and revitalized. As I have detailed over eight postings, discipline is a vital component that cannot be ignored any longer.
Someone is going to have to take the lead in the typical family, and in 80% of couples, that leader is going to be the man. Most women, consciously or unconsciously, aren't going to have it any other way, as we have plainly seen.
So then, what tools should the Average Joe keep in his toolbox?
At the present, there isn't much a man can do when faced with a woman that seeks to test his resolve. He is in an inferior social and legal position, and he should therefore avoid hazardous situations such as these as best he can. Until feminist public policy finally implodes upon itself, the safest and best thing a man can do is to avoid marriage and family AT ALL COSTS, or relocate to a jurisdiction and culture that respects marriage and manliness.
But, for the sake of argument, lets assume that feminist public policy is completely overhauled. When this actually happens, then the Wise Man should observe these guidelines:
1) Don't be afraid to express yourself, and don't hesitate to engage your woman in verbal debate when she is clearly in error.
As we have seen, there is no way to avoid conflict. Consequently, men should not hesitate to state their minds and show their emotions with the goal of bringing harmony and balance back to the relationship. And, when correction is needed, a man must bring the argument to his woman. Even if you lose the debate (which happens sometimes), your lady will still respect you for standing your ground.
If you observe women interacting with one another, you'll quickly notice that they don't hesitate to speak up when someone has done them wrong, or when someone violates the unspoken rules that the group has laid down. Women tend not to give other women a pass on rude or disrespectful behavior... and neither can you.
2) Be prepared to listen to her issues, and recognize that you don't have to take them seriously all the time.
Sometimes, women say things just to say it, or to express their emotional state. Just because a woman says something, doesn't mean that her man has to move Heaven and Earth to correct the situation. Sometimes, men have to tolerate their woman's insane babbling just like one would humor their 98 year old grandmother. Just nod your head, smile, say "un-huh," and resume your online Halo deathmatch. All is right in the world.
3) Lay down the law, and be prepared to enforce it.
This policy, Dear Reader, is why negotiation during the early stages of any relationship is absolutely critical. You MUST know what rules your potential mate is living by. You must know what programming drives her behavior. If your requirements are diametrically opposed to what your woman is looking for, then you are doomed to difficulty before your marriage even begins.
One must negotiate, in advance, what the rules are going to be, and, perhaps more importantly, what is going to happen if these rules are violated.
If you tell your future wife, in advance, that you are going to be the leader of the family, and if, after you get married, she attempts to usurp your headship position, what is the penalty? Are you going to move out for a while? Get a divorce? What are you going to do?
The enforcement side of things is the most individual and difficult aspect of any relationship, and is something that both sides need to discuss and agree to in advance. Unilateral creation and enforcement of "rules" almost always leads to epic relationship failure, and the failure to establish rules and penalties for their violation at the beginning of one's partnership leads to massive amounts of misunderstandings, frustration, and total breakdown in the long run.
Something else to remember... failure to uphold the rules previously agreed to by both parties is a glaring sign of weakness. And, as I said before... the typical woman hates a weak kneed man. Too many public displays of weakness, and your marriage or relationship will not be long for this world.
Conclusion... Sort Of.
Please understand, Dear Readers, that there are many more valid rules of the road than the three guidelines stated here. There are many diverse approaches to this sensitive subject. The good folks at Taken in Hand have examined this issue in depth, and I would urge you to check out what they have to say.
And, as I move towards getting out of the recommendation business, I would encourage you to do your own independent research, and formulate your own best practices that help you and others to create and maintain successful and satisfying relationships.
As an aside, I have been on a personal truthseeking quest for over three years now. Based on the massive quantities of information I have come across in my travels, I've come to the conclusion that the world is too big, and the truth is too varied for me to form a singular thesis that says, THIS ALONE IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH TO ALL THINGS.
There are, of course, such things as right actions, and wrong actions. Correct action bring success, while incorrect actions bring failure. However, in the scheme of things, there are many potential right answers, and these answers will vary based on the situation, people, and environment involved. The trick is to set one's course in the right direction, and be flexible enough to make adjustments along the way. The ideal is to focus on what works, and discard approaches and ideas that don't work and have been proven beyond doubt to be epic failures.
Actions taken must be appropriate for the given situation at hand.
This same principle is true regarding any of the issues that we discuss on this blog, and I believe this flexible approach is the one that will help us defeat Political Feminism, and restore the rights of Man.
My attitude towards blogging, and the Men's Rights Movement has shifted dramatically from when I first came into this truth. At first, I thought that I needed to beat it into people's heads what must be done, and that, based on my "superior" understanding, that all men and women needed to act in one certain way. Then and only then would Peace, Prosperity, and Enlightenment come to the land.
Nowadays... all I can do is laugh at myself.
Here's the thing. There are real issues that men have to face. And certain actions (such as getting married in the West) will lead to really negative outcomes (involuntary divorce, financial enslavement, loss of liberty, etc). Because of this, it is necessary for men to sidestep these potential issues. No marriage and children (and increasingly, no contact) with Western women, no problem.
But...
Not every man wishes to forsake marriage and family life. Not everyone is willing to marry a foreign woman, or relocate to a foreign land. What about these men, who, like me, are brave enough (or foolish enough) to take the risk of raising a family in the West?
Not only do I write for hardcore MRAs, or against Political Feminist wenches, but I also write for the man who simply wants to know what Political Feminism is, and what are the consequences of our feminist public policy.
Because I have these diverse readers, I will simply say that I am changing my role from wanna-be instructor, to intrepid investigative reporter. I am not going to tell you what you should ultimately do, or how you should do it.
My new role, as I see it, is to simply gather and report relevant information. I will make recommendations based on my knowledge and experience, but ultimately, the path you take is up to you. Just be sure to fully understand the legal and spiritual pros and cons that come with any decision you make.
Finally, getting back on topic...
When it comes to the Lost Art of Discipline, each individual man and woman must decide how they are going to arrange themselves to meet future challenges, and to seize future opportunities. How you enact and enforce said Discipline within your relationship is up to you. Just recognize, Dear Reader, that Discipline is a vital ingredient that must be present if a long term relationship is to survive... and to thrive.
Peace and Hair Grease,
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
My first Youtube video.
Sunday, January 24th, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
Feedback is definitely encouraged... it will help me in my quality control efforts!
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
Happy New Year 2010! – あけましておめでとうございます！
Sunday, January 10th, 2010
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
忍びキリガクレただいま参上！
みんあさん、
あけましておめでとうございます。去年ありがとうございまして今年にも、よろしくお願いいたします！
Everyone,
Your man Kirigakure is back in the house.
Happy New Year! Our family appreciates all of the valued readers who visited this blog last year, and we hope you continue to visit in 2010.
Today's post will be a short one.
First up, I want to share with you my vision for the blog in 2010.
As we speak, I have created a youtube account, and I have all of the equipment I need to start making podcasts and youtube videos. I plan to start posting videos within the next two weeks.
Please bear with me, however, as my knowledge of youtubing and podcasting is very limited. It will take a little time for me to work out some of the kinks and put out quality content, which is always my goal.
By expanding into multimedia, I want to add my voice to the chorus of Men's Rights, Libertarian, and Sound Money advocates who are spreading the message of freedom, wealth, and true prosperity to the people. I would be honored to participate in breaking down the walls that Globalists, Socialists, and Feminists have erected to keep the masses enslaved, destitute, and demoralized. Because of my unique background, training, and life experiences, I believe that I can add fresh insight to the challenges that the nation, and indeed the world faces.
Speaking of background and training, it's time for me to share more of what I know. Up until now, I've held back a little bit, for fear of offending some of my readers, or presenting information and analysis that might seem a bit odd to the average person.
But, I've come to the conclusion that my job is to provide the information, not to prejudge whether or not you, as the reader, will accept or reject it. Therefore, expect to see more references from a wide variety of perspectives and traditions.
From Astrology to Quantum Physics, your author receives and processes information that leads to greater wealth, health, happiness, protection from danger, and spiritual awareness from a wide variety of sources.
Going forward, I will do my best to gather and report this data. What you do with it, Dear Reader, is up to you. Feel free to accept or reject my findings at your discretion. Please do not take anything I write as Gospel... at all times, research any and all themes, trends, and contentions for yourself. Remember, we want to become enlightened human beings. Once of the first steps towards that end is being mindful of what we see, hear, and accept as reality.
It is our hope, Valued Reader, that you will find what we write to be thought provoking, relevant, and insightful, even if you may not agree with all aspects of what we bring to the table.
(The Kirigakure Household)
In this, the Year of the Tiger, our family hopes to provide a level of analysis and synthesis that is unmatched. It is our goal to apply our ancient wisdom and esoteric knowledge to break down issues of importance, and bring little known facts to light.
Only in this way can the remnants of outdated and obsolete ideologies such as political feminism, globalism, and banksterism be swept aside.
Once these limiting factors are permanently out of the way, humanity can be free to build societies that are unimaginably happy, healthy, productive and wealthy, with, ironically, much less expenditure of time, energy, and resources.
It takes a lot of work, after all, to sustain a system that is illogical, inefficient, and unnatural.
Links to get you started.
At this juncture, I would like to share a few links that are, in my opinion, the most important trends to watch in 2010 and beyond:
I) Financial Sense Newshour forecasts [1][2][3]
II) King World News Forecast [4]
III) Jim Willie CB: Gathering Storm Clouds.
IV) Dollarcollapse: On Healthcare.
V) The Bond Market Bubble, courtesy of Seeking Alpha and Zero Hedge.
VI) Politics: See Market Oracle.UK. They have political commentary that is very hard to find anywhere else.
VII) Libertarians strike back: Peter Schiff and Rand Paul. I'm betting that they will both win their respective elections. If they do, this will open the floodgates for Ron Paul like candidates to run and win elections nationwide.
VIII) Speaking of Ron Paul...
IX) 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections [a][b]
X) Men's Rights [a][b][c][d]
Other items of interest:
And there you have it... things to watch for in 2010 and beyond.
Conclusion.
New year, new possibilities.
From all accounts, 2010 is going to be a year of change and upheaval, economically, politically, socially and spiritually.
I believe that the next few years will be ones of transition, and that many aspects of our current way of life are going to morph dramatically.
Take political feminism, for example. It is my opinion that this reactionary movement, conceived in deceit and born in error, is crumbling, ever so slowly. And this year will be like other years for MRAs; a year to marshal evidence and attack the very foundations of political feminist thought. It may seem that our efforts are for naught, and that conditions are only getting worse for men.
This is the common perception, and indeed massive abuses are happening to men on a daily basis. However, I see glimmers of hope. The Berlin Wall of political feminism is starting to come down. Across the country, men are beginning to see more justice. Favorable outcomes for men do happen... but most victories for men are simply off the radar screen and don't receive a lot of airplay in our sensationalist-blood'n guts-lamestream media.
Organizations such as Media Radar, Fathers for Justice, ACFC, and Fathers and Families are making headway. And then there is the invisible legion of men who congregate at the office water cooler, the online message forum, or the halls of government. They are talking to one another, and the word is getting out... trust me on this.
Someday I will be able to tell you all about what those in political office really think about political feminism... but that's another story for another time.
All in all, the future is bright for Men and Men's rights. The trick is to avoid getting ensnared in the present system until the corpse of political feminism is heaved off the side of the cliff for good. Marriage or Cohabitation in feminist friendly countries is definitely not encouraged right now.
Is 2010 going to be the magical year when all wrongs are put to right? Probably not.
I do believe, however, that 2010 is going to be a year when good work is done, when the rock solid foundation will continue to be laid for the liberation of not just men, but of all people.
For you see, the powers that hold us down aren't just fixated on men alone. When we see the fulfillment of true and correct political, social, economic, and spiritual reform, reform that respects the rights of all, promotes special rights for none, and compels all to live up to their freely entered into obligations, then the race of Men will be free to achieve goals that are currently at the fringe of our imagination.
2010, the Year of the Tiger, is the year to discover where true power really lies, and to depend upon that power for one's daily bread. Those who follow the old paradigm and continue to depend exclusively upon outside institutions, governments, politicians, or gurus will not survive and thrive in the years ahead.
For where is the Kingdom?
If you know the answer to this question... you are almost there.
Sincerely yours,
Kirigakure.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
Grass Eating Men, Eye of the Tiger, and the Return of the Patriarchy.
Sunday, December 13th, 2009
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
Hopefully you are in fine spirits this day.
We have a lot of ground to cover in this post. Before I do so, however, I need to let sensitive folks know that I am going to most likely offend or upset with this missive. I am going to take it upon myself to say what quite a few peoples are thinking but would never admit in polite society.
And so, without further ado, lets get to work.
Rise of the Grass Eaters.
The nation of Nippon (日本）, otherwise known as the J-Land, is my second home. My name appears in the Kyoto registry, and can be found if one should visit the Kyoto local government office.
I spend a lot of time in Tokyo and the Kansai region, and I have many valuable and beloved friends and family living on the Island nation.
So it would make sense that I keep a close eye on the latest developments that transpire in the Land of the Rising Sun. And it seems that Soushoku Danshi （草食男子）, or Grass Eating Men, is the talk of the town. In addition to a slew of English and Japanese language articles covering the phenomena, my buddies and I have had many manly discussions about who is or isn't a Grass Eater over bottles of beer and sake.'
According to Slate.com:
The Herbivore's Dilemma
Japan panics about the rise of "grass-eating men," who shun sex, don't spend money, and like taking walks.
By Alexandra Harney
Ryoma Igarashi likes going for long drives through the mountains, taking photographs of Buddhist temples and exploring old neighborhoods. He's just taken up gardening, growing radishes in a planter in his apartment. Until recently, Igarashi, a 27-year-old Japanese television presenter, would have been considered effeminate, even gay. Japanese men have long been expected to live like characters on Mad Men, chasing secretaries, drinking with the boys, and splurging on watches, golf, and new cars.
Today, Igarashi has a new identity (and plenty of company among young Japanese men) as one of the soushoku danshi—literally translated, "grass-eating boys." Named for their lack of interest in sex and their preference for quieter, less competitive lives, Japan's "herbivores" are provoking a national debate about how the country's economic stagnation since the early 1990s has altered men's behavior.
Newspapers, magazines, and television shows are newly fixated on the herbivores. "Have men gotten weaker?" was one theme of a recent TV talk show...
... In this age of bromance and metrosexuals, why all the fuss? The short answer is that grass-eating men are alarming because they are the nexus between two of the biggest challenges facing Japanese society: the declining birth rate and anemic consumption. Herbivores represent an unspoken rebellion against many of the masculine, materialist values associated with Japan's 1980s bubble economy. Media Shakers, a consulting company that is a subsidiary of Dentsu, the country's largest advertising agency, estimates that 60 percent of men in their early 20s and at least 42 percent of men aged 23 to 34 consider themselves grass-eating men. Partner Agent, a Japanese dating agency, found in a survey that 61 percent of unmarried men in their 30s identified themselves as herbivores. Of the 1,000 single men in their 20s and 30s polled by Lifenet, a Japanese life-insurance company, 75 percent described themselves as grass-eating men.
Japanese companies are worried that herbivorous boys aren't the status-conscious consumers their parents once were. They love to putter around the house. According to Media Shakers' research, they are more likely to want to spend time by themselves or with close friends, more likely to shop for things to decorate their homes, and more likely to buy little luxuries than big-ticket items. They prefer vacationing in Japan to venturing abroad. They're often close to their mothers and have female friends, but they're in no rush to get married themselves, according to Maki Fukasawa, the Japanese editor and columnist who coined the term in NB Online in 2006.
Grass-eating boys' commitment phobia is not the only thing that's worrying Japanese women. Unlike earlier generations of Japanese men, they prefer not to make the first move, they like to split the bill, and they're not particularly motivated by sex. "I spent the night at one guy's house, and nothing happened—we just went to sleep!" moaned one incredulous woman on a TV program devoted to herbivores. "It's like something's missing with them," said Yoko Yatsu, a 34-year-old housewife, in an interview. "If they were more normal, they'd be more interested in women. They'd at least want to talk to women."
Shigeru Sakai of Media Shakers suggests that grass-eating men don't pursue women because they are bad at expressing themselves. He attributes their poor communication skills to the fact that many grew up without siblings in households where both parents worked. "Because they had TVs, stereos and game consoles in their bedrooms, it became more common for them to shut themselves in their rooms when they got home and communicate less with their families, which left them with poor communication skills," he wrote in an e-mail. (Japan has rarely needed its men to have sex as much as it does now. Low birth rates, combined with a lack of immigration, have caused the country's population to shrink every year since 2005...)
Hmm... where to begin?
The article mentions a few of the key drivers that have influenced the Soushoku Danshi movement. Another reason might be that Japan is a brutally competitive and perfectionist society. Most children go to school six days a week. High school kids have to pass courses in advanced calculus and trigonometry, subjects that I didn't tackle until college.
My clique of friends from university (who are American, Japanese, and South Korean) and I have come to the consensus that American students can bullshit their way through high school, but really have to buckle down in college.
But in Asia, it's the exact opposite. Students in Asia have to study like crazy from elementary to high school and can only relax once they pass extremely difficult college entrance exams.
Even if one does manage to enter an elite university, he only has a short time period to relax. Because after he graduates, the pressure to enter the Salaryman lifestyle, which, as the article alludes to, could and often does lead to incredibly long workdays (my old roommate told me stories of working 14 hours in one day!), six days a week, forced participation in neverending after hours karaoke parties and socalizing, and so much alcohol consumption... it should be against the law!
Oh, and before I forget... there's also the occasional group trip to the neighborhood Soapland...
Just remember that DECADES of long, tedious, and back breaking work lie ahead for our young Grass Eating Man. That's a lot of pressure for a young buck to live with... and, while some people thrive in such settings, not every Japanese guy wants to lead such a life. If they have anything to say about it, they would naturally look to get off the treadmill at the earliest possible opportunity.
Like most men worldwide, Japanese men want the freedom and the flexibility to pursue their own happiness instead of working to make some else rich, or putting up with a ball-busting Oniyome (鬼嫁）demon wife when he gets home.
Nope... better for men in every country to Go Their Own Way.
Back to the Slate article:
... Japanese women are not taking the herbivores' indifference lightly. In response to the herbivorous boys' tepidity, "carnivorous girls" are taking matters into their own hands, pursuing men more aggressively. Also known as "hunters," these women could be seen as Japan's version of America's cougars.
While many Japanese women might disagree, Fukasawa sees grass-eating boys as a positive development for Japanese society. She notes that before World War II, herbivores were more common: Novelists such as Osamu Dazai and Soseki Natsume would have been considered grass-eating boys. But in the postwar economic boom, men became increasingly macho, increasingly hungry for products to mark their personal economic progress. Young Japanese men today are choosing to have less to prove.
I couldn't agree more. The way things are done in the J-Land serves only to rob many men of their time, their creativity, and their freedom. And, as more Japanese women (still a million times more feminine than 80% of their Western sisters) become more "manly", selfish, and demanding, many of our Grass Eaters are making a conscious decision to pursue their own goals and chase their own dreams. Marriage, on the other hand, comes dead last in their list of priorities.
And if left wing Minshunto makes good and encodes more Political Feminist public policy into Japanese law, then the MGTOW philosophy will only become more popular in the years to come.
If Japan (and other low birthrate nations, such as South Korea) decide to aggressively pursue feminist policies (which is doubtful, but anything can happen), then it will only insure its eventual depopulation because traditional patriarchal civilization is the only way a nation in such dire demographic straits can make a successful comeback.
Fatherhood and the Future of Civilization
From the Christian Post:
Will the world soon experience a return of patriarchy? That is the question raised by Phillip Longman in the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Policy.
Close
The magazine's cover features a rather stunning headline: "Why Men Rule – and Conservatives Will Inherit the Earth." That headline would be surprising in almost any contemporary periodical, but it is especially significant that this article should appear in the pages of Foreign Policy, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The publication of this article set a good many heads to spinning.
Phillip Longman is Bernard L Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation. He is a well-respected author and researcher, whose books have included The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do about It (2004). In his previous works, Longman has projected how falling birthrates throughout advanced societies will lead to financial, political, social, and demographic decline.
In this article, he pressed his argument to the next stage – announcing the return of patriarchy – the concept of male leadership – as essential to a recovery of higher birthrates and reproduction.
"With the number of human beings having increased more than sixfold in the past 200 years, the modern mind simply assumes that men and women, no matter how estranged, will always breed enough children to grow the population – at least until plague or starvation sets in," Longman explains.
"Yet, for more than a generation now, well-fed, healthy, peaceful populations around the world have been producing too few children to avoid population decline. That is true even though dramatic improvements in infant and child mortality mean that far fewer children are needed today (only about 2.1 per woman in modern societies) to avoid population loss. Birthrates are falling far below replacement levels in one country after the next – from China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea, to Canada, the Caribbean, all of Europe, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East."
Throughout human history, a persistent fall in birthrates has served as a harbinger of cultural decline and a warning of cultural collapse. The reasons for this are many, but center in the fact that the cause of falling birthrates is often a loss of social cohesion and confidence and the effect of falling reproduction rates is a decline in economic prosperity and erosion of the social structure.
Put simply, a significant fall in birthrates means that, in the next generation, there will be fewer workers, parents, consumers, and contributors to the common welfare. As societies age, a greater percentage of the population tends toward the older end of the age spectrum – representing greater dependency and less economic contribution...
... Longman argues that the return of patriarchy is almost assured, given the social crisis that will be produced by a catastrophic fall in birthrates.
"Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule," Longman explains. "Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles."
Longman understands the simple fact that a great deal of cultural capital is required in order to encourage young men to marry and men of all ages to fulfill responsibilities as husbands and fathers. The normative picture of the "good life" for men, at least as presented in the dominant media culture, does not include the comprehensive responsibilities of fatherhood. When men are not stigmatized for failure to be faithful as husbands and fathers, young men will take marriage and parenthood with little significance, as many will avoid marriage and fatherhood altogether...
Now at this stage, Dear Reader, I will have to disagree with Mr. Longman on a very important point.
The biggest fallacy that I see when I read about marriage and family issues is that men are behaving "irresponsibly", or that men are being allowed to "abandon" their marital and familial responsibilities.
NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
Churches don't get it... this is why more men are leaving churches.
Institutions don't get it... this is why more men are turning their backs on institutions.
Governments don't get it... this is why more men are losing confidence in government.
MEN HAVE NOT ABANDONED ANYTHING. SOCIETY AT LARGE HAS ABANDONED MEN!
In the American case... Congress, the Supreme Court [a][b], and the Executive Branch have set up laws, regulations, and legal precedents that create a complex web of feminist public policy that has neutered marriage, family, and male headship into oblivion.
Men in this country do not have any legal rights when it comes to their marriages and their families. They only have obligations and liabilities.
Once again, it doesn't take rocket science to understand that when one faces physical imprisonment or financial slavery if one marries or has a family, then the logical choice for men is to minimize their exposure by any means necessary. And at any time, a "Patriarchal" man who attempts to live the life that many Conservative types expect him to live can be PUT OUT OF HIS HOME AND REMOVED FROM HIS FAMILY ANY TIME HIS WIFE DESIRES, FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ENCOURAGED HIM TO "DO THE RIGHT THING" WILL BLAME HIM FOR "ABANDONING HIS FAMILY".
Individuals are compelled, on pain of financial and physical ruination, to guide their conduct according to the letter of the law. And Law, in partnership with Custom, has combined to eliminate Patriarchy in the good ol' USA. And the total lack of understanding of this crucial point on the part of churches, institutions, and academia is profoundly disturbing. It's no wonder than men are leaving these institutions, and going their own way in ever increasing numbers!
When the laws and the customs change to protect, honor, and respect men and male headship, then you will have it in abundance. Keep our current Matriarchal system in place, and male headship will flee for greener pastures.
Back to the Christian Post:
To some extent, the statistics tell the story. Almost twenty percent of women born in the late 1950s are nearing the end of their reproductive lives without ever having had children. Longman's assessment is blunt: "The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and 70s, will have no genetic legacy."
Beyond this, the falling birthrate contributes to many other social ills. "Falling fertility is also responsible for many financial and economic problems that dominate today's headlines," Longman asserts. "The long-term financing of social security schemes, private pension plans, and health-care systems has little to do with people living longer. . . . Instead, the falling ratio of workers to retirees is overwhelmingly caused by workers who were never born."
The effects within the society are psychological as well as demographic, political, and financial. As Longman understands, declining birthrates can also affect what he calls "national temperament." He attributes the fact that the American voting population has become more conservative in recent years to anxiety over falling birthrates. Beyond this, we must now add the fact that millions of voters, who would have been raised by more liberal parents, were simply never born...
... A truly Christian response to this argument must go further than cultural concerns alone can sustain. In the biblical vision, patriarchs establish a trans-generational vision for their families, looking to generations beyond with the promise that the father will give himself to the task of fatherhood and leadership in order to perpetuate the promise and establish the line.
Beyond this, Christians should understand that the Bible reveals a form of patriarchy as the norm – with men called to lead within the marital union and the family, as well as the church.
... His verdict is clear – societies that follow a patriarchal pattern tend to reproduce at a higher rate and advance, while those who devalue the role and responsibilities of men as fathers find themselves in decline.
Most of us know by now that the way of political feminism is the way of death, and that more feminism leads to lower birthrates, and more men breaking away to seek their own rewards as their traditional rights are stripped away in order to meet political feminist objectives.
However, I would also like to point out that, in America at least, the Christian Church, as a whole, has done a miserable job in protecting the rights of men that were entrusted to it long ages ago.
I don't see correct and hard hitting sermons, publications, and speeches against the totality of feminism and feminist public policy being produced by the Churches, except to oppose limited issues such as abortion. I don't see religious organizations suing to have political feminist public policy overturned. I don't see the Religious Right, or any other spiritual organization, lobbying members of Congress to have Patriarchy and Male Headship restored to this country.
As a matter of fact, I hardly hear any religious group, with the exception of Islamic organizations and underground Christian groups, challenging the full breadth of political feminist ideology.
The sad truth is that most mainstream religious groups sold out to political feminism a long time ago, and are afraid to examine the totality of this hate movement in a bold, public, and political fashion. Worst of all, they fail to uphold their own body of sacred scripture and knowledge as they bow down to feminist soul-controllers when it comes to the rights of men, marriage, and family life.
One of my biggest beefs with most religious groups today (and one of the main reasons why I became a Truthseeker some three odd years ago) is that they don't practice or support the ideals that they preach.
With that said, let's transition to our last topic of the day...
The defense of Tiger Woods from a Men's Rights Perspective.
Tiger Woods, one of the most exceptional golfers to ever live, posted the following on his website:
Tiger Woods taking hiatus from golf
By Tiger Woods
I am deeply aware of the disappointment and hurt that my infidelity has caused to so many people, most of all my wife and children. I want to say again to everyone that I am profoundly sorry and that I ask forgiveness. It may not be possible to repair the damage I've done, but I want to do my best to try.
I would like to ask everyone, including my fans, the good people at my foundation, business partners, the PGA Tour, and my fellow competitors, for their understanding. What's most important now is that my family has the time, privacy, and safe haven we will need for personal healing.
After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.
Again, I ask for privacy for my family and I am especially grateful for all those who have offered compassion and concern during this difficult period.
At this juncture, I am going to do something that many on the internet and blogosphere have not done, and that is to defend the Tiger.
In many ways, I can relate to Mr. Woods. He and I are of the same generation, we are both multi-racial individuals trying to excel in our chosen paths, and we are both married guys trying to make it in a society that discourages marriage on a multitude of levels.
Unlike me, the Tiger has a few billion more dollars in the bank than I do, and that can certainly lead to temptation...
But let me flesh out my argument.
Marriage in America is really hard to do. The culture is against you. The laws are stacked against you. There is no real understanding, or acknowledgment, about what makes men tick. Marriage in this country, in other words, is a hazardous proposition that is best avoided at the present time, except by the ignorant or the insane (like me).
Now did Tiger mess up? Sure he did.
I don't think he handled his business in a skillful way, nor do I think he planned on being exposed like he has. He probably thought shit was all good until that fateful day when he wrecked his SUV into a tree.
One would think that he would have played it smarter... confined his peccadilloes to a very small number of highly trusted confidants, and would have known better than to have someone potentially take naked pictures of him!
Also, it seems that he failed to consider the impact of his actions upon his wife, children, and fanbase. As the head of his household, this is a weighty obligation indeed, and I have to call him out for that.
But in any event, it is what it is. He was doing too much, and it finally caught up with him.
But there is much more to this story than meets the eye. My argument is that there are structural inconsistencies in our society that lead people to do crazy things like the Tiger.
I have to agree somewhat with Hugh Heffner's take on Tigergate:
Hugh Hefner wasn't surprised one bit when he heard about allegations of Tiger Woods cheating on his wife.
"I think the only surprise in it, quite frankly, is that anybody would be surprised," the Playboy mogul tells me exclusively. "If you're a good-looking guy and young and healthy, the notion that there would be something else going on, well, marriage is just a convenience.
"It's very nice for raising kids," he adds, "but the notion that monogamy lasts forever is a wish!..."
I'll have to take some issue with Heff's comments by saying that for some people, monogamous marriage is right and proper. And I would much prefer a monogamous marriage culture to no marriage culture at all.
After all, our current Matriarchal utopia, and the damage it is doing to our babies is enough evidence that marriage is an honorable institution in and of itself that is worth preserving.
However, in my opinion, it is our modern lack of flexibility, as well as a profound ignorance of what makes men tick, that is the real problem.
For example, check out the following article from the Huffington Post:
Jay Michaelson
It's Not Just Tiger: Monogamous Marriage Is An Anomaly
Let the clucking begin. As the tabloids pile on the revelations about our falling star, Tiger Woods, pundits have begun the predictable and proverbial shaking of heads, clucking of tongues, and various forms of bemoaning. Are none of our heroes pure anymore? Or, conversely, is our celebrity culture so ravenous for scandal that there is no privacy left?
Et cetera, et cetera.
But what's the takeaway from all this? We've been through so many celebrity-affair scandals (does anyone remember Eliot Spitzer?) -- haven't we learned anything?
(And, Dear Readers, don't forget David Letterman's indecent confessions)
... How about this one: that the modern institution of marriage, so ardently fought-over by activists across the country, is a historical anomaly that has never been taken seriously in the past, and is unlikely to work in the future. It's a flawed model, and it's not worth defending - because it never really existed, apart from an ideal.
Truly traditional marriage, after all, is polygamy. This is what the Bible instructs, and it's been the dominant familial arrangement in the Western world for longer than any other form, including nuclear-family monogamy. Kings had their concubines, noblemen had their mistresses and kept women, and the rest of us - well, we had the world's oldest profession. None of these were exactly God's word, but they were understood to be part of life.
Indeed, maybe we forget how widespread prostitution really was for most of our history, and how even today, sex is Internet's #1 business and how an estimated 700,000 American men pay women for sex every year. This is not an innovation of our degraded age. It was understood - in the Bible, in the Talmud, in Protestant Europe, in colonial America - that married men would visit prostitutes. And while this may have been a sin, it was everyone's sin - and not a particularly serious one.
What changed all this was, ironically, feminism. The first feminists weren't bra-burning radicals: they were pious scolds, who in late 19th century America mobilized for purifying American manhood. They cleaned out the brothels and closed the pubs - feminists were the first prohibitionists. What had for hundreds of years been the common practice of men of all social classes became a great vice to be eradicated...
... Twentieth century feminism added another layer of condemnation: after all, why should men be allowed to philander while women were expected to remain faithful and stand by their (abusive, cheating) men no matter what? Why are promiscuous men heroes, and promiscuous women sluts? Women aren't slaves, feminism taught us, and men need to respect them as equal partners in marriage. Infidelity had been a religious sin - now it was a secular one as well.
So here we are, 2010 upon us, and still trying to live up to a hopeless monogamous ideal that had never been so strictly upheld before - and is not helping anybody...
There is a lot of painful truth here. Long time readers know that I am for a "polygamous option", where a man could take a set number of women as wives.
I am also for the legalization of prostitution, something I speak about here.
The cold truth is that "Conservatives" have it ass backwards most of the time when they "defend marriage." What they are really doing is defending a chivalrous and zombified institution formerly known as marriage. They intend for men to shoulder crap-tons of responsibility, while at the same time, denying men any reasonable and sustainable way of dealing with their sexual drives, which are much more voracious than those of women, not to mention championing the outdated Victorian idea of putting women up on ivory pedestals just because they have a vagina.
Now here is where I begin to defend Tiger.
We really don't know what exactly was going on in the Woods household. But, it is very possible that sexual relations between himself and his wife dried up or was insufficient to meet the needs of a world class athlete. In the lives of ordinary married men, this happens quite a bit.
It's kinda hard to have those all day Kamasutra sex sessions when a young child is present in the home. It's a little difficult to have your honey walking around in suggestive lingerie when she is trying to do the laundry. Perhaps your wife has a major presentation due next week, and she comes home from work late at night exhausted. And understandably, your all night sexfest = FUBAR.
Shit happens.
So... if your only legal wife decides (remember gents: her body, her choice!) to stop giving up the Nappy Dugout, what do you do?
You are not a woman. You are a man who needs sexual stimulation. This isn't optional... this is a hardwired need.
Well... you could become an ascetic monk and use your sexual energy to open your Kundalini energy system through intense meditation or...
Download a crap ton of internet porn and break out the tissues or...
Go cold turkey and suppress your inherent desires or...
Take up a new hobby to burn off the excess energy or...
Do stupid shit like have 10 mistresses so they can tell everyone they know about your personal business, blow big money on strippers, start drinking heavily, or put your profile on Craigslist.
You get the idea. Men denied satisfaction on a consistent and regular basis tend to do crazy things in order to cope.
Traditionally, men have had two outlets for their desires that at the same time preserved a relatively stable marriage culture. These two systems are prostitution and polygamous marriage.
Both of these are illegal today in the vast majority of the United States.
So what's a man to do?
Tiger, Letterman, and Eliot Spitzer have shown us that the rich and powerful grapple with these issues just like the average married man does. And in each case, the final decision was to go out and get them some Strange.
And many marriages are destroyed because our society does not deal with these very real issues in a skillful and realistic manner. Instead, we have a Matriarchal system of double standards, Catch 22's, and Damned-if-you-do, Damned-if-you-don't-isms. If we want to really protect and preserve marriage in the years to come, then we need to rethink what marriage is about, and actually understand that men have needs too, just as women do. We've taken into account what women want, but we have yet to acknowledge what men want.
This is not a sustainable situation, and we need to get it right for ourselves, for our children, for our nation, and our world.
Bottom line: While I am disappointed that Mr. Woods handled his business in such a sloppy manner, I can understand where he's coming from. He came clean, him and his woman are going to hopefully work it out, and they'll move on with life. But, in my opinion, this case demonstrates the need for men to consider our own interests for a change, and allow men who do need more than one woman to take care of their needs in the least socially disruptive manner possible.
Conclusion.
It remains to be seen if Tiger can resurrect his career, his image, and his marriage. But I can't help but think: what if his wife had some knowledge of his doings... and what if she was down with that? Does she truly understand her man more than the army of media types telling all of their personal business 24-7? If so, then she is ahead of the curve.
I said it once, and I'll say it again... our legal, religious, and social systems need to be changed so that the rights, desires, and wishes of men are respected, so long as these rights and desires do not violate the rights of others. Unless this happens, society, economy, liberty and spirituality will all continue to degrade and implode.
We all love to look out for the children, and we bend over backwards to enforce feminist public policy... but what about the men? When do we get what the fuck we want?
From Grass Eating men, sagging birthrates, to the latest celebrity sex scandal, it is becoming apparent that Men have judged our current social constructs, and found them wanting. Man is the spark, the thumos, the creative and driving force on this planet. But in many places, Man is in chains. He is being artificially constrained. And he is making decisions, some wise, others damn foolish, in an attempt to find his equilibrium.
No matter where we look, be it government, finance, marriage or career life, the bulk of men are not being served. Their needs are not being met, and their happiness is not being considered. And in response, we are seeing once vibrant institutions imploding as vast numbers of men decide to seek their own path.
If the way of political feminism is death, then the way of enlightened manliness will bring life.
Until these sorely needed changes are made, then it is better for Men to Go Their Own Way. Unfortunately, the social order will suffer in direct proportion.
Balance and a happy mean is needed.
Gyo.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
What the F^&k now??
Saturday, December 5th, 2009
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
Ladies and gentlemen,
Your attention please.
Adults who are 18 years of age or older and not easily offended should click here to watch a very important video on Youtube.
Please watch carefully.
If you believe this video is of some f*&king value, please share this with others.
Oh and before I go... I have a special message for the feminists...
SHUT THE F#$K UP!
Love,
Tony "Pretty Boy" Gyokko.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
Forecasting the End of Feminism
Sunday, November 29th, 2009
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving holiday!
Most readers know that I am optimistic about the future of Men's rights, and I believe that Political Feminism will be put out of its misery in the near future.
So let's talk about why I think the femmes are doomed.
Let's go!!
Radar: First they ignore you.
Not too long ago, a valued reader asked me why I was so optimistic about the future of Men's Rights. How could I be so confident, he wondered, that the power of political feminism is beginning to wane?
Firstly, I want to make it clear that political feminists still have a lot of clout, and that terrible injustices are happening to men and boys day in and day out. That is the reality. And we shouldn't forget that change happens very slowly; political feminism will do everything it can to prolong its unnatural life. Political feminism, in other words, is still armed and extremely dangerous.
In making statements about the future of feminism, I evaluate the ideology in the same way I evaluate the future prospects of an investment. I am looking for trends; small and subtle happenings that could lead to huge manifestations at some point in the future.
I forecast the ebb and flow of political feminist dominance using a variety of tools. One method I use, because I believe that feminism is an expression of psychic forces and human will, is the law of In and Yo (more commonly known as Yin and Yang).
As I mentioned in a previous post, I belong to a certain school of knowledge that prepares one for a wide range of combat and survival scenarios. When one is engaged in a military operation, forecasting the winds of fortune becomes a valuable skill.
One method to try to determine the outcome of an engagement in advance is the art of forecasting using In and Yo.
The law of In and Yo is fairly simple. The universe is cyclical in nature. All things ebb and flow. There is a waxing and a waning cycle that applies to all things.
The stock market rises and falls. Nations rise and fall. The moon waxes and wanes. People are born and then they die.
Nothing rests indefinitely, and everything is in constant motion.
Nothing in the natural world lasts forever, and, by extension, no ideology lasts forever either.
This is a simplified explanation of the law of In and Yo. With this knowledge, one can look for signs and cues and determine where we are at in any particular cycle, and one can also look for clues for expansion or contraction.
If one determines that feminism is in its ascending phase, then it is wise to get out of the way unless one wants to be crushed underfoot.
If one determines that feminism is entering into its descending phase, then one can help the process along by intense criticism and activism. In other words, we as Men's Rights Activists can help hasten its fall as the inescapable force of gravity takes hold of our favorite hate movement.
I believe there is enough evidence out there to suggest that political feminism is in decline.
One must also remember the 80/20 rule: 80 percent of outputs are caused by 20 percent of inputs. As Mr. Koch explains here, small, seemingly random events, such as, for example, a man in the UK writing a blog post critical of political feminism, could cause massive waves. Add a court decision here, a breakthrough study there, an economic crisis on top of that, and all of a sudden, the ship of political feminism could face the perfect storm that could potentially tear the vessel apart and run it aground.
There are Universal Laws that can be observed and applied to real life events and situations. If one is looking for clues as to the future trends affecting an event, a nation, or an ideology, one can determine whether or not it is waxing or waning. One can also determine if it is wise to confront the ideology directly, or attack it subtly. Sometimes it is better to keep oneself out of harms way, and other times, bold and direct opposition is the best course of action.
It should also be pointed out that movements and ideologies that violate Universal Laws will not long survive, as they go against the Universal grain. It takes massive amounts of energy and capital to overcome resistance and advance the unnatural social organization that political feminist public policy demands, and I believe it is beginning to run out of steam as various forms of drag begin to take hold. As more men (and women) free themselves from the Fematrix, the political, economic, and social will to continue on with our Matriarchal public policy will dissolve along with it.
And, as a wee bit of evidence to support my ramblings, allow me to share this recent Radar alert:
"First they ignore you, ..."
Two weeks ago, Slate.com's short-lived1 publication "Double X" published an article by Kathryn Joyce entitled "'Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective."2
This was not Slate.com's finest hour. One thing this article could never be accused of is objective reporting.
On Nov. 5th, the very same day the Double X article appeared, Salon.com's Broadsheet published an article by Judy Berman entitled "'Men's rights' groups go mainstream"3 that adds no new information, and simply seems to be an effort to repeat the Double X article to Salon's readers...
... Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." The joint Slate/Salon attack pieces are a good indication that we're well past stage 1.
Congratulation to all RADAR supporters and allies for getting us this far. Let's keep it up!
Respect to RADAR, Glen Sacks, and countless other MRAs who are on the front lines in the battle against Political Feminism.
Let's take a moment to look at the Double X article:
"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective
They’re changing custody rights and domestic violence laws.
By: Kathryn Joyce
At the end of October, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, members of the men’s movement group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting [2]) gathered on the steps of Congress to lobby against what they say are the suppressed truths about domestic violence: that false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.
“It’s now reached the point,” reads a statement from RADAR, “that domestic violence laws represent the largest roll-back in Americans’ civil rights since the Jim Crow era!”
RADAR’s rhetoric may seem overblown, but lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.
Ahh yes. You can feel the fear. The political feminists are worried, and for good reason. Their deceitful, harmful, and hurtful movement is going to be dumped like so much trash, and THEY KNOW IT.
The times, they are a changin'. And, in this next paragraph from Double X, we have a prime example of why feminism is toast... their entire movement is based upon lies, falsehoods, and propaganda:
... In this, critics like Australian sociologist Michael Flood say that men’s rights movements reflect the tactics of domestic abusers themselves, minimizing existing violence, calling it mutual, and discrediting victims. MRA groups downplay national abuse rates, just as abusers downplay their personal battery; they wage campaigns dismissing most allegations as false, as abusers claim partners are lying about being hit; and they depict the violence as mutual—part of an epidemic of wife-on-husband abuse—as individual batterers rationalize their behavior by saying that the violence was reciprocal. Additionally, MRA groups’ predictions of future violence by fed-up men wronged by the family-law system seem an obvious additional correlation, with the threat of violence seemingly intended to intimidate a community, like a fearful spouse, into compliance...
Good ol Michael Flood.
It turns out that I have already debunked his entire line of reasoning, and exposed his thesis as fundamentally flawed [a][b][c][d]. As usual, feminist rhetoric is trumped by correct reasoning and irrefutable evidence.
In any event... political feminism is a dead hag walking. It simply cannot stand up to any objective scrutiny, and its only a matter of time before it collapses upon itself like a ton of bricks. And believe you me... the feminists know this to be true.
Conclusion
The art of forecasting is an inexact science. My timing could be wrong, or something might happen to totally alter my prediction.
However, I see that the trends are lining up to sink the ship of political feminism. And, as they say in the world of finance, "the trend is your friend... until it ends."
So, until further notice, I will continue to assert that the best days of political feminism are behind it. Going forward, they are going to face ever mounting scrutiny and analysis.
Unfortunately for political feminism... an ideology based on deception and lies simply cannot take the heat. And I believe the day is coming when feminist public policy will be overthrown.
I, for one, can't wait for that day.
Gyokko.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
National Inflation Association presents: The Dollar Bubble.
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
By Jeweled Tiger School [source]
The Final Frontier.
Check tha footage.
Time grows short. I highly recommend that you, Dear Reader, throw your financial survival plan into high gear...
End Transmission.
Topics: Jeweled Tiger School | View Comments
« Previous Entries