This
Government sponsored empire, is the
most organized, coordinated, corrupt
and financially supported syndicate
in the history of mankind. It
openly, and arrogantly advertises
and disseminates errant disinformation
campaigns, and promulgates outright
lies—and surprisingly—those lies are
immediately swept up by the national
mainstream media and instantly propagated
unto an unsuspecting American public.
They are consistently bludgeoned so
much by this incessant information
that these lies become part of the
American substrate and mindset.
Americans can no longer tell who,
or what, is telling the truth in regards
to the American Family and the children
within this nation. They are
only being presented the feminist/government
“politically correct” pabulum which
spews forth incessantly from the mainstream
media. From this well-organized
sophistry, these lies wind up in the
American consciousness and vocabulary
as if they were true; even though
they are egregiously false.
American Presidents and other Governmental
institutions, depend on these lies
and mythologies to increase their
empires and to allow even more oppressive
legislation to be enacted against
the father. Their plan is to
debilitate what is advertised as the
main prevaricator of this well-advertised
‘abuse’ agent against children and
mothers, which is of course the American
Father. It has now become
so systematic that Fatherhood clearly
is not in the “Best Interests of the
Child”, that our infamous courts,
the media and the American society
have been inculcated to react with
a vengeance against the American male
and Father. Fathers are no longer
good for the American Family, nor
our children; and as we shall see
from the voluminous facts and figures
in regards to this subject, amazingly;
Fatherhood has now become one of the
greatest crimes that any citizen can
commit in this society. It is,
in fact, the greatest crime in human
history.
The Members
Of The System (MOTHs) are told they
have power (“jurisdiction”) over you,
and this emboldens them to feel secure
as they invade your life and use power
on you and your children. (The
amount of power used, depends on how
you relate to them.)
Its 4 outputs The uninitiated
might think that the only result of
the System is the decision by a judge,
but actually there are several kinds
of outcomes in The System:
1.)
the independent action of the
agencies,
2.)
intimidation by the repeated
filing of papers,
3.)
the monetary loss of hiring
an attorney,
4.)
the decision of a judge
The results The System yields
overburdened mothers, absent fathers,
angry children, distraught grandparents,
repeat litigation, violence, kidnapping
and abuse. The System damages
parent-child relationships, overloads
the welfare system, demoralizes the
removed fathers, and shifts an ever
bigger national debt to future adults
“in their best interest.”
[Where
Have All the Good Fathers Gone?
Child Support and Custody, by Douglas
O’Brien, ©1997, Skid 18 Press, P.O.
Box 60630, Fairbanks, AK 99706; p.
6.]
Indeed, this system has propagated
not only empires, but legalized hate
groups which are openly radical extremist
Feminist organizations, and even more
insidiously, they are otherwise labeled
as “Community Organizations” such
as “Women’s Centers,” “Community Centers,”
“Safe Houses,” media, and other ‘organizations’
which are extremely well funded by
an ever-expanding empire of government
grants and funding sources totally
dedicated to support the destruction
of the American two-parent model nuclear
family, and more importantly the American
Father. Presently, through these
massive funding’s, these institutions
actively support, and implement Radical
Feminist teachings and socialist program’s
to the point to where parents no longer
are in control of their own children
(nor their own lives). They
support and implement training programs
for public institutions such as schools
to teach anti-Christian and antithetical
concepts as Lesbianism and homosexuality,
and other open ‘alternate’ lifestyles
to where our children are being drawn
into a new paradigm of ‘tolerance’
of public sponsored perversion, which
is not only advocated, but now actively
taught as societal norms. Those
who oppose these unclean denigration’s
become attacked by an all-too-willing
government monolith whose altruistic
intent is to destroy those who oppose
these questionable life-styles which
affirm American morality. John
Stuart Mill addressed this issue in
his masterpiece “On Liberty” in regards
to this “Tyranny of the Majority”:
Like other tyrannies, the tyranny
of the majority was at first, and
is still vulgarly, held in dread,
chiefly as operating through the acts
of the public authorities. But reflecting
persons perceived that when society
is itself the tyrant--society collectively,
over the separate individuals who
compose it--its means of tyrannizing
are not restricted to the acts which
it may do by the hands of its political
functionaries. Society can and does
execute its own mandates: and if it
issues wrong mandates instead of right,
or any mandates at all in things with
which it ought not to meddle, it practices
a social tyranny more formidable than
many kinds of political oppression,
since, though not usually upheld by
such extreme penalties, it leaves
fewer means of escape, penetrating
much more deeply into the details
of life, and enslaving the soul itself.
Protection, therefore, against the
tyranny of the magistrate is not enough;
there needs protection also against
the tyranny of the prevailing opinion
and feeling; against the tendency
of society to impose, by other means
than civil penalties, its own ideas
and practices as rules of conduct
on those who dissent from them; to
fetter the development, and, if possible,
prevent the formation, of any individuality
not in harmony with its ways, and
compel all characters to fashion themselves
upon the model of its own.
[John
Stuart Mill Harvard Classics Volume
25 Copyright 1909 P.F. Collier &
Son]
Where once fathers were admonished
not to dominate and inculcate their
children to ‘be like them’ and to
mold their children in their own image
of rugged individualism and to respect
and maintain their own heritage--now
presently; radical feminists infest
our schools with nascent teachings
such as “Heather’s got Two Mommies,”
“I’ve got no Daddy” and other institutional
programs which are most certainly,
inculcating their belief’s upon our
own children. The aggregate
numbers of these types of books now
being taught in our schools is a grave
indicator as to the destruction of
the Family and most certainly the
American Father:
At the
same time, children’s books on illegitimacy
and parental abandonment began to
appear. There was resurgent
interest in step-parents as well.
A new figure, the violent and sexually
abusive step-father, joined a more
familiar character, the cruel and
calculating step-mother, in the pages
of these children’s books. During
the 1970s and 1980s the fascination
with these dark themes grew.
In 1977 a comprehensive bibliography
listed more than two hundred pages’
worth of children’s books dealing
with loss and separation. By
1989 the list had grown to more than
five hundred pages.
[The Divorce
Culture, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
©1996, Borzoi Book, Published by Alfred
A. Knopf, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-679-43230-2;
p.108.]
This clearly appears to be a cogent
program to undermine the two-parent
model of the nuclear family, within
our own schools. The feminist
defend their ‘right’ not only for
children to defy and question their
parents, or discipline itself, but
also to openly demand and access ‘free’
government sponsored abortions, and
other alternative lifestyles, without
the parents authority and/or consent.
A host of other government sponsored
perversions whose only intent is to
destroy the Father and conventional
two-parent ‘nuclear’ family are readily
available—only for the asking.
Indeed, our schools and universities
have become foreign-pseudo-intellectual
breeding grounds to where it is unlawful
to dare to attempt to place a mere
Christmas Manger within a school or
say something as benign as the pledge-of-allegiance
inside our classrooms; yet conversely;
now our schools have become feminist
sponsored enclaves of the open avocation
of Lesbianism, Gay and Homosexual
exploration and validation, and training
grounds for extreme forms of promiscuity
and sexuality—“a woman’s right to
control her own sexuality, freedom
and reproduction rights”--all under
the moniker of “Equality”, “The Child’s
Best Interests”, or “It takes a Village
to Raise a Child…” Of course,
Western Civilization understood these
same teachings to be in another state
of society:
Among nations
of hunters, the lowest and rudest
state of society, such as we find
it [is] among the native tribes of
North America, everyman is a warrior
as well as hunter...
[Wealth
of Nations by Adam Smith, Vol. II
Everyman’s Library, Dutton : New York,
©1910 reprinted in 1971, ISBN- 0-460-00413-1,
p. 182.]
What can easily be seen here is that
Adam Smith, who wrote this over 100
years ago, is clearly describing our
modern day Welfare ghetto’s in which
these feminist are generating.
He is describing the tribal condition
of Matriarchy, in which the
human race tends to devolve to when
the Father has been removed from his
rightful authority within this institution.
This tribal condition currently is
being marketed under the title of
“Feminism” or Hillary Clinton’s “Village.”
Indeed, the subversion of the American
two-parent family has willingly been
sponsored by the omniscient overture
of government which has willfully
vilified Fatherhood and in which our
courts have radically implemented
injustice via an arrogant Judicial
Activist,: Anti-Americanism court
system. In cogently creating
this nationally sponsored vilification,
criminalization, and hatred against
the American Father, it has artificially
created and sustained a mythical “Bogeyman”—the
Father--which it has marketed at the
insistence and documentation of radical
feminism. It has allowed a clearly
demarcated hate-group, the Radical
Feminists, with a clear hate agenda
against males, Carte Blanche access
to national wealth and government
services, media and financial sponsorship
in which to undermine that one entity
of Fatherhood. History
has noted similar persecution:
As with the
Nazi elimination of the Jew, the same
sham of the vilification of the American
Father and his elimination serves
several purposes, the main one being
removal of the main authority, power
and protection from the American home
all under the Feminist guise of ‘equality,’
‘fairness.,’ and being in “The Best
Interests of the Child.” This
vilification and creation of a “Bogeyman”
is all too willingly accepted by an
unsuspecting American public whom
is fed disinformation and outright
lies in regards to the facts of this
issue. Because the present population
is a product of this feminist indoctrination
being not only taught this new paradigm
of “tolerance” and being incessantly
bombarded with feminist/government
propaganda from our mainstream media;
in reality; they no longer have the
ability to discern the true crisis
against fathers or the American family.
Yet, government in gaining authority
and absolute power within a society
has to remove several key things in
which to subvert a society from law
to the autocratic monopoly of a power-hungry
elite regime. Once the father
is removed as the main authority figure
and disciplinarian of the American
household, it is at this exact instant,
when both parents are instantly removed
from their parenting function to one
of being reduced to secondary surrogate
ad lietem guardians of their own children.
In fact, once the father is removed
from his rightful position as the
authority and main-disciplinarian
in the home, the State, through the
doctrine of Parens Patriæ [the state
as the ultimate parent] becomes the
only real parent of the children.
Criteria
for determining custody-generally
“The court
is required to give such direction,
as between the parents of a child,
for the custody, care, education,
and maintenance of the child as in
the court’s discretion, justice requires
having regard to the circumstances
of the case and of the respective
parties and to the best interests
of the child. DRL $240 (Subd.
1). The court is required to
determine what is in the best interests
of the child and what disposition
will best promote the child’s welfare
and happiness, and will make an award
accordingly. DRL §170.
In determining a child’s custody,
the court acts as parens patriæ to
do what is best for the child.
The court is to place itself in the
position of a “wise”, “affectionate
and careful” parent and make provision
for the child accordingly,”
Matter of Finlay, 240 N.Y. 429, 433,
148, N.E. 624 (1925)
[West’s
McKinney’s Form’s – Matrimonial and
Family Law, Covering Domestic Relations,
General Obligations, Family Court,
Alan D. Scheinkman, @1985, West Publishing
Co., St. Paul Minnesota]
From this insanity, a parent
can no longer dare raise their hand
to their own children, no matter what
the circumstances be regardless if
it is for disciplinarian purposes
or an aberrant folly, for in that
one instant; the Pandora’s Box has
been opened, At this exact instant,
the State can factually, second-guess
any attempt at any form of discipline
given to the children. Upon
any dissention, they will enter the
home, and seize the children and place
parents in jail. The Government
under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ
is the parent of your child.
YOU are not.
“Parents
do not own their children. They
merely care for them in trust for
the rest of society. To maximize
healthy growth and development, all
children should grow up surrounded
by social relationships that are close,
personal, and enduring.
[Child
Abuse, An American Epidemic, by Elaine
Landau, ©1990, Julian Messner, Silver
Burdett Press, Inc., Simon & Schuster,
Inc., Prentice Hall Bldg., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ 07632, ISBN 0-671-68874-X;
p. 18.]
Conversely, when the father is the
head of the family, the state immediately
loses this autocratic function.
But with the father subverted to the
States’ Socialistic Paternalism’ under
the “Parens Patriæ” doctrine, no parent
can truly ever-again discipline or
even own their own child [place cite
here about father who was jailed for
spanking], teach their child [place
cite here about family who lost their
children for teaching Bible and Constitutionalism],
or inculcate family traditions or
moral values over that of government
[place cite here about child being
taught homosexuality, also girl who
was pregnant and parents didn’t know].
Indeed, parents become no more than
Foster homes, temporarily minding
the bidding of the State—daring never
to supercede its ultimate authority—for
if they do, that family is in dire
jeopardy. What has occurred
over the last 40 to 50 years due to
the direct forced implementation of
Feminism and Socialism has proven
that when the mother is given custody
upon separation or divorce, she cannot
take care of the children by herself,
she needs outside economic support
and government subsidy. This
is what makes the Government the ultimate
parent under the doctrine of Parens
Patriæ. Conversely, with the
father in place as the head of the
household, then; the Family becomes
a sealed economic viable unit, and
not only does it not need any outside
economic support or subsidy: it accrues
wealth not only to the contemporary
family, but to its descendant’s as
well. Under this model, society
also benefits greatly through the
resilient strength and wealth, emanating
from those families. Again,
note the most pertinent parts of the
legal definition of this doctrine:
Parens
Patriæ—Parent of his country; refers
traditionally to the role of the state
as sovereign and guardian of persons
under legal disability. 440
F 2d. 1079, 1089. The term is
a concept of standing often used by
courts of equity when acting on behalf
of the state to protect and control
the property and custody of minors
and incompetent persons.
The court,
as an arm of the state, acts in the
capacity of parens patriæ when it
awards custody of a minor to one parent
in a divorce, separation, or habeas
corpus proceeding. By exercising
this authority the state emphasizes
that a child is not the absolute property
of a parent, but is a “trust” reposed
in a parent by the state. 26
A. 2d 799, 809...While the term originated
in England and referred to the power
of the kind, in America it refers
to the people or the state.
41 N.W. 2d 60, 70
[Barron’s
Legal Guides—Law Dictionary, Steven
H. Gifis, © 1996 by Barron’s Educational
Series, Inc., 250 Wireless Boulevard,
Hauppauge, New York 11788, ISBN 0-8120-3096-6,
p. 360,]
Ad Litem—for the lawsuit; for the
purposes of the suit being prosecuted.
A GUARDIAN AD LITEM is a person appointed
by the court to protect the interests
of a minor or legally incompetent
person in a lawsuit. [IBID p. 12]
Indeed, this is old history, and this
premise of usurpation of the Father’s
authority within his own home is best
described within Fredrick Bastiat’s
treatise “The Law”.
If
every person has the right to defend
-- even by force -- his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it
follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common
force to protect these rights constantly.
Thus the principle of collective right
-- its reason for existing, its lawfulness
-- is based on individual right. And
the common force that protects this
collective right cannot logically
have any other purpose or any other
mission than that for which it acts
as a substitute. Thus, since an individual
cannot lawfully use force against
the person, liberty, or property of
another individual, then the common
force -- for the same reason -- cannot
lawfully be used to destroy the person,
liberty, or property of individuals
or groups.
Such
a perversion of force would be, in
both cases, contrary to our premise.
Force has been given to us to defend
our own individual rights. Who will
dare to say that force has been given
to us to destroy the equal rights
of our brothers? Since no individual
acting separately can lawfully use
force to destroy the rights of others,
does it not logically follow that
the same principle also applies to
the common force that is nothing more
than the organized combination of
the individual forces?
The Complete Perversion of the Law
But,
unfortunately, law by no means confines
itself to its proper functions. And
when it has exceeded its proper functions,
it has not done so merely in some
inconsequential and debatable matters.
The law has gone further than this;
it has acted in direct opposition
to its own purpose. The law has been
used to destroy its own objective:
It has been applied to annihilating
the justice that it was supposed to
maintain; to limiting and destroying
rights which its real purpose was
to respect. The law has placed the
collective force at the disposal of
the unscrupulous who wish, without
risk, to exploit the person, liberty,
and property of others. It has converted
plunder into a right, in order to
protect plunder. And it has converted
lawful defense into a crime, in order
to punish lawful defense.
[Frederick
Bastiat, “The Law” (Italic’s, bold’s
and underline’s by RLCII for clarity
of issues).]
From this we can see, the state needs
these altruistic causes to use as
platforms in which to establish a
venue in which to gain a reason for
‘public support’ of a cause which
they then malign into a broad spectrum
of virtually unlimited state powers.
They would rather to broaden the scope
and tenor of these powers to unlimited
proportions. Attacking the American
family, and by vilifying the American
Father, the feminists have found a
perfect instrument for such a government
seeking the unlimited scope of powers
through “Autocracy”. For
once the American home has been subverted,
and the core values, traditions and
laws of the home have been superceded
by government authority—what else
can’t a government overcome?
Frankly, the rest is moot, for once
government has successfully intruded
into the American home by eradicating
the Fathers natural position within
that home, there is no further restraint
or control upon government.
From over-riding the home and family,
government then controls all.
The resultant establishment of Single
Female Headed Household’s, has failed
not only to raise a viable generations
of children, but they have also failed
to allow the an environment where
the traditional two-parent nuclear
family can flourish. This means
that once Dad is removed from the
home, the remaining woman will need
subsidy through government services
in which to raise the children, and
upon that; the children will not fair
very well. Thereby; in the final
analysis, with the Father gone, the
State intentionally becomes the final,
and ultimate parent. From this
dead weight which is burdened upon
society, society thereby has more
social pressures placed against it,
and thereby; the safe stable environment
of the home, where once the United
States once categorically placed first
across every social indicator across
the board, declines. This is
a Matriarchal devolution of the total
society which is not a healthy environment
for two-parent families with children.
“The distinction
of birth, being subsequent to the
inequality of fortune, can have no
place in nations of hunters, among
whom all men, being equal in
fortune, must likewise be very nearly
equal at birth,”
[Wealth
of Nations, Adam Smith, vol. II, p.
202]
Again, Smith describes
the matriarchal model of the tribe,
the ‘lowest and rudest’ state of society.
Feminists such as Ms. Clinton and
her socialist supporters, want this
‘equal’ tribal “Village” model among
us all, for remove the father from
the home, and society naturally devolves
to this tribal state. Once the
tribal state has been established,
then; “Government” becomes the parent,
and the Welfare state obtains eternal
monies, subsidies and power in which
to maintain this imperial empire.
They do this through their own system,
by legalized Autocracy, which intrudes
into the most basic areas of family
lives. This in itself is a pressure
which eventually has disastrous effects
upon the long-term stability of the
home.
What is really perverse in regards
to the Parens Patriæ doctrine, is
that it is the ultimate oxymoron.
Beyond that: it’s use by the state,
is an outrighf fraud. Note the
following.:
FATHER
OF HIS COUNTRY
Quintus
Catulus, speech before the Roman Senate,
A.D. 64, referring to Cicero, after
his exposure of the conspiracy of
Catiline. Cicero, In Pisonem,
ch. 3, says, “Quintus Catulus, before
a crowded meeting of the Senate,
named me father of my Country.”
(Parentum Patriae nominaut).
Plutarch, Lives: Cicero, ch. 23, sec.
3, describes at some length how the
title “Father of his Country” ...was
bestowed upon Cicero, and adds, “He
was the first to receive this title,
after Cato had given it to him before
the people,” Cicero nowhere
refers to Cato as the coiner of the
phrase, so in this Plutarch was probably
mistaken. It will be noted that
Cicero uses “Parens Patriæ” but the
usual phrase, following Plutarch is
“Pater Patriæ.” Pliny, however,
also uses Latin as in English, between
it and “Pater Patriæ.” The latter
connoting the more intimate relationship.
Luscn, for instance, De Bello Civilli,
ii, 7, has “Parens Rerum” (the parent
of things), while Pliny the Younger,
Epistles, v. 19, has “Pater famillias”
(Father of a family).
“But Rome
was yet free when she styled Cicero
Parent and Father of his Country.
(Sed Roma Parentum | Roma Patrem Patriæ
Ciceronem libera dexit. )
[Juvenal,
Satires Sat. Viii, 1. 243 (c. A.D.
120)]
To safeguard
the citizens is the greatest [virtue]
of the Father of his Country.
(Servare Cives major est Patriæ Patri.)
[Seneca,
Octavia, 1, 444 (c. A.D. 60)
A good
Prince ought to purchase to him selfe
the name of the Father of his Countrie,
and not to beare himselfe otherwise
towardes his subjectes, then a Father
doeth towards his sonnes.
[Stefano
Guazzo, Civle Conversation. Bk. 11,
p. 209 (1574) Pettie Tr.
What the reader
will note here is several things.
First, is that Fatherhood apparently
was not the ‘terrible scourge’ that
today’s contemporary Feminists make
it out to be. In fact,
in relation to Cicero, and in according
with Stefano Guazzo, it was once a
highly bestowed title, one of eminent
responsibility and Justice.
There could be no higher title.
Another point is that this was bestowed
upon Cicero, when “Rome was yet free”
when he received the title.
Indeed, again we can see the ancients
had made a clear correlation between
‘freedom’ and the father—or Patriarchy--something
that does not exist today, or to be
more succinct, something which is
not Politically Correct today.
Clearly, as a United Nations survey
shows, the United States is presently
listed in 13th place as
far as free nations, where it once
stood first for over a century...and
unfortunately, it is 13th,
and still dropping. This is
yet another clear social indicator
that something is terribly wrong under
this present Feminist regime of power.
Lastly, it is an ultimate affront
that the Courts and this Government
assumes this title and position under
its contemporary usage as “the ultimate
Parent”—clearly; there is no ‘guardian’
here. There is only an autocratical
tyrant. They are using the ultimate
powers under the Doctrine of Parens
Patriæ to ‘supposedly’ save us, yet;
their actions are only those of an
abusive father, again; a tyrant—clearly
the relationship is not as Guazzo
points out above, that of “then
a Father doeth towards his sonnes.”
What present Father who has been destroyed
by this present feminist “Village”
despotism, feels towards either the
government or the courts the way a
son would feel before his own father?
Presently, to the greatest extent,
all men fear this new government.
Clearly, the government is no father
in the true sense of the meaning of
Parens Patriæ. Indeed, Thomas
Fuller made this observation as how
we should feel if this system were
truly operating under a system of
“Parens Patriæ”: “He
whose Father is Judge, goes safe to
his trial.” {Thomas Fuller,
Gnomologia. No. 2400 (1732).]
No Father feels safe in these Feminist
Jurisprudence dominated courts, especially
those who seek to uphold their ultimate
rights of Fatherhood over that of
the state. For in fact, in our
present courts, just as Fredrick Bastiat
noted above, “The
law has gone further than this; it
has acted in direct opposition to
its own purpose. The law has been
used to destroy its own objective:
It has been applied to annihilating
the justice that it was supposed to
maintain.” Sadly,
this has created a crisis so profound,
as to spill over into every American’s
lives, as nobody can trust this out-of-control
Judiciary any longer.
The arrogance of these people to lay
title and claim to our homes and our
children, all under the title of the
‘ultimate Father’ or ‘parent’ and
then terrorize us under the moniker
of the State, in the name of “We the
People,” under the title of “law”
is an affront to the very foundational
fabric of which this nation was founded.
This paradox is as legion as the Germans
of WWII placating and leading innocent
Jews to their Slaughter, all the while
the entrance to their ultimate demise
read: “Through work, Salvation.”
The present out-of-control “Village”
government and court systems are in
fact guilty of this same use of outrageous
diametric epiphanies. What we
are documenting here can only in fact,
be labeled as high treason.
AMERICAN
LAW AND THE FATHER
It is said, that American law is a
building, built brick by brick, each
law resting on the case precedence
of previous law, the stability of
legal reasoning and case precedence
aligning the law into a stable, cohesive
set of linear legal reasoning’s that
can be depended upon, and almost mathematically
traced back into antiquity.
This is no longer true in American
law, and this modern disjuncture in
the precedence of law, is due in great
part, to Feminist Jurisprudence.
There is a present cancer within the
law. Feminist Jurisprudence
is unlike the stability of that brick
house formerly mentioned. Under
Feminist Jurisprudence, their law
starts building completely out of
the ether, magically appearing from
mid-air starting at the second story
without any legal precedent or American
legal foundation from the past supporting
it. This incredible feminist
legal building creates the bricks
from nothing which then are laid out
across the planet, into the solar
system; perhaps into other dimensions.
It has no cohesiveness, no intellect,
no logic. It is most certainly
illegal, and consummately Anti-American.
It is based solely on anarchy and
power—and has no lawful precedence
in law—even within its own domain.
It comes from Marxist Jurisprudence
and Totalitarianism. Yet…Judges adhere
to this new Feminist Jurisprudence
law with a vengeance, local District
Attorney’s apply it daily with insolence,
and lawyers will religiously attend
to its miscegenation. Feminist
Jurisprudence in fact, is anti-law.
“In addition
to civil rights such as free speech,
radical feminists are also trying,
in effect, to dismantle equal protection
in the criminal code. In their
well-founded concern with violent
crimes against women—particularly
rape and domestic battery—the radicals
are intent on eliminating many procedural
protections for men accused of such
crimes. Of course, there is
no reason to think that such encroachments
on procedural process will remain
confined only to rape cases; but to
those feminist who dismiss autonomy,
liberty, and privacy as mere male
illusions, that is not a matter of
great concern. At the same time,
radical feminists are taking the exactly
reverse doctrinal approach to cases
of women who kill their partners.
They have worked to create new procedural
defense for such women—the battered
woman syndrome, which, if taken to
its logical extreme, could free any
woman who committed violent crimes.
This paradox suggests that to the
radical feminists, procedural protections
belong exclusively to women.”
[Feminist
Jurisprudence, Equal Rights or New-Paternalism?,
by Michael Weiss and Cathy Young,
Policy Analysis No. 256, June 19,
1996, p. 12.]
Feminism, is in fact communism, as
we will prove in subsequent chapters
of this book. This is the foundation
of principles it adheres to,
as it is a direct delineation of Karl
Marx Communist Manifesto. Present
“government” is now subverted with
a domestic enemy, which now has usurped
the foundational tenants of a free
America through modern “Legislative
Law” which is in direct contradistinction
to our form of government.
A domestic enemy has factually overthrown
this nation, without a shot—from within--and
they have gained this awesome power
by overthrowing the principle element
of the body politic: Overthrowing
the American Male and Father within
his own home and community. In fact,
communism as some scholars notes,
is in fact: defined as non-patriarchy:
“Put another way: like feminism, the
Marxist claim is unfalsifiable; no
matter how long societies fail to
exhibit communism (or non-patriarchy),
it can always be claimed that communism
(or non-patriarchy) is just around
the corner. No exception (as I use
the term) is sufficient to cast any
doubt (much less to refute) the claim.”
-- Steven Goldberg (Dept. of
Sociology, CUNY)
Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy"
Debate
From Robert Sheaffer
sheaffer@netcom.com:
The organic law established in this
nation and Constitutionally supported
in both the Common and Statutory Laws
through antiquity showed that the
Father was the sole head of the household,
and leader and protector of the home
and family. Feminist Jurisprudence
magically appeared out from this ether,
quite recently being commanded out
of a sense of conspired and designed
exigency; and by a mandate by special
interests to only proliferate this
‘special interest’ religion upon the
rest of society. The feminists
in conjunction with Government’s need
for an altruistic vehicle to apply
dominant Federalist power over an
unsuspecting people, married the principles
of ‘abuse’ charges against the expansionist
Federalist policies of FDR’s New Deal
and later, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s
Great Society Socialist programs.
This was a marriage of both need and
convenience and gave each group almost
unlimited access and control into
both power and monies that previously
have been unheard of in modern societies.
The family in essence, became to government
nothing more than a commodity; a vehicle
to be used and harvested at will.
To the feminists and socialists, it
became a vehicle to be used to promote
a socialist special interests agenda,
all the while pretending that they
were doing all this, for our best
interests. The true fact is,
that they did this as a specific design
to overthrow a free nation, and to
replace it, with “something else.”
It was not in our best interests to
do this. Rather, it was done
in direct contravention to this nations
ascribed laws and procedures, e.g.,
“the common law” which was once the
definitively ascribed process for
this nations citizens in their own
courts. It is said a nation
is subverted slowly, step-by-step;
and not by massive leaps and bounds.
Such was the case with Family Law
and Feminist Jurisprudence.
The law stemming from time immemorial
(prior to 1152 and King Richard who
first catalogued the laws) clearly
gave the father the leadership ability
within the home. For instance,
in Rome, the father could in fact
beat, or kill his children under the
doctrine of Patria Postatis; and no
action could be taken against him.
The male, and no other entity controlled
the home. This was not done
due to any Patriarchal conspiracy
requirements, but rather, it was done
more out of design and engineering
needs that societies through trial-and-error
tend to gravitate to. As Dr.
Daniel Amneus clearly shows in his
work “The Case for Father Custody”
the creation of Patriarchy was the
greatest advent of modern Western
civilization. Civilization was
not created out of the new inventions
of agriculture, or husbandry, which
both existed for thousands of
years before the ‘invention’ of Western
civilization (or Patriarchy).
In Dr. Amneus own words: “It wasn’t
the invention of cultivation of agriculture
or even domestication of animals,
both which existed centuries before
the invention of civilization, it
was the basis of the male-kinship
system which evolved over the female-kinship
system which took man out of the tribal
concept of civilization to that of
ordered, civilized society.”
Clearly, this was as big an invention
for humanity as fire or the wheel.
It appears to be the causal factor
for the inception of true civilization.
If it is not the direct causal factor
for modern civilization—Patriarchy
is most assuredly a concomitant necessity
for it.
Indeed, the law via the construct
of logistic necessity within a flourishing
growing society favored Patriarchy,
not as a systematic subjugation of
women, as the feminist would have
us believe, but rather; it was the
path of least resistance to a societies
well-being; the families well-being;
and everyone’s continued growth and
benefit. Ancient societies made
the connection that stable and productive
families contributed to the health
of civilization as a whole.
Patriarchy was the engineered response
to that need, and it evolved through
a male-kinship system which regulated
the female kinship system, which civilization
recognized to be a “lower” or “rudest”
order of civilization that lent itself
to tribalism. Due to this fact
that Patriarchy did not devolve into
a tribal state and that it amassed
the accrual of wealth which was the
main component needed to start an
ascending civilization...in other
words ‘surplus.’ The ancient
societies understood that the health
and safety of all the family members
where well-recognized benefits of
the nuclear two-parent family; which
again; was so recognized and thereby
protected and ingrained in early law.
Indeed, one need only to juxtapose
the present feminist system, compared
that with Patriarchy to know and understand
that Patriarchy, through the control
of the females sexuality by both the
man and society, guaranteed that the
male’s children would keep any wealth
created by the father. It guaranteed
the male an assured product of his
genetic expression, that his wife
would in fact produce his child.
This mandated his genetic response
of protection and defense of his progeny
within the family unit, which would
ultimately benefit society as a whole.
This in fact, as represented in early
law and throughout the history of
Western Civilization; clearly shows
that such recognized favor of the
father controverts the sophistry that
“It takes a Village to Raise a Child.”
This is the confederation of Ms. Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s “Village” thesis:
tribalism.
“Children
exist in the world as well as in the
family. From the moment
they are born, they depend on a host
of other “grown-ups”—grandparents,
neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers,
political leaders, and untold others
who tough their lives directly and
indirectly. Adults police their
streets, monitor the quality of their
food, air, and water, produce the
programs that appear on their televisions,
run the business that employ their
parents, and write the laws that protect
them. Each of us plays a part
in every child’s life: It takes a
village to raise a child.
I chose
that old African proverb to title
this book because it offers a timeless
reminder...”
[It Takes
a Village, and Other Lessons Children
Teach Us, by Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
©1996, Simon & Schuster, Rockerfeller
Center, 1230 Avenue of the America’s,
New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-81843-4,
pp. 11-12. (Bold and Italicized my
emphasis, RLCII]
Ms. Clinton
just didn’t choose that quaint old
African Tribal proverb—she is in fact,
held hostage to it, in implementing
the tribal-socialist Anti-American
version of it upon an unsuspecting
American public. For she’s not
going to find such a quaint proverb
from any Western European civilization
or advanced cultures background, such
as Muslim, Bhuddest, nor even Christian
Mosaic law because her “Village” model
is quintessentially held to a tribal
standard: those of failed ancient
tribal societies, or as Adam Smith
noted earlier: “the lowest and rudest
state of society.” This is where
Ms. Clinton’s theocracy derives from.
These feminist and government sponsored
‘programs’ and ‘entitlement’s’ are
in fact, part of the machine of her
tribal creation. This isn’t
just about quaint old related concepts
given out by some old wise tribal
sage’s...no! This is a complete
political attack upon the structure
and substance of Patriarchy of Western
Civilization itself, which refutes
tribalism and controls the Female
Kinship system in which to make sexuality
work for mankind to create and advanced
civilization.. Patriarchy is
apparently what early human civilization’s
“invented” approximately 5,000 years
ago, to supplant the idea that if
you clearly want to raise a child
in the most beneficial, loving environment,
the choice must be Patriarchy.
Therefore any advanced societies choice
must be Patriarchy. This what
we understand as the two-parent ‘nuclear’
household, and NOT Matriarchy (tribalism)
in which Ms. Clinton and her “Village”
people want to intensely support.
This is not only proven by historical
analysis, it is proven by modern scientific
analysis. All Communist societies
are based on the same feminist premise
of Tribal ‘equality’ under Marxist
doctrines. Such ‘law’ as favored
by such societies are ones that work
against themselves and devolve.
Those modern societies which are Patriarchies
are flourishing or ascending, while
those which are Matriarchies are devolving.
In fact—it was directly due to the
scientific formulation of Patriarchy,
in which society ‘cogently chose’
as the preferred model within society—that
in fact caused modern civilization
to flourish. Factually, this
is what American society chose, and
somehow; from and by unproven Socialist
Social Engineering thesis’ (actually,
in reality—a completely failed theory—as
the Russian collapse has shown the
world), the ruling elite regime in
the American government has criminally
abandoned the foundation of law and
order which guaranteed this form of
free government. The now
adhere to socialist Marxist doctrine,
and call it “Law.”
Need proof of the Anti-American socialist
intent? Again, one only has
to go to Karl Marx and Frederick Engles
master work: The Communist Manifesto.
“We have
seen above, that the first step in
the revolution by the working class
is to raise the proletariat to the
position of ruling class, to win the
battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political
supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all
capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize
all instruments of production in the
hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat
organized as the ruling class, and
to increase the total of productive
forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this
cannot be effected except by means
of despotic inroads in the rights
of property.....
These measures will of course be different
in different countries.
Nevertheless, in the most advanced
countries, the following will be pretty
generally applicable:
1.)
Abolition of property in land
and application of all rents of land
to public purposes.
2.)
A heavy progressive or graduated
income tax.
3.)
Abolition of all rights of
inheritance.
4.)
Confiscation of the property
of all emigrants and rebels.
5.)
Centralization of credit in
the hands of the state, by means of
a national bank...
6.)
Centralization of the means
of communication and transport in
the hands of the state.....
10.)
Free education for all the
children in public schools.
[The Communist
Manifesto, A Modern Edition, by Karl
Marx and Frederick Engles, © 1998
Verso, Verso, UK: 6 Meard Street,
London WIV 3HR, ISBN 1085984-898-2,
pp. 60-61.]
If these
items of this Communist Manifesto
seems strangely familiar, they should.
It has been implemented here in the
United States “by degrees” for the
past 100 years. The Clinton’s
are the graduates of this Marxist
school of thought, and Ms. Clinton’s
book “It Takes a Village” stems directly
from this blueprint, as do most Feminist
doctrines. If you look at the
modern feminist movement, what you
will document and trace is the burgeoning
Soviet socialist order within the
United States. When you research
the origins of feminism or the present-day
Matriarch’s of feminism, all of them
are, and have been, both in the past
and in the present: Socialists and
Anarchists.
Historically, societies which
were Patriarchal, collapsed only when
they atrophied into Ms. Clinton’s
“Village” Matriarchies. As noted
historians Will and Ariel Durant stated
in their book Caesar and Christ:
“A great
civilization is not conquered from
without until it is destroyed from
within. The essential causes
of Rome’s decline lay in her people,
her morals, her class struggles, her
failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism,
her stifling taxes, her consuming
wars.
[Caesar
and Christ, [1944] epilogue, by Will
Durant..]
Again,
if this sounds familiar, it is exactly
due to the same reasons in which overcame
Rome nearly 2,000 years ago.
You can catalogue every one of Durant’s
documented observations and apply
them to modern America. We only
have to then collate the applicable
reasons for this devolution and identify
the incipient cause.
Our law, which is an expression
of the collective regulations of many
Western societies, most importantly
England; politically, created something
quite new, yet it still relied solidly
upon the well established doctrines
and maxims of law for millenium which
only favored Patriarchy.
During
the first one hundred or so years
of American history, a father was,
by law and in practice, both head
of the family and his children's primary
caregiver. Fathers were actively
involved in every aspect of their
children's growth, education, development,
and well-being. Fathers taught
life skills, both through formal instruction
and by example. Fathers decided
who their children would marry and
managed their children's entry into
the world outside the home.
The United States was a patriarchy,
and when divorce occurred, courts
almost always awarded full custody
of the children to fathers.
[Fathers'
Rights, Hard-Hitting & Fair Advice
for Every Father Involved in a Custody
Dispute, by Jeffery M. Leving, c1997;
BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd Street, New
York, NY 10022-5299, ISBN 0-465-02443-2;
p. 27.]
This is not only just seen by through
the analysis of the common law, which
the American Law under the first,
fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth Amendment’s
guarantees, it is also shown through
the structure of Judge made law, through
the maxim's of law, common law, and
through the Founding Fathers themselves:
not to mention Western Civilization.
A list of the Maxims of law shown
in Appendix C shows, over and over
this tendency for societies, even
under Roman Civil Law, which is the
law most favored by contemporary defacto
governments, to favor Patriarchy over
Matriarchy. In fact, our law
only provides for Patriarchy, as it
is the support of this institution
that provides society with the greatest
benefits of success, both economic
and social. It is also
the structure which best protects
individuals and families. Indeed—when
you speak of law in Western Civilization:
you are speaking of familial interactions—Law
is family:
"It
is this patriarchal aggregate--the
modern family thus cut down on one
side and extended on the other--which
meets us on the threshold of primitive
jurisprudence. Older probably
than the State, the Tribe, and the
House, it left traces of itself on
private law long after the House and
the Tribe had been forgotten, and
long after the consanguinity had ceased
to be associated with the composition
of States. I twill be found
to have stamped itself on all the
great departments of jurisprudence,
and may be detected, I think, as the
true source of many of their most
important and most durable characteristics.
At the outset, the peculiarities of
law in its most ancient state lead
us irresistibly to the conclusion
that it took precisely the same view
of the family group which is taken
of individual men by the systems of
rights and duties now prevalent throughout
Europe. There are societies
open to the observation at this very
moment whose laws and usage’s can
scarcely be explained unless they
are supposed never to have emerged
from this primitive condition; but
in communities more fortunately circumstanced
the fabric of jurisprudence fell gradually
to pieces, and if we carefully observe
the disintegration we shall perceive
that it took place principally in
those portions of each system which
were most deeply affected by the primitive
conception of the family.
[Ancient
Law, Its Connection with the Early
History of Society and its Relation
to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry Sumner
Maine, first published in 1861, Dorset
Press, a division of Marboro Books
Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press, ISBN
0-88029-092-7, pp. 110-111.]
Put
in other words:
But Ancient Law, it must again be
repeated, knows next to nothing of
Individuals. It is concerned
not with Individuals, but with Families,
not with single human beings, but
groups.
[Ancient
Law, Its Connection with the Early
History of Society and its Relation
to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry Sumner
Maine, first published in 1861, Dorset
Press, a division of Marboro Books
Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press, ISBN
0-88029-092-7, p. 214.]
These spillover effects were well
known to ancient societies, and those
societies cogently chose Patriarchy
over Matriarchy because of these benefits
which clearly grew from within a stable
home environment. From this,
they evolved at a pace never seen
before in the prior quarter million
years of mans stagnation, which was
held under the Feminist “Village”
system of tribalism.
Our common law, which stems from the
roots of English law, trace its way
through the Magna Charta right back
to our Christian roots of the bible
all the way to Roman, Greek, Assyrian
and Sumarian law. The common
law is in fact the “unwritten law,
the law of great antiquity that lives
in the hearts and minds of men everywhere.”
“Reason
is the life of the law; nay, the common
law itself is nothing but reason...The
Law, which is [the] perfection of
reason.
[First
Institute, by Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634.]
“There
is a written and an unwritten law.
The one by which we regulate our constitutions
in our cities, is the written law;
that which arises from custom is the
unwritten law.”
[Diogenes
Laertius, fl. c. 200.]
In analyzing
these ancient roots from the common
law to the Bible, there is a substantial
declination to favor only the Father
as the sole head of the household
and owner and protector of his wife
and children. Again, this was
not done out of dominance, but rather,
it was a logical expression of a societies
need to favor Patriarchy in which
to assure both the economic success
and social stability and growth of
the society, which it in fact, did—very
well. There was a clear recognition,
that when you have strong families,
you have a strong society. Presently,
in the new Matriarchal archetype,
the Government is insistent on developing
weak families, of men women and especially
children whom need government help:
programs, grants and subsidies—so
that this nation becomes a nation
of weak families, ruled over by a
strong, overwhelming, omniscient government,
which will provide for all their needs:
“from cradle to grave.” . In
fact, it has been said, out of all
systems, the Patriarchal system under
the law while clearly favoring the
father and imbuing him with most of
the legal rights (and responsibilities)
of his home and family, is clearly
the most fair system under the law,
(we will come back to this issue in
subsequent chapters within this book
and prove as such under the
law). Again, this stems by the
fact that the common law is the law
of the highest reason. Of course,
the common law is exactly what Feminist
hate, and instead, they ‘created’
their mythical building out from “Equity”—another
branch of law where no law is used.
Note what Bouvier’s Law dictionary
says about equity:
Equity.
In
the early history of the law, the
sense affixed to this word was exceedingly
vague and uncertain...It was then
asserted that equity was bounded by
no certain limits or rules, and that
it was alone controlled by conscience
and natural justice...
3.)
....The remedies for
the redress of wrongs and for the
enforcement of rights, are distinguished
into two classes, first, those which
are administered in courts of common
law; and secondly, those which are
administered in courts of equity.
You might consider this insipid
conversation
until you look up the definition of
courts of equity:
Equity,
Court of: ...one
which administers justice, where there
are no legal rights....but [are] used
when courts of law do not afford a
complete remedy, and where the complainant
has also an equitable right.
Now, contemporary
Judges will have to convince American
Fathers that they have no legal rights—when
the facts are that every single human
Father entering these fraudulent “Family
Court” tribunals has errantly made
the assumption that they were entering
into Constitutional courts—“under
the law.” Nothing, could ever
be further from the truth. Our contemporary
system of courts is nothing but a
rogue syndicate of anti-law.
They are special “undefined” tribunals
implementing Social Re-Engineering
through the vehicle of “Judicial Activism.”
All this ‘Re-Engineering” is of a
social order which is in direct opposition
to our laws, Western Civilization,
and most importantly: the American
form of Constitutional government.
Fathers must note this judicial slight-of-hand,
as these courts, are taking Fathers,
who by law, own 100% of their children,
then; they are getting them to “appear”
in front these “Courts of Equity”—“FAMILY
LAW COURTS” so that they may *wink*-*wink*
‘make things fair for the Father (and
child)’. The hell these people
are trying to make things fair.
No! They are not!! What
they are doing is forcing fathers
into secret “Family Court” tribunals
to unknowingly get them to silently
submit to EQUITY (where there
is NO LAW!).
Once they have these unsuspecting
Fathers in the jurisdiction of these
rogue courts and “equity” get’s turned
on—LAW GET’S TURNED OFF. Then
they steal the 100% ownership the
Father has over his child, and offer
him “50-50”, and beguile the father
to be happy at getting a mere 50%
of what he owns 100% of in and by
the law. Then, they further
enslave him and force him to transfer
his wealth to where they direct.
Long before the father ever dies,
he has to ‘volunteer’ his wealth and
inheritance, or a greater part of
it, to be siphoned into the courts
programs and “discretion.” What
is left is ruined fathers, and destroyed
children, and national inflating social
pathologies, which only grow, and
grow….and never get solved.
The
bible, which is the root law of the
American experience, and is the foundational
blueprint and legal reasoning for
all our common law and statutory laws
(contrary to Federal, ABA, and Feminist
myth’s otherwise) mandates Patriarchy
for a reason. The leading legal
cite for this is [cite Bible].
Again, the foundation of the legal
brick building of the statutory Law
under the American system of government
comes from the common law which is
clearly represented by the Bible.
You can clearly see the lineage of
this brick-work in the Common Law
up to 1993 in the State California
for instance; under California Civil
Code sections 22.2, 7004(a) and 5101.
However; under the common law, this
construct is eternal, and inescapable,
and cannot be changed--and yet with
these underlying mandates of the law,
the Judges, feminists, and Legislators
illegally facilitate otherwise.
What is notable to consider is, that
under Muslim Law, Judaic Law and all
early great civilizations such as
ancient China, all imbued Patriarchy
as the model in which to support in
which to propagate a society towards
its best interests. Now, this
Feminist system is using a Sir Galahad
complex in pretending to protect the
woman and children, so that it can
invoke it’s “discretion” under these
“Courts of Equity” (or “undefined”
Courts), to throw law out of the courtroom,
and thereby; totally annihilate and
destroy the Father. This is
what they have been precisely doing
for the past quarter century.
Now why is Patriarchy so beneficial
to the children?!? Why
is it so beneficial to the society??
Well, one reason is because of the
fact that it uses the right people
for their natural job...it makes “sexuality”
work for both the family, and for
civilization. Again, going back
to the establishment of Patriarchy
we see a woman is subjugated and controlled
by both the male and society, (more
about this control and subjugation
issue later). This sexual control
and obedience guarantees the genetic
progeny for the male who in turn supports,
defends and protects “his own children.”
This simply means that men will know
that their children are truly theirs,
and they will enjoy and protect their
own progeny. From that, the
law again in response to the needs
of society, gave legal protections
under the laws of Descents and Morte
Main (of which we can see that Marx
and Engels above truly wanted to get
rid of, and conversely, what Thomas
Jefferson was severely concerned about
protecting). These laws protected
the wealth of the male (ergo: family)
upon his death, and guaranteed that
his wealth would be passed down to
his children (or family). Conversely,
it also guarantee’s that the father
will control his wealth, and his heritage
(again, yet another disparity from
the communal tribal model which Ms.
Clinton desires). (This point
is extremely important.)
As anyone with a modicum of insight
can see, it wouldn’t take too long
to where in a few short generations
under a system of Patriarchy, you
would have mankind transcend from
a tribal-based static planar society
to a upwardly mobile society creating
the invention of cities and civilizations
and progress in general!
For it is the creation of wealth (surplus)
which propagates these accouterments
to any civilized society via the accumulation
of great wealth. One of the
greatest effects of Patriarchy was
not that it controlled women, but
rather; it was that it created Families
and wealth—and that such surplusage
stayed in the Family by law.
What does modern feminism
do as implemented by government though
our anti-American court system?
It immediately attacks the financial
well-being of the father, and immediately
severs contact with his own children...completely
destroying him and the Patriarchal
archetype instantly. Ms. Clinton
and the elite’s whom now infest our
corridor’s of power, all under the
name of helping us—are implementing
this procedure with a fanatical vengeance
which correlates to the same fanaticism
of the Nazi’s of World War II.
They in fact, incontrovertibly: have
made “fatherhood” into one of the
greatest crimes ever seen throughout
human civilization. There has
never been passed more laws, more
intrusions, more penalties for any
crime throughout civilization; than
being a father, here in the United
States. Again, there has been
a completely new branch of law created
called “Feminist Jurisprudence” to
help destroy fatherhood—and it has
succeeded immensely, with full government
backing and coercion’s.
The reigning resonating reason for
Feminist Jurisprudence is to destroy
the Patriarchal system. It is
doing this amazingly by undermining
religion, the father, and Western
Law. . This is something we
presently see undermined by Feminist
Jurisprudence under a new pretended
law. Contemporary feminism allows
the Empire of “In the Best Interests
of the Child” to vacuum the fathers
wealth long before it is ever passed
to the child. The main benefactor
of Feminism is not the Children, it
is in fact, government and the Feminists,
whom through their socialistic Empires
and Superstructures mandate a continual
drain and feeding off of the Fathers
wealth (and societies wealth).
From this it is not the children who
benefit, nor the Father or Parents,
nor even society...it’s the “Village”...usually
headed up by Elite’s such as Ms. Clinton,
and company. Again, this is
done all in the name of the child,
whom factually loses his Father in
the process and the Fathers wealth
which is silently distributed and
harvested by this Feminist/Socialist
system. No longer are the protections
of Patriarchy accorded to the Father,
even though they are an American birthright
accorded to males under American law.
“Nothing
can destroy a government more quickly
than its failure to observe its own
laws, or worse: disregard the character
of its own existence.”
---Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark
[Quoted
in Foundations of Freedom: A Living
History of our Bill of Rights, by
John H. Rodehamel, The Constitutional
Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, ©1991,
p. 97.]
Yet, the Feminist get rid of anything
which demarcates the character of
this nation: the Bible, our Laws,
our Court system, and even our Government.
They don’t care because the Feminists
and Government accrue huge profits
from this disemboweling of the American
male and Family. Not only do
they gain power, but untold and unaccountable
profits, which as far as we have been
able to follow, go into ‘Black Budget’s’,
which is a corruption of our political
regime. To date, from approximately
1960 to the present, the Feminist/Socialist/Government
backed and sponsored programs have
conservatively cost this nation 5.2
trillion dollars. Presently,
our national debt is an ‘advertised’
5.7 trillion dollars.
How can this happen? How can
the mandate and protections of Patriarchal
American Christian-based ‘Common-Law’
be superceded by Tribal Feminist Jurisprudence?
By socialism? How can a society
prefer a disjointed mythological feminist
‘legal’ brick building magically appearing
from the ether from the second story
on upwards over a magnificently constructed,
methodical Patriarchal (Western Civilization)
brick building stemming from the solid
foundational ground of Christianity,
law, and Justice?!? How can
American’s be so easily betrayed?
How can Judges and Legislators verify
and confirm this betrayal? Especially
in the light that this nation was
built on the foundation of natural
rights?
James
Madison--Address to the States, April
25, 1783.
"Let
it be remembered finally that it has
ever been the pride and boast of America,
that the rights for which she contended
were the rights of human nature.
By the blessing of the Author of these
rights on the means exerted for their
defense, they have prevailed against
all opposition and form the basis
of Thirteen Independent States.
No instance has heretofore occurred,
nor can any instance be expected hereafter
to occur, in which the unadulterated
forms of Republican government can
pretend to so fair an opportunity
of justifying themselves by their
fruits. In this view, the citizens
of the U.S. are responsible for the
greatest trusts ever confided to a
political society. If justice,
good faith, honor, gratitude &
all the other Qualities which enoble
the character of a nation, and fulfil
the ends of Government, the fruits
of establishments, the cause of our
liberty will acquire a dignity and
lustre, which it never yet enjoyed;
and an example will be set which can
not but have the most favorable influence
on the rights of mankind. If
on the other side, our governments
should be unfortunately blotted with
the reverse of these Cardinal and
essential Virtues, the great cause
which we have engaged to vindicate,
will be dishonored & betrayed;
the last & fairest experiment
in favor of the rights of human nature
will be turned against them; and their
patrons & friends exposed will
be insulted and silenced by the votaries
of Tyranny and Usurpation. “
By order
of the United States in Congress Assembled.
[Our
Sacred Honor, Words of Advice from
the Founders in Stories, Letters,
Poems and Speeches, by William J.
Bennett @1997, Simon and Shuster,
Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10020,
ISBN 0-684-84138-X; p. 322.]
Looking back from the Bible in Genesis,
through the Maxims of Law that were
developed 5000 years ago, we see the
first legal support of Patriarchy
in the Law that was the basis for
this country. Indeed, these
were so profoundly understood to encompass
normal men, and their families and
home, that they remained unquestioned
and inviolate. Now, they
have been encroached upon and usurped,
and just as Madison predicted above,
our “fairest experiment in favor of
the rights of human nature” are being
turned against us.
HISTORY OF PATRIARCHY
Patriarchy is a biased
system. It is an invention as
great as that of the wheel, writing,
fire, or even nuclear power; but;
nonetheless, it is a biased system.
Clearly, when you take the power inherent
in interpersonal relations, and place
it so pervasively under the authority
and auspices of one individual, (the
male) there is a clear unmistakable
bias and skewing favoring that entity.
Patriarchy is an invention of placing
that authority in the individual of
the family, the father; that is most
genetically suited to disperse the
inner mechanization’s of the leadership,
provider and defender roles within
his own home. However; how can
a system that is so inherently biased
be so favored not only by Western
civilization, but by families as well,
especially in the American elite?
The question must be posed, why did
Western civilization follow the invention
of Patriarchy, when clearly in the
formation of mankind on the plain’s
of our primitive human history, Matriarchy
through Tribalism was the de facto
norm? Why did society gravitate
to Patriarchy, when it is supposedly
inherently unfair, biased and evil?
Why Patriarchy when Matriarchy is
“freer” and easier to devolve into?
Clearly, there was a compelling interest
in societies to formulate Patriarchy
over Matriarchy, and indeed; to continue
Patriarchy which still exists today.
Patriarchy is an artificial invention
like the wheel, like nuclear power,
is a very unnatural formulation from
the gestating stasis of Matriar.hy
which existed before that ‘invention’
from time immemorial. The compelling
interest of Patriarchy to society/civilization
were several-fold.
First, was the creation of the two-parent
monogamous family unit over that of
the sexually promiscuous anarchy of
Matriarchy. Patriarchy controlled
the sexuality of the female kinship
system, and held women bound to the
subservient subferior position, of
being controlled both sexually and
socially, by the more successful male
kinship system. From this superior
authoritarian position, the male could
be guaranteed the fidelity of the
woman, which from the combined wealth
of that confederation would proliferate
a known progeny. This contract
enabled the Father to know his children,
something which matriarchy most certainly,
did not guarantee. For this
fidelity, the woman received many
benefits: those of love, protection,
of honor, of a surname giving her
position and title, and the bond of
a home a family. (Briffault’s Law).
At this instant, Matriarchy died as
a tribal state of mankind was replaced
by Patriarchy through recognition
and protection of this system of society.
From this, society benefited.
For it was the guarantee of a man’s
children which motivated the man to
accrue wealth, to become a ‘provider’
to this wife and children. This
motivation stemmed not from greed
but from love and devotion, something
inculcated within the human species.
In the Matriarchal female-kinship
based model, this devotion to the
children was spread out over the community,
and thereby; (as we can clearly see
not only in the Matriarchal model,
but also the welfare-state) the intensity
of that support to the female and
children was spread out ‘generally’
and clearly, not as efficient as in
the Patriarchal model, in which the
male, as the protector and the provider;
worked ‘specifically’ for his own
family and child, and thereby, strove
to succeed in which to support them.
It was through this Patriarchal model
that the invention of modern “Civilization”
was borne because each subsequent
generation did better than the last...for
they ‘inherited’ what the Father (Family)
accrued from his leadership and life.
From this domino effect, wealth built
up over subsequent generations, and
thereby created “surplusage,” something
which was not developed in the Matriarchal
archetype. In the Tribal condition,
there were no families. When
a Father died, he may not have even
been recognized as the parent of his
child—and upon his death; the tribe
inherited what surplusage he may,
or may not have accrued.
If we look at each model of Patriarchy
vs. Matriarchy; society chose Patriarchy
due to the success of the male providing
from his family, and combining the
man and woman into one cohesive union
recognized as ‘one’ person in law.
Also, through the developing Laws
of Descent and Morte Main, the Father
handed his wealth down to his own
recognized children, whom again benefited
significantly more than in the Matriarchal/Female
Kinship/Socialist model. As
history shows us, Patriarchy was chosen
not because it was ‘unfair’ or that
it maliciously controlled women, but
rather; it was chosen because there
was mainly money and profit in it,
and society as a whole not only benefited,
but it also grew into great civilizations
and societies, something unheard of
in Matriarchal “Village” archetypes.
Simply put, the decision civilization
made choosing Patriarchy was not one
of dominance, but rather—one of economic
and social efficiency and necessity.
Again, it made sex work for society.
Secondly, Patriarchy was a model that
imbued Liberty and Justice.
Even though it was supposedly inherently
a biased and unfair system, and held
much power in the male he never used
that power. (At least rarely,
as documented throughout history.)
POWER QUOTE
Patriarchal societies are benevolent
societies. They rule as John
F. Kennedy once noted “The true
sense of power does not reside in
those who use it, but rather in those
who can use it, and don’t.”
The male-kinship model offered a stability,
not only in the law and rule of society,
but also in the stabilizing factor
that the male, who held absolute control
and authority over his family instilled
within each of his family members.
The “Family name” and who and where
you came from, established towns within
societies which were very monolithic
in their structure and familiarity.
The rule of law and the common law
were very well defined due to this
cohesive effect of Patriarchy within
a society. Conversely, in Female-Kinship
societies this ‘binder’ of stability
was missing due to the fact that the
male was missing as the leader of
the family unit therefore, they ‘devolved’
into the lowest and rudest common
denominator of mankind: Tribalism.
Under the Female Kinship model, anarchy
reigned due to the fact that no-one
was in charge of the family, nor could
anyone be sure of who the children
really were whose. This
loss of ‘specific’ dedication to the
children to their respective Fathers,
established an inferior “Village”
model, which although dedicated to
the children in a Tribal sense, were
dedicated to them in a ‘general’ sense,
and not a specific sense that Patriarchy
provided.
“To say that the male sex has been
dominant in the great majority of
societies ever since written records
began is to ignore any personal vibrations
between the sexes. But there
is no way of estimating the effect
of those vibrations except in the
rare cases where biographical or autobiographical
details survive.
In the days of the early civilizations
it cannot have been great. By
cultivating a way of life that legally
and socially favored the male sex,
the people of the ancient Near East
also created a climate in which it
was easy for the man to dominate.
When all social forces conspired to
anchor a woman to her home, to limit
her acquaintance to her family, to
forbid her to appear before strangers,
the result was to imprison her mind
as effectively as her body.
As in later times, there may well
have been strong –minded women who
focused all their energies, their
ambitions, their intensity of purpose
on their husbands and children.”
[Sex in
History, by Reay Tannahill, ©1980,
1992, Scarborough House Publishers,
ISBN 0-8128-8540-6, p. 60.]
Thirdly, the Patriarchal model established
generational families, with history
and lineage. These established
a spectrum of various classes within
society, and a competitive nature
which strove to excellence.
Tribal societies didn’t have this,
at least to the precise extent which
genealogy through the male line afforded
them. These generational families
which clearly could only be developed
via Patriarchy, established not only
great wealth within those families
and society, but also developed a
town/community/society national sense
that soon lent itself to the establishment
of nation-states. Family names
became synonymous who you were and
what you did. Families developed
into working-class peer groups, and
society benefited by the idea of eugenics
and breeding. Alliances formed
because of this. Again, this
came from great families, based on
the Patriarchal models, wanting to
join forces of not only wealth and
property, but also gene-pool prospects.
And from these accomplishments within
families, society clearly benefited
from the prolific developments of
these engineered matrimonial unions….all
which would have been impossible through
the Matriarchal model.
Fourthly, and probably most importantly,
Patriarchy provided a man with a role
within society, which directly benefited
civilization. This need for
a place for a man within the home
and family, and society; to bind him
with a suitable and proper wife, allowed
young males in the society a purpose
in which to groom themselves (that
is keep out of trouble, learn the
traits of how to function in the society
to become a good provider, and to
bond with a woman in marriage which
would again, as a civilized influence,
keep the male out of trouble.)
This function in Hillary’s Tribal
“Village” model has all but been lost
to generations of children who are
stuck in this warlike “Village”
model that Hillary wants for all our
children. One only needs to
go to the Tribal “Village” in which
Hillary and her Fellow Feminist have
built through the advent of the Single
Female Headed Household: the inner
city ghetto, (or what some social
scientist now refer to as the ‘superghetto’),
such as Los Angeles, Detroit, Miami,
and New York City—to see this sexual
anarchy of this “Village” tribal model
rage, unabated. Where women
are clearly dominant, and superior,
using men only as temporary sperm
inseminators; to show how this “Village”
model has impacted this society.
Young males in these societies, have
no role, and are not being groomed
for the institution of marriage.
Without any place for them in society,
with a deferred future in their midst,
they natural devolve into gangs and
crime—again, exactly following the
lowest and rudest state of the ghetto
tribe. One only has to look
at figure above to see a clear violent
“spike” of criminality coming from
children ranging in ages from 15 to
approximately 25. [See Figure
1]. This of course is
the age group where they most need
fathers, and they are not there.
If this nation could get rid of that
criminal “spike,” by just re-establishing
Fathers within their own home again,
the accrued savings would be staggering.
What the role of Patriarchy one used
to assemble these young adults to
be groomed by discipline and education
into assuming their respective roles
within the Institution of Patriarchy…has
now been lost generationally, with
the attendant social pathology which
has attended that fallow Feminist
‘tribal’ model. These children
cannot be held in check by government—but;
as history recognizes—they can, and
are held in check by the Father:
On a few systems of law the family
organization of the earliest society
has left a plain and broad mark in
the life-long authority of the Father
or other ancestor over the person
and property of his descendants, an
authority which we may conveniently
call by its later roman name of Patria
Potestas….The implicit obedience of
rude men to their parent is doubtless
a primary fact, which it would be
absurd to explain away altogether
by attributing to them any calculation
of its advantages; but, at the same
time, if it is natural in the sons
to obey the father, it is equally
natural that they should look to him
for superior strength or superior
wisdom.
[Ancient Law, Its Connection with
the Early History of Society and its
Relation to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry
Sumner Maine, first published in 1861,
Dorset Press, a division of Marboro
Books Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press,
ISBN 0-88029-092-7, pp. 111-112.]
Conversely,
instead of assuming their well-defined
roles within Patriarchy, our young
men are being taught feminist indoctrination.
Classes are taught in our schools
that clearly show and allow young
women to ‘beat up on the abusive male’
and pick at his eyes, kick him in
the groin to either injury or cripple
him. The only place the Feminists
have for the male in this “Brave New
World” is the subferior position to
the woman, where he cannot control
his own household, he cannot discipline
his wife or children, he cannot have
true authority within his own home.
Our schools have become feminist indoctrination
centers where parents are openly challenged,
school girls are openly inspected
vaginally for sex, abortions are encouraged,
condoms and sex education and the
indoctrination that a female controls
her own sexuality and her own body
is inculcated with a religious fervor.
When boys are approached by willing
high school female sexual partners
who have learned these feminist lessons
well, (usually the females are younger
to the males as most relationships
are) these young girls who want to
assert their ‘right to control their
own bodies’ entice these young men
to engage in sex with them.
Of course when they do, only the boys
are arrested for these acts for doing
essentially what the feminist tribal
system taught both of them!
Boys cannot prevent the sexual anarchy
these pre-teen and teenage girls offer
them, and more importantly, the females
are expressing exactly what Hillary
“Village” is teaching them...with
a vengeance. Now, it has come
to epidemic proportions, to where
instead of women being superior, it
is a fact that they are an inferior
product, and unacceptable to a Western
Civilized way of life.
When these young girls get pregnant,
they can openly march right down to
the school nurse, and without either
the consent or authority of their
own family or more importantly from
the boy or boys family who was responsible
for the pregnancy, she can abort the
pregnancy with the aid and ultimate
authority of this ‘Parens Patriæ”
state. Conversely, if she decides
to have the child (against the young
Boy’s consent) she can then march
right back up to the Welfare state
and demand subsidy from the boy who
doesn’t want the child. She
thereby is protected and he is ultimately
ruined. These paradoxical
amoral aberrance’s are presently the
absolute norm within Hillary’s “Village”
concept, and the staggering national
Crime and Welfare statistic’s prove
this out.
This ‘lowest, rudest and most disgusting
condition of man’, as our Founding
Fathers noted; was brought about
through the imposition of the devolution
by the Institution of Matriarchy,
which devolved civilizations formally
established as Patriarchal archetypes.
Society clear saw the benefits of
Patriarchy, and due to this fact,
made laws and customs that would bind
the female kinship system under the
control of the male kinship system,
in order to assure the benefits of
the most successful model: Patriarchy.
Society thereby controlled not only
the sexuality of the woman in which
to accomplish this, but gave the Father
purpose. To do this, he thereby
had complete unfettered control over
his family, which was his ‘property’,
legally defined as ‘chattel’.
CHATTELS,
property. A term which includes all
hinds of property, except the freehold
or things which are parcel of it.
It is a more extensive term than goods
or effects. Debtors taken in execution,
captives, apprentices, are accounted
chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3,
chap. 6, 1. 2. Chattels are personal
or real. Personal, are such as belong
immediately to the person of a man;
chattels real, are such as either
appertain not immediately to the person,
but to something by way of dependency,
as a box with the title deeds of lands;
or such as are issuing out of some
real estate, as a lease of lands,
or term of years, which pass like
personally to the executor of the
owner. Co. Litt. 118; 1 Chit. Pr.
90; 8 Vin. Ab. 296; 11 Vin. Ab. 166;
14 Vin. Ab. 109; Bac. Ab. Baron, &c.
C 2; 2 Kent, Com. 278; Dane's Ab.
Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Biens, A;
Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.
This issue of women and children being
‘property’ is greatly contested by
the modern feminist movement.
In fact, they immediately liken this
issue as being similar in nature as
to being ‘owned’ like a slave or an
animal. This vexatious assumption
posed by the modern feminist, although
correct in label is wrong in thesis.
For in reality, when the state assumes
these wives and children under it’s
doctrine of Parens Patriæ, you better
believe they are in fact property,
(ergo: chattels), under the states
law and domain... The
feminist however; don’t make a peep
about that reality... The fact
is, that somebody owns our children…but
we now live in a society mulct at
that recognition, and few are afraid
to rise up—and claim what is by law
and by nature their own legacy.
Instead, they meekly mouth the state
provided pabulum, that they will “take
responsibility” and act “in
the best interests of the child” to
aid in their own destruction, to the
delight of feminists and communists
and elites whom continually feed off
of this self denial and self-imposed
destruction.
However, when the males enforce
their natural rights to their own
children and property, well, then
they are viewed as being oppressive.
Somehow, the more tyrannical state;
is not! (When they seize and
claim children in “the child’s best
interests). Of course
the common law reasoning for allowing
the Male to ‘own’ both his wife and
children stemmed not so much from
a need to control, but rather of one
to protect and be responsible for
his own family.. Giving the
Father ‘ownership’ of both his wife
and his children allowed him to legally
bind his family and protect his family
from unwanted intrusion or threat.
Not only that: Fathers don’t need
state subsidy to raise their children—and
this is factually, the real threat
against the modern state. Clearly,
our Forefathers understood that the
“Village” could not take care of people
as well as Fathers and Families could
take care of the village. (This
concept is a proven one as Foster
Homes and other State run facilities
are factually and statistically the
worst place you can place either child
or adult into the care of, please
read on). Not only this, but
this ideals of property right is a
foundation to the manner of controlling
the female-kinship system and thereby,
guaranteeing the safety and security
of families. This ‘protection’
no longer exists in the feminist/communist/socialist
‘Village’ society—and we can only
look to our inner cities to see the
ramifications of allowing the anarchy
of tribalism to reign supreme over
that of Patriarchy. More importantly,
this concept of property was essentially
moot through the institution of marriage
as the man and woman were joined as
one, something many women are lamenting
about and long for today. Above
and beyond this, the state allowed
the husband within the marriage all
these benefits because of another
countervailing point: that he was
responsible for all the debts and
all legal actions of his whole family.
So what he enjoyed by law, was offset
by matching responsibilities. CITE
MAXIM Because he was so responsible
for his family, he indeed, controlled
it, which again benefited society.
Children didn’t worry about police
when they broke somebody’s window—they
worried about going home to ‘dad.’
Now we have children who have devolved
into tribal monsters, who are committing
crimes adults find shocking—and when
they face police or even Judges--they
are insolent, laughing, antagonizing.
There can be no doubt from this fact
alone that Hillary’s “Village” has
been a categorical disaster.
She has created children, that many
of us do not even recognize anymore...”Monsters”
within our midst.
In fact, under the management of Patriarchy,
both the wife and child were well
protected by the father, as the father
assumed all legal burdens of his property
(which meant if they made a mistake,
he was responsible). However;
the father could easily invoke his
considerable will (i.e. ‘protection’)
over his family and protect them from
any damage that they might inadvertently
come upon. This considerable
protection has no-where been seen
or afforded in any other model known
to man, including Ms. Clinton’s “Village”
model, which is a farce.
Another spill-over effect from this
‘protection’ of accorded to the Father
could be seen documented by the safety
afforded to the Family and the family’s
position in society. Even the
lowliest of freemen could be assured
that Government could not intrude
upon the safety provided within the
home. As William Pitt once boldly
declared in the common-law:
“The poorest
man may in his cottage bid defiance
to all the forces of the crown.
It may be [a] frail [home]—its roof
may shake—the wind may blow through
it—the storm may enter—the rain may
enter—but the King of England cannot
enter—all his force dares not cross
the threshold of that ruined tenement!”
[William
Pitt, Earl of Chatham, 1708-1778,
Speech in the House of Commons 1763,
p 312.]
“For a
man’s house is his castle.”
(Et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium.)
[Sir Edward
Coke, Third Institute, (1628).] p.
152
“The house
of everyone is to him as his
castle and fortress, as well as for
his defense against injury and violence
as for his repose.”
[Semayne’s
Case. 5. Report 91, Sir Edward Coke]
p. 152
In fact,
as Alexis De Tocqueville noted in
his masterpiece Democracy in America
“in America, a young unmarried woman
may, alone and without fear, undertake
a long journey.” [Democracy in America,
©1946, Oxford University Press, New
York, p. 402.].
This protection
which venerated both the woman and
the children of a Patriarchal home,
stemmed from the ability of the Father
to legally ‘protect’ his home and
property. Anyone whom but dared
offend his home, woman or child of
good name would not only have to meet
that father in court, but very well
might have to suffer imprisonment
or even a personal duel! Sometimes,
in recognition to the Father, communities
would banish such people whom transgressed
these well-defined rights of the Home
and Family. A woman who was
‘dared’ dishonored or raped, could
very-well see her attacker hung.
Indeed, women and children were severely
protected under the Patriarchal model
of society. This, again; is
no longer true under the new ‘state’
operated “Matriarchal” archetype..
Nor is it true that either women or
children can walk our streets in safety
under the new feminist tutelage of
society:
"The
laws of courtesy had much influence
upon the development of the character
of the colonial child. Everything
in the community was made to tend
to the preservation of relations of
civility; this is plainly shown by
the laws. Law suits were common
for slander, scandalmongering, name
calling, lying, etc....But all this
rigidity tended to a preservation
of peace. The child who saw
a man fined for lying, who beheld
another set in the stocks for calling
his neighbor ill names, or repeating
scandalous assertions, grew us with
a definite knowledge of the wickedness
and dander of lying and a wholesome
regard for the proprieties of life.
These sentiments may have not made
him a better man, but they certainly
made him a more endurable one.
[Home
and Child Life in Colonial Days, by
Sirley Gubok, @1969, the Macmillan
Company, Gollier-Macmillan Canada,
Ltd., Lib. Cong. Cat. Card No., 69-11295;
p.105.]
That responsibility was vested within
the laws, and accorded to the male
of each and every family and could
be invoked at any time when the Father
of the family, (as the legally recognized
leader and protectorate of his family),
felt his family (i.e. his ‘property’)
was either dishonored or attacked
outright. This investment was
widely recognized and gave civilized
protection to not only wives but children,
but a safe community environment whom
were provided with a two-edged benefit
without police or other state involvement.
The first of these was the responsibility
of the wife and children, who carried
the Fathers surname and had to act
and behave not only lawfully, but
honorably in accordance with their
name and family honour. This
example of good-moral character and
exceptional attention to honor to
ones good family name, has been all-but-lost
in the Matriarchal conversion of this
nation. However; during the
age of Patriarchy, it was a woman’s
and child’s responsibility to act
according to their station and their
family name, otherwise; they would
suffer the vengeance of the authoritative
controlling factor of the Father of
the household. Loss of good
name could mean economic catastrophe
for a family, loss of honor, and thereby;
the family in its extension of intrapersonal
relationship to the community, was
not only civil, but very select.
This had clearly a stabilizing effect
on crime, as no child ever forgot
where he came from. This lesson,
again; has been lost generationally
to our society to societies grave
safety and detriment.
Society recognized this self-regulation
of the Patriarchal family, and strove
to protect it, not only in the laws,
but also by more sanguine accountings
within the community. Society
dared not cross the threshold of that
sovereign household of the Father
who ruled within his own home, lest
their threshold and freedom’s be violated.
Government’s understood, that if they
crossed that sovereign threshold,
then the very fabric of an ordered
Patriarchal Society would dissipate.
Society complicity with Patriarchy
venerated the women, and protected
and admonished the children who were
controlled from within the Family.
This was a give-and-take relationship,
on the one side demanded from the
home, and on the other side, mandated
by society which afforded freedom
and safety unprecedented in human
history. Although Patriarchy
was in fact an artificial creation
invented my mankind, it established
a structured ‘natural order’ between
man and woman and the community.
It used the natural attributes of
the species and allowed those gender
differences to work in favor of the
home, family, men woman and children.
Society and Modern Civilization grew
from this symbiotic natural order.
The ‘invention’ of Patriarchy made
the complements of man and woman work
in concert with each other in conjunction
with society, it turned the open unbridled
sexuality of man from a state of anarchy,
and again; made sex work for both
man and society. This ‘making
sex work’ for both man and society,
took discipline, from both the male
and female partners, the children;
and society as well—this was unlike
the sexual freedom which Matriarchy
allowed which took no discipline to
implement, and thereby ‘was of a lower
order.’
Again, in Matriarchal societies, these
acknowledgement’s towards one family
name and honor has been completely
lost. Presently, the “Village”
concept obfuscates these lessons.
From this we can see that no longer
are women ‘venerated’ and respected;
no longer are the children truly protected.
What society winds up with is a tribal
concept of an insouciant society,
which no firm grounding or protections,
just the ‘general’ protections allowed
by the society at large (the Tribe).
No longer can our women walk the streets
in safety, and once a woman has been
raped or a child has been violated—‘society’
is the main benefactor of justice,
and no longer do American’s enjoy
the protections of the Father, the
home, nor the family. Society
devolves due to the raging antagonism’s
ingrained through insolvable paradoxes
within the tribal model itself, in
essence; anarchy evolves because,
nobody truly has a home, nobody truly
understands where he comes from or
the protections of his family name
and more importantly, without this
foundation of family: no one truly
understands the law anymore...which
we have documented; stems directly
from the Family. Of course,
unbeknownst to us all, this anarchy
is intentional, and planned, as the
Socialist desire to own and control
the family was demarcated long before
the Feminist second wave social revolution
of the 1970s when Radical Feminists
began destroying this nation from
within:
“In the
origins of the family, private property
and the state Engels refers
to Patriarchy as a form of the family
whose essential features were the
incorporation of the bondsmen
and the power vested in the Paternal
head of the family. [F. Engels
(1884). The origins of the family,
private property and the state, in
K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works,
London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968,
p. 488.] Similarly in the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to
‘The little workshop of the Patriarchal
master.” Here Patriarchy is
understood as a social relation of
domestic production. [K. Marx
and F. Engels “The Communist Manifesto”
in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx:
Selected Writings, Oxford University
Press, 1977 p. 227.]
However, we can see that the definition
of Patriarchal advanced by Marx and
Engles is a limited one. Patriarchy
refers to the system under pre-capitalist
modes of production in which the means
of production and organization of
labour was owned and controlled by
the head of household, rather than
a more generalized system of female
subordination and male domination.”
[The Law
of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition
from Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry
Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane,
London, EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7.]
We can see that Patriarchy was the
main model of selection for societies
seeking ascension and not devolution.
Through the systematic analysis of
Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ process,
civilization chose the model of the
Male Kinship System of Patriarchy
not out of a need of control nor success
or a biblical need to subjugate or
‘own’ the woman…it chose Patriarchy
due to the factual reason that as
a sustainable human construct of happiness,
safety, protection and wealth…it is
clearly and systematically a superior
model. The “best” model.
Any society which implement’s it,
clearly and historically is destined
to succeed and prosper. Prosperity,
protection and stabilization are the
main components that mandate the use
of the Patriarchal model over any
other competing model in a modern
structured society. This factor
is the reason why America was a Patriarchal
society. The founding
fathers researched many societies
in their dissertations in creating
the American civilization, one need
only to read the Federalist and Anti-federalist
Papers to understand that they had
a solid understanding of the history
of mankind and our history.
They settled on Patriarchy, not only
as adherence to a Christian mandate,
but also as an empirical model of
success. For in the ordered
structure of Patriarchy is ingrained
the tenets of Freedom, Liberty and
Justice. Sigmund Freud also
understood the implications of Patriarchy:
“Mitchell
goes on to argue that such a reading
of the Levi-Strauss is consistent
with Freud’s definition of culture
as Patriarchal. Freud’s work is seen
as a analysis of Patriarchal society,
not a recommendation for one—as culture
is seen as predicated on the symbolic
exchange of women by men. Mitchell
argues that for Freud the Oedipal
moment signifies the entry of man
into culture, into everything that
made him human.”
[The Law
of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition
from Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry
Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane,
London, EC4p 4EE, p. 10.]
They
all recognized that Patriarchy took
discipline, gave everyone responsibilities
and benefits, and allowed the Family
the greatest freedom to pursue the
blessings of Liberty which this our
civilization strove, and fought for,
and most importantly, which made man
‘human.’
DISPARATE
REALITIES OF THE TWO MODELS
What we are establishing here, and
what the main thesis of this book
is all about; is the fact that between
the two models of Matriarchy and Patriarchy,
each factually align themselves to
disparate political domain’s.
Patriarchy is the culmination of the
fruition of the American Model of
Governance, and clearly; our history,
religion and laws stem from the common
law reality of the Sovereignty of
individual rights and that of the
Parent, home and Family. There can
be no dispute that the nuclear family
is the invention of Patriarchy.
Without the Father (the weakest link
of the Family) there is no family
for immediately the family devolves
into its association to a state of
“animals and slaves” as the maxim
of law predicates above, ergo: Matriarchy:
the Single Female Headed Household.
The main drive-engine for tribalism
for the new welfare state..
Matriarchy on the other hand, aligns
itself with Socialism or Communistic
rules of law and coercion, in fact;
it is the succinct extrapolation of
Marxism. First, one need
not only look to the formulative effect
of Feminism upon the American society,
one only has to look at its inception,
which was clearly from Socialist/Anarchist/Communistic
roots. Look at the women who
built the house of Modern Feminism:
“...Ellen
Wilkinson,...had served her political
apprenticeship in the feminist and
peace movements, and in the communist
party..”
[pp. 123
A Century of Women.]
“Anna Louise
Strong doctor in philosophy, campaigner
for child welfare and socialist party
member, appeared to be the epitome
of radical progressivism...(she) found
herself facing empty tables at the
American Unions against militarism:
‘The respectable members were returning
to war work. The President’s
of the Women’s Club’s were “swinging
behind the President.” Only
a handful of socialists, anarchists
and industrial workers of the World—“Wobblies”—remained.
[pp. 91
A Century of Women.]
“Cristal
Eastman in contrast, challenged the
political mainstream as a socialist-feminist.
[p. 97 A Century of Women.]
“Socialists
and Anarchist who continued in opposition
were severely persecuted, when Emma
Goldman organized a No-Conscription
League, the government arrested every
young man attending the meeting.”
[p. 100
A Century of Women.]
“...In
Europe (Margaret Sanger) researched
the history and practice of birth-control,
meeting writers on sex psychology
like Edward Carpenter and Havelock
Ellis, with whom she had a love affair.
She also made friends with anarchists
and socialist advocates of birth control
Rose Witlop, her companion Guy Aldred
and Stella Browne. Havelock
Ellis was however, to convince her
that the cause of sexual reform would
be best served by separating it from
the left.
Sanger’s supporters in the United
States tended to be linked to the
Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers
of the World or Anarchist circles.”
[p. 111 A Century of Women.]
“The Socialist-Feminist
Journalist and agitator Agnes Smedley,
for example, was arrested in April
1918 because of her support for Indian
Nationalist as well as birth control,
bringing Margaret Sanger to her defense.”
[p. 112 A Century of Women.]
“In 1922...the
Anarchist Rose Witcop and her companion
Guy Witcop...[along] with these Socialist
and anarchist women gained support
no only from women who were anxious
to lima their families, but also from
radicals committed to sexual liberation.
For example, Harry Wicks describes
his autobiography, Keeping My Head,
how birth control and free love were
part of the Battersea Socialist movement,
along with vivisection and vaccination.”
[p. 140 A Century of Women.]
“Egalitarian
in theory if not in practice, the
party attracted numerous women like
Dorothy Healey. Healey joined
the Young Communist League (YCL) in
1928 at age fourteen and went on to
serve as the leader of the Lost Angeles
district Communist party for over
twenty years.”
[Second to None, Vol II, by Ruth Barnes
Moynihan and Cynthia Russett © 1993
The University of Nebraska Press,
ISBN 0-8032-3166-0, p. 189.]
“From
the vantage point of an African-American
feminist, with revolutionary aspiration
toward socialism that refuse to go
away."
[Malcom
X, In Our Own Image Joe Wood, Editor,
@1992, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175
Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010,
ISBN 0-312-06609-0, p. 41.]
...The
girls became the world's first lady
stockbrokers and, when that palled,
proprietors of the Welsley newspaper
that was first to publish Marx's Communist
Manifesto in the United States.
[SEX
IN HISTORY, by Reay Tannahill, @1980,
1992, Scarborough House/ Publishers;
ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 397.]
The late Eleanor Leacock was an anthropologist
and feminist who published claims
of societies that were supposedly
"Egalitarian," in regard
both to wealth, and to sex. Her writings
display a strong Marxist bent. She
wrote a long and admiring introduction
for her new edition of Engels' The
Origin of the Family, Private Property,
and the State, which was published
by International House Publishers
(New York, 1972), the publishing arm
of the Communist Party of the USA.
[Deceptions of a 'Gender Equal Society':
Eleanor Leacock's Depiction of the
17th-Century Montagnais-Naskapi
by Robert Sheaffer, June, 1993]
In a new book, "Betty Friedan
and the Making of the Feminine Mystique",
Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz
(no relation) establishes beyond doubt
that the woman who has always presented
herself as a typical suburban housewife
until she began work on her groundbreaking
book was in fact nothing of the kind.
In fact, under her maiden name, Betty
Goldstein, she was a political activist
and professional propagandist for
the Communist left for a quarter of
a century before the publication of
"The Feminist Mystique"
launched the modern women's movement.
Professor Horowitz documents that
Friedan was from her college days,
and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist
Marxist, the political intimate of
the leaders of America's Cold War
fifth column and for a time even the
lover of a young Communist physicist
working on atomic bomb projects in
Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert
Oppenheimer.
...Her husband, Carl, also a leftist,
once complained that his wife "was
in the world during the whole marriage,"
had a full-time maid and "seldom
was a wife and a mother".
[From: Betty Friedan's secret Communist
past Why has this feminist icon continued
to cover up her years as a party activist?
By David Horowitz
SALON magazine
Jan. 18, 1999 ]
These Socialist
roots are now the causal impetus to
enforce government sponsored Matriarchy
upon the Landscape of America.
This in effect, is the expropriation
of the American system of governance
and replacing it with Socialism, all
under the guise of “The Best Interests
of the Child” via enforced altruism.
The “Village”. Exactly as Bastiat
warned. The Democratic Party,
is in fact, through it’s own actions
and political platform; the Communist
Party of the United States.
What most men do not know, and most
American’s are totally unaware of,
is that this system is being used
to harvest not only Fathers, but the
American system of government as well.
And attack on a Father is in essence
an attack upon America. Those
who believe in Patriarchy: God, County,
Mom and Apple Pie and the American
way of life are planned to be eradicated
by military courts (via our Military
Court or “Equity” Court System which
has replaced peace-time civilian “Law”
courts) “Village” model of socialism
which cannot exist while the father
rules within the home. This
is one reason why being a Father has
become one of the greatest crimes
that anyone can commit in this society
with the most sweeping penalties in
any society throughout human history.
For if Matriarchy and Feminism cannot
conquer the home by using ‘broad’
sweeping criteria for abuse and other
crimes, then; Socialism cannot be
implemented within the United States:
“In times of profound and overwhelming
social change like the present, however,
extreme view hold out the appeal of
the simplicity. By ignoring
the complexity of the forces that
share our personal and collective
circumstances, they offer us scapegoats.
Yet, they fail to provide a viable
pathway from the cold war to the Global
Village [Read: New World Order, ergo
Socialism. RLCII]
At present, the extreme anti-government
position is the noisiest one—or at
least the one that gets the most attention
from the media. There are few
people are arguing for more government.
Instead, the public debate is primarily
between those who argue for much less
government, period. And those
who advocate a smaller, less bureaucratic,
but still active government to meet
the demands for the information age.
Anti-Government rhetoric appears to
offer a vision of greater efficiency,
self reliance, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores
what has historically been mostly
valuable about our skepticism toward
government—the emphasis it places
on personal responsibility from all
citizens. [Read: Everyone
must support big government via Socialism.RLCII]
”We must ask ourselves: Who benefits
from the elimination of Federal Regulations
that protect us from outbreaks of
contaminated drinking water or cases
of tainted meat? Who Benefits
from a decrease in Federal Pollution
Standards, or from the kind of massive
deregulation that could allow companies
to dump toxins into our nations oceans,
rivers, and lakes? Certainly,
not our Families or our children.”
[It Takes a Village p. 308]
Indeed Ms.
Clinton...who does benefit??
It positively is neither Families,
Fathers or Children under the present
draconian “Village” system...presently;
American Families are undergoing stresses
and economic and social pressures
never seen before throughout history—short
of outright war and conflagration.
The American Family via the direct
attack against the Father, is ripping
apart at the seams. Children
have never done worse as they have
now, with each year, government and
the media shrilly extolling the eternal
problems of our youth…yet as literally
trillions of dollars get collected
to “solve” this problem, the problem
only worsens.
This
passage eminently shows that government
intervention into the Family is Big
Business. As you read Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s
expose here you can see the classic
switch and bait, of which Feminism
is famous for. First, Ms. Clinton
talks about social issues and the
crisis she develops through laws,
which she and those like her want
Government to intrude into and monopolize.
Secondly, create the bogeyman, the
bad guy. (This is the Father
in contemporary society, it was the
Jew in WWII in Nazi Germany, it was
the Black in the Antebellum south).
Thirdly, discount the crisis, and
switch the issue; she does this masterfully
here by asking: “Who benefits from
the elimination of Federal Regulation?”
Clearly American Citizen’s and Families
do!! Yet the crisis the pretends
to in the first instance have a direct
causal relationship with government
accruing huge economic benefits and
power! Upon analysis of
these paragraphs, we can see that
Ms. Rodham-Clinton is relying upon
the thesis that American’s want a
New World order, otherwise Masked
as the Global Village. Ergo:
“Village” being the socialist village
that we all are grouped to.
Secondly, we can see her create a
bogeyman, the nebulous and malicious
extreme Anti-Government Right Wing.
This ploy is used to disassociate
the reader from his or her common
sense so that any reader would intellectually
be revolted from the ‘radical’ Anti-Government
movement (a movement which, incidentally;
has been unmercifully bastardized
in the mainstream media and labeled
as “angry white men”), then of course
she closes with a Mutilated Beugar
argument, thereby creating a panoply
of altruistic “causes” that are openly
and arrogantly used by Socialists
in which to usurp American Constitutional
and Natural born rights. (Again,
what Bastiat warned us of).
She cites the most egregious examples
of pollution and pestilence’s known
to man—to whence—she again, closes
the argument right at the Feminists
ground-zero for all their reasoning:
“...Our families or our children.”
Quick: What does Families and
children have to do with Social change,
the Cold War or the Global Village?
This argument is three times removed
from the real intent of what is really
being discussed here, and this is
the issue of this book. Most
men don’t even understand what is
happening to them, because they think
its about something they’ve done...it
isn’t. This is about two political
systems, one communist, one American.
Only one will win here.
What is happening not only in America
but around the world is an attempt
to impose the “Village” of Ms. Clinton
upon the face of anything they do.
This is why all Government’s argument’s
lead to the family. On the one
hand they state that under our system
of Government, that we are Individuals,
that we live in Freedom, that we have
untold liberties. They then
pass a mass of laws which no society
can live with, so many and covering
such a range of issues that in fact
make everything illegal. However;
the myth, of any family sovereignty
or that, more importantly; a man’s
home is his castle, is quickly wasted
away upon the slightest provocation
or event. Upon this reality,
there is an empire of laws, officers,
Agents, Code Enforcement Officers,
Assistant DA’s, Councilors, Psychologists,
County Counsels, United States Marshall’s,
FBI Agents, CPS and Social workers,
etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum,
all there to eternally: manage the
‘problem’ which they keep creating.
These American Socialist systems have
never solved any problem—they just
eternally manage them.
“I think
I have observed that integrity in
the conduct of both the living and
the dead takes a stronger hold of
the human heart than any other virtue.
It is placed before mercy by the name
of Justice in the Scriptures, and
Just Men are in may parts of the inspired
writings placed upon very high ground.
It is right is should be so.
The world stands in more need of Justice
than charity, and indeed, it is the
want of Justice that renders charity
everywhere, so necessary.”
[Our Sacred
Honor, Words of Advice from the Founders
in Stories, Letters, Poems and Speeches,
by William J. Bennett ©1997, Simon
& Schuster, Rockerfeller Center,
1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-84d138-X; p.
313.]
What we see here, by Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s
own hand, is the classic mind of the
Socialist, which was classically exposed
by Bastiat in his Treatise: The Law.
That is to create any conflict, then
as a facade, to hold up the weakest
and most helpless among us as those
willing to deserve charity.
Invariably, this always markets the
Family, and most certainly; our children.
The Family is incredibly Big Business,
accruing on the order of 1.2 Trillion
dollars a year in pure unadulterated
profit for government.
More importantly, it is and has been
used as the vehicle for the Socialists
of this nation, including the Clinton’s
and those of their ilk, to impose
massive laws and economic impositions
against our society. To put
it bluntly, our society is being held
hostage just as the family and father
are being held hostage. They are using
our women and children as a shield
to get into our own homes.
Wives, girlfriends, children and family
are also being used as a shield for
usurpation of the American system
of government to impose the autocratic
Socialist “Village” form of government
that Hillary and her fellow Elite
regime demand from us.
Frankly, Ms. Rodham-Clinton could
care less about you or your children.
She and those corrupt misfit’s like
her do care however, about the Global
Village, and about those corridor’s
of power they tend and groom in which
to meet their own agenda. They
care about themselves and their ideals—which
incidentally—are directly Anti-American.
Ask Ms. Clinton her multiculturalist
elite if smoking will be a crime in
the future, and they will answer:
“It might.” Yet, ask them how
this squares with the countervailing
principles of law and foundational
Constitutional doctrine, and you will
find them surprisingly mulct.
These same exact concepts are being
implemented to create laws which make
everything illegal, especially those
which might occur in the home—which
according to our foundational laws
and precepts, government is not supposed
to ‘dare’ intrude.
In reality, the agenda of America
is to be a system of governance by
and for the Individual. It is
supposed to be an experiment in freedom.
Presently; every American is directly
and succinctly under attack by the
secret systems being used against
them to steal their money, to usurp
their own individual power and authority;
and more importantly; to slowly implement
“something else” all under the guise
of “Law and Order” and “The American
Way.” These newly created laws,
of which there are thousands of them
created from thin air each year by
State Legislatures, and the Federal
Government, (not even considering
the hundreds of thousands of rules,
practices, policies and procedures
of government Administrative Agencies),
are in fact, making ‘everything’ against
the law. Unfortunately; the
greatest crime of these all: is simply
Fatherhood. These range of laws
are no longer there to protect “We
the People” but, sadly; they are there
for more scurrilous reasons.
An eloquent quote from Bertold
Brecht sadly enunciates
the present reasons for this malefarious
operations by our new ruling elite
whom are so intent on changing the
basic tenets and laws of our nation:
“The law is simply and solely made
for the exploitation of those who
do not understand it or of those,
who out of naked need, cannot obey
it.”
This
fact remains: either one of the two
competing system’s of Matriarchy and
Patriarchy will win out within any
society, for they both represent countervailing
precepts of Government that are antithetical
to each other. Like matter,
they cannot occupy the same space
together.
It is widely
believed that politics and economics
are separate and largely unconnected;
that materiel welfare and economic
problem, and that any kind of political
arrangements can be combined with
any kind of economic arrangements.
The chief contemporary manifestation
of this idea is the advocacy of “Democratic
Socialism” by many who condemn out
of hand the restrictions on individual
freedom imposed by “Totalitarian Socialism”
in Russia and who are persuaded that
it is possible for a country to adopt
the essential features of Russian
economic arrangements and yet to ensure
individual freedom through political
arrangements. The thesis of
this chapter is that such a view is
a delusion, that there is an intimate
connection between economics and politics,
that only certain combinations of
political and economic arrangements
are possible, that in particular,
a society that is socialist cannot
also be democratic, in the sense of
guaranteeing individual freedom.
[Capitalism
and Freedom, by Milton Freedman, ©1962;
University Chicago Press, p. 7]
Under the constraints of Feminism
and Matriarchy, neither can the nuclear
two-parent American family or Hillary
Clinton’s “Redesign of Humanity” occupy
the same space together. Hillary’s
ideal for America and the American
Constitutional premise of America
are two completely disparate realities.
If in fact, Feminism win’s out, it
will in fact mean the destruction
of Patriarchy and the American form
of governance. This in turn
will be the destruction of the Father.
In turn, this will mean the destruction
of the nuclear, two-parent family.
And finally, this will most certainly,
aid in the destruction of our children
and will admit the devolution to this
or any society which embraces such
feminist convention.
This of course is in direct opposition
to this nation’s formative foundational
doctrines. When John Winthrop
sailed over leading the Puritans in
1602, he gave a vision as to what
was to become the American dream:
....”The
Puritans envisaged a society that
would be composed not of individuals,
but of Families. Therefore,
women and children were present from
the outset, as they had not been in
Virginia. In [John] Winthrop,
the men and women who founded Massachusetts
had a leader of extraordinary talent
and intelligence, one who participated
in every detail of social, political,
and religious life. A man of
deep and unwavering conviction, Winthrop
laid out his conception of society
even before the settlers had landed.
In his justly renowned lay sermon,
A Model of Christian Charity, delivered
aboard Arbella as the Puritans were
about to disembark, Winthrop argued
that the Puritans had come to America
on a special mission under a covenant
with God. In order to satisfy
the terms of the Covenant, the settlers
would have to “be knit together in
this work as one man....always having
before our eyes our commission and
community in the work, our community
as members of the same body.”
If the colonist kept their bargain,
Winthrop said, God would keep
His and would protect them and ensure
their prosperity. He went on
to warn his fellow settlers to “consider
that we shall be as a city upon a
hill, the eyes of all people are upon
us.”
[The American
People, A History, Arthur S. Link,
©1981, AHM Publishing Corp., 3110
N. Arlington Heights Road, Ill. 60004,
ISBN 0-88295-804-6; p. 50.]
Clearly, modern
feminism shares no part of this dream
as their doctrines and outright hatred
is factually directly against these
very things with which Winthrop and
other Founding Fathers established
and inculcated within this nation.
The only problem with this is, that
presently our nation’s government
also has taken up this hatred against
these foundational precepts, and along
with the feminists, is proactively
attempting to destroy, and eradicate
these bedrock principles of American
governance. These principles
were quickly recognized as an asset
to the human condition, and the world
if not humanity itself, exactly as
Winthrop presaged, did indeed take
notice.
“The Americans
had the chances of birth in their
favor, and their forefathers imported
that equality of conditions into the
country whence the democratic republic
had very naturally taken its rise.
Nor was this all they did; for besides
this republican condition of society,
the early settlers bequeathed to their
descendants those customs, manners,
and opinions which contribute most
to the success of a republican form
of government. When I reflect
upon the consequences of this primary
circumstance, methinks I see the destiny
of America embodied in the first Puritan
who landed on those shores, just as
the human race was represented by
the first man.”
[Democracy
in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville,
©1946, Oxford University Press, New
York, Inc., p. 185.] |