Site hosted by Build your free website today!



“No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.”


[Alexis De Tocqueville—Democracy in America]





            There is a malevolent obfuscation and outright arrogance against this nation’s freedom’s being applied by an out-of-control government which is intruding and manipulating the complete body of American’s lives.  There can no arguing about this fact in the modern American experience.  Most people are now afraid of their government, and in fact; outright fear it.  The restrictions placed upon government by a Constitution are but a mere remembrance…no longer does government know or understand any enumerated ‘restraints.’  Its power has become absolute.  This is a recently developed contemporary fact that many American’s presently suffer through, especially fathers.  Consider this letter as documented from within just one American Industry and their fears of American government:


      “As you know, the real issue more so than the price per thousand cubic feet is the continuation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, the guarantee of freedom of speech.   With increasing relation, as big brother looks closer over our shoulder, we grow timid against speaking out for truth and our beliefs against falsehoods and wrong doings.  Fear of IRS audits, bureaucratic strangulation or governmental harassment is a powerful weapon against freedom of speech.

      In October 31 [1977] edition of the U.S. News & World Report, the Washington Whispers section noted that, “Oil industry officials claim that they have received this ultimatum from Energy Secretary James Schlesinger:  ‘Support the Administration’s proposed tax on crude oil—or else face tougher regulation and a possible drive to break up the oil companies.”


His judgment is amply confirmed by the public behavior of oil officials.  Tongue-lashed by Senator Henry Jackson for earning “obscene profits,” not a single member of a group of oil industry executives answered back, or even left the room and refused to submit to further personal abuse.”


[Free To Choose, A Personal Statement, by Milton Friedman, ©1980, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 737 Third Ave., New York, NY 10017, ISBN 0-15-133481-1, p. 67-68.]


What omniscient powers Industry and business fears, such absolute totalitarian dictatorship with absolute authority is extrapolated one-hundred fold against Fathers who do not even begin to have the power or resources to combat such unwanted injustices or intrusions by Government.  We must examine the fundamental reasons of how this came to be.  Clearly, the unrestrained growth of government and the break-up of the American family are not only closely related: they have also a causal relationship intertwined within the modern workings of our Society.  In examining this relationship, we must analyze what the qualitative products are between a Matriarchal Society and a Patriarchal one as we related in the last chapter.

            Matriarchal Societies are feminist in nature, based off the Female Kinship system, and suffer no regulation of the woman.  It is a state, of sexual anarchy.  It is a communal Socialist society where ‘all share’ and property rights are loosely defined.  Where Patriarchy makes sex work for the society, Matriarchy imposes total freedom for the woman with no concurrent responsibility.  In fact,  the Matriarchal system imposes unjust manipulative ways in which to control the males within the population, as normally; males cannot be controlled by females due to the fact that males are bigger and stronger than their weaker counterpart.  [Matriarchy as was established at the dawn of man was a system of stasis, with inherent sexual anarchy, a natural system of stagnation and disorder within the “natural” human condition.  Otherwise identified as tribalism.]  Females thereby use more surreptitious ways, social-collective in design in which to subjugate and control the male.  In the modern American Society, this is done via both Government and through the Courts through Feminist Jurisprudence.  Matriarchy is simply a model which cannot work without socialism.  What we are saying here is that Matriarchy can never work without SUBSIDY and subsidy can only come through burdening the collective society.  It is the expression of socialism that creates the reason for altruism (subsidy).  This in turn gives Matriarchy it’s cause and by this, gains control and power, via the sophistry of ‘equality.’

            In the early history of man, Matriarchy was the original condition of mankind due to the fact that we gestated from the ape.  Man is the fertilization of the great Apes.   So Matriarchy was the initial state for mankind, as mankind had no sense of civilization.  This ‘lowest order’ of mankind ruled for on the order of a quarter of a million years.  It is a scientific fact, that apes—have not risen from their matriarchal state, that they have not created science, art, literature, that they have in fact, been exactly in the same social and technological state for eons.  Mankind, was essentially the same way.

            One misgiving of Matriarchy is that it takes the physically inferior woman then through the application of the equality dogma, empowers the Matriarchal Model through coercion through the tribe.  Conversely, the Patriarchal Model is implemented through contract and social regulation—the resultant benefits of the family order being the impetus for such regulation.  In this model, the woman ‘chooses’ to voluntarily bind herself to the man, and from that mutual contract, both she and the male benefit—as they become one.  This is the regulated application of Briffault’s law.  The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family.  Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”  In the Patriarchal model therefore, the female voluntarily selects the best male, who concurrently has been grooming himself to be an attractive provider for the woman, the “best” provider in fact.  From this an ‘association’ takes place, the best male provider, gets selected by his female counterpart—and from the female acquiring his benefit of  security, safety and production; she gives him the best genetic expression of her body in children; and thereby a transactional application of Briffault’s Law takes place.  He gets the knowledge that all children procreated from this union are his, and she gets the best protection and provider who will keep her comfortable and safe.

Within a Matriarchy however, it’s different.  Sexual anarchy reigns.  The tribe procreates randomly.  The worst provider has as much probability of procreating as the most avid and expert hunter. When the children come out—nobody has any idea who is the Father, so—the tribe ‘generally’ takes care of them.  In a Patriarchy, you better believe the father, knowing the children are his, provides for them specifically—and not only that—he provides for them in the best way he can.  Those children get the best of what he can gain in surplus.  This does not happen in the tribal model, nor does it happen within our modern social institutions such as Old Age Homes, Halfway houses, Shelters, or most importantly: Foster Care for children.

In a modern Matriarchy, it is only through base coercion that woman gains superiority through State Applied privilege as the male and female remain separate, disparate entities.  From this, there is no social order, the only benefit is anarchy and devolution.  The one most responsible in the Matriarchal model for proliferating (sexual freedom or ‘anarchy’ of the Female who now “controls” her own sexuality) is not held up to any standards, nor is she responsible for any of her sexual acts: the male is.   In Patriarchy, the male is also held responsible for the creation of a child and his sexual acts, however, society grants him certain rights concomitant with that responsibility.   Indeed, one may look at this conundrum and recognize that in either of the two models, the woman is either choosing to marry the man, or the government.  She cannot however marry both.  She either is free sexually and has sexual anarchy, and when she breeds the state, (or “Tribe” or “Village”) become responsible to ‘generally’ raise the child by government subsidy.  In a Patriarchy, the male assumes the responsibility, and takes in the child to his home, he and his wife become one, and the family becomes a viable, sealed economic unit with the children cared for ‘specifically.’

This idea of the woman having to choose between either man or the government to marry is a direct extrapolation of Briffaults law.  She will marry or bind herself to whatever ‘providers’ for her the best.  With the attack upon the American male, and the concurrent attack on our economy and massive debt with a negative individual American savings-rate—has established an economic climate to where many of the lower, social order females (especially those whom have created our black and lower income inner-city “super-ghettos”) have clearly chosen the state over the male counterpart.

Instead of the State following the precepts of Western Civilization and giving the child to the father in order to keep divorce rates law, and to keep families together, it ‘enjoins’ in the sexual anarchy by not only supporting it, but economically providing for it thereby splitting the bond between the father and his family and more importantly: his children.  The Father is then at a state of affairs to where he has to fight for his own children—to where under law—they ‘should’ be given to him.  Instead, the state converts law into anti-law, and gains directly upon the man and woman trying to split their own children.  The resulting fraud is best explained by the common law theory handed down from Lord Coke:


Trying to split children

Here be two maximes of the common law. First, that no man can hold one and the same land immediately of two severall lords. Secondly, that one man cannot of the same land be both lord and tenant. And it is to be observed, that it is holden for an inconvenience, that any of the maximes of the law should be broken, though a private man suffer losse; for that by infringing of a maxime, not onely a generall prejudice to many, but in the end a publike incertainty and confusion to all would follow. Section 152b.


[Maxim’s of Lord Coke]

Matriarchy is a system of lies and deceptions. Of ‘confusion’ as Lord Coke notes.  It has to be.  For in order to pretend that two people each own exactly 50% percent of a child, you have to defraud one in order for the other to enjoy its ownership.  Though it is well recognized maxim that two people ‘really’ can’t own the same child (or  land), this dichromatic fantasy exists in modern law in order to force this illogic upon the parents, in which to allow the ‘real’ distinction between lord and tenant, so that the male will be forced to accept Matriarchy (whereby the State becomes the real parent to the child under the “Best Interests” doctrine via Parens Patriæ).  Under this illogical conundrum of “Joint Custody” (which the State loves and eminently profits from), the ‘real’ lord is established within the home from this anarchy is the State, or the one who arbitrates and controls this issue under color of law and under color of Justice.  What we are logically proving here is that the legal thesis alone of 50/50 Joint Custody—is a lie.  Can’t happen in the domain of law as Lord Coke notes above.  And it most certainly doesn’t exist within people’s realities.  Thereby, the courts are knowingly propagating an outright fraud that, in accordance with their own maxims—is an impossible legal condition.   Through Matriarchy the male has to be either conditioned or forced to submit to an inferior and weaker species, a weaker logic, and a weaker master: the state—who now truly rules his home.  In this regard it is the inferior system, due to the fact that it takes the stronger of the species and relegates him to and subferior position of inferiority, and gives him no place within the home, nor within society; even though through strength, moral, endurance, intelligence, and his natural station, he is clearly the proper agent within a society to rule within the home.  Reluctantly, even the feminists are beginning to recognize this sober conclusion:


     A man is important for both boys and girls.  Both will benefit from having been loved by a man as well as a woman.  However, a boy needs a relationship with a man in order to have a role model for masculine identification, whereas a girl need it for the experience of loving and being loved by a man...

     Despite my erroneous conviction prior to being a mother that almost all gender stereotypes were created rather than inborn, I saw clearly on how much my son needed a kind of roughhousing in play, something that was totally alien to me, but which almost any man who was in the vicinity seemed to understand immediately.  Men appear to love play in this rough-and-tumble way that few women seem to enjoy.


[Single Mothers by Choice, A Guidebook for Single Women who are Considering or have Chosen Motherhood, by Jane Mattes, C.S.W., ©1994, Times Books, Random House, New York, pp. 162-163.]


For not only Western Civilization, but nature itself chose him for this task.   To alienate the child from his father, a Cognitive Dissonance has to be established in which to either intellectually or morally allow the male to submit and to disinherit himself from his proper legal and moral role of parent, which he now, under the Feminist Jurisprudence system, ‘has to share’ with the wife and the State.   Of course, as Lord Coke noted: the second he is ‘reasonable’ and shares his property he loses all ‘rights’—just as a Lord Coke demonstrates any Lord would when trying to ‘share’ a parcel with some other tenant.  Thereby, there are many Lord’s trying to hold title to the children when in fact; they do not even understand they have been overthrown of that function.   Unfortunately, this fraud in “law” is accomplished in modern society by sophistry through “Equity,” forced upon these men, by rogue courts.  Through using the tools of sophistry and deception, the Socialist agents have convinced (through force and coercion), the American male to fall on his sword “In the Best Interests of the Child.”  The Judges accomplish this through a tool used in Equity courts called “discretion,” which means that they can now throw away the law, and refuse to do what is right or just.  In contrast, the female by allowing this false doctrine to intrude into the home, is essentially marrying the real Lord and master to who she now she truly obeys: The State.  If she doesn’t obey this husband, she loses her children forever to where ever the State decides.  The first “Lord” of the husband such women usually discover, , really wasn’t as abusive as this “second Lord” of the state, in which she now is ultimately held slave to.  However, this second Lord can supply her with more economic support and stable benefits, which is why she now tolerates this ultimate authority of the State within her life, which she now essentially is married to.  This of course, has weakened the once stable position of marriage within our society:


        As marriage began to erode as the central institution governing family relationships, so too did the norm of marital permanence.  A small but revealing sign of the change came with the popular trend toward self-written marriage vows.  In some ceremonies, the traditional pledge to marry for “as long as we both shall live” was replaced with the more limited promise to marry for “as long as we both shall love,” which in many cases meant “as long as I feel happy and satisfied with the arrangement.”  At least one sourcebook on marriage vows suggests an even more contingent pledge: to marry for “as long as we both shall like.”  In his divorce book J. Randall Nichols, and ordained minister and teacher at the Princeton Theological Seminary, provides a more sophisticated rationale for the limited and continent marriage vow: “The marriage vow is to sign, seal, and vehicle of self-investment; it is not do this or that; it is a commitment to work in relationship.”

        No-fault divorce law offers even more compelling evidence of the abandonment of the norm of marital permanence.  As legal scholar Donald S. Moir notes, no-fault divorce carries the message that “the marriage covenant is freely and unilaterally terminable, that the welfare of children is subservient to the personal fulfillment of adults, that a parents effective relationship with his or her children may be terminated at any time without cause at the will of the other parent.”


[The Divorce Culture, by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, ©1996; Borzoi Books, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-679-43230-2; p.142-143.]


            Clearly, neither Government, nor the Feminist main’s interest or desire is towards the true interest of the American child.  Indeed, no greater disaster has fallen upon American children than that of “In the Best Interests of the Child.”  It is an outright lie, and the voluminous facts and figures showing this absolutely show, that modern Matriarchy as applied through Feminism has been a criminal abomination.  We see these sophistries applied in several other area’s to again, gain a toe-hold of Government intrusion within other area’s: the Environment, Drug’s, the War on Poverty…etc.

            Matriarchy (Socialists) use the natural tendencies of Government to expand and enhance their power in which to apply it’s mythologies upon an unsuspecting public.  As Bastiat demonstrated in his treatise The Law, those wanting to accrue their power and control at the expense of others obtain as such by holding up a social cause.  From this they agitate the public, widely dispersing the need of implementation of new laws and social causes throughout the mainstream media, and widely advertise manufactured “crisis’s” in which to gain public support, and mobilize their elite’s to enforce the cause.  From this, those elite profit greatly by these ‘new laws’ and social causes they have now joined to support.  Once the cause is subsidized by government, the sophistry remains eternal and the problems never get solved, while the laws; which are usually obscure and general at first; are of no-consequence; soon conflagrate into ever superceding and interceding laws.  Within a short period, if you break one of these laws, which now becomes very easy—you are held hostage in paying huge fines, penalties, and in the case of Fathers Rights, even imprisonment.  This is our new social order, designed and implemented via ‘activist’ courts requires these courts to violate, the very fundamental premises upon which American law rested, and abandon them completely:


     For the Four Horsemen, the principles of laissez-faire economics were not merely preferred but part of the natural order "beyond the right of  official control."  Although the swore allegiance to a brand of constitutional fundamentalism that required judges to "declare the law as written," with no textual mandate whatsoever, they freely read into he Constitution their own Darwinist notions of social policy.  Using the protean doctrine of substantive due process as their sword, they ventured forth to defend the country against all manner of social and economic legislation--minimum wage laws, maximum hours laws, price controls, regulations of interstate commerce--and thus, set themselves four-square against Roosevelt's New Deal efforts to lift the nation from depression.   

      Opposite the Four Horsemen stood the Three Musketeers, Justices Louis Brandies, Harlan Fiske Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.  These "liberals" found no particular economic philosophy enshrined in the Constitution (certainly no "Mr. Herbert Spencers Social Statistics," as Holmes had put it in the most famous expression of their jurisprudence).  Though not all enamored of Roosevelt--Stone was close to Calvin Coolidge, who had appointed him--they were political progressives and legal pragmatists who looked out on a nation in crisis and recognized that its basic charter must bee deemed flexible enough to meet "the social and economic needs of the time."  To the Musketeers, the Justices had no right (as the conservatives had been doing for twenty years) to hold 120 million citizens hostage to their "own personal predilections" regarding economic policy.  The Court's proper concern was solely with Congress's authority to enact a particular statue, not with its wisdom.


Closed Chambers, The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court, by Edward Lazarus, c1998, Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8129-2402-9, pp. 282-282


However, the fact remains that the Paradox of Feminism indoctrinating Matriarchy throughout society clearly overthrows the well-founded, and well-documented American legal foundations such as “that one man cannot of the same land be both lord and tenant.”  The fact that Feminism cannot live within the American system of governance under the past doctrines and foundational precepts which our nation was well established upon.  This of course is conclusive proof of the quote above, that Fatherhood, or Patriarchy, is being held hostage by today’s entire American Jurisprudence system, to a “personal predilection” which stems directly from Feminism.  This intolerance to Americanism is not lost upon the Fathers Rights movement and may other groups who tend to support their country.  Therefore, presented with this dichotomy, Radical Feminist “just throw away” any laws that they don’t agree with, or which stand in their way; just as they are throwing away the basis of American Jurisprudence itself, Christian morals, ethic’s, and most importantly—truth, logic and justice.  Whatever foundational precepts they don’t like, whatever laws or doctrines which do not conform to their radical ideology, they attack, subvert, then; undermine by either destroying them outright or subverting them and ‘replacing’ them with “new” more “efficient laws.”  As Ms. Hillary Clinton is eagerly said to have quoted: “A redesign of humanity.”  The fact that the new laws which are subverting the basic doctrines of America, and replacing them with Anti-American “law”—doesn’t matter to these people, for they never believed in the concept of America in the first place.  This of course has had direct and eternal effects on the tapestry of the American dream and has greatly compromised this nation’s freedom, to subsidize feminism by destroying America from within; someone has had to pay for this massive social program.


“On the other side of the national divide is Second Wave America, the forgotten Americans left behind...[it] is a land of middle-class anxiety, downsized hopes, and vanished dreams, where economic insecurity is a preexisting condition of life, and company towns become ghost towns overnight.  Men in their forties and fifties who have worked for the same company since college come home bewildered to their shaken wives that they are being let go.  People know in their hearts that America will never again be the country they grew up in.  The years slide by, family incomes stagnate, wives go to work to make sure their children have the same things as other kids at the public school do.  For Middle America, something went wrong.  They played by the rules, but the promise was unfulfilled.”


[The Great Betrayal, How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy, by Patrick J. Buchanan, ©1998; Little, Brown and Company, Canada, ISBN 0-316-11518-5; p. 7.]


Strangely, nobody has related this national American tragedy with the advent of second and third wave Radical Feminism.  It is as if everyone recognizes there is a hole in the bottom of the ship of America, yet keep looking up and blaming the sails for the ship sinking.

            Matriarchy has usurped the sovereign authority and moral leadership of the father within his own home,  through the establishment and maintenance of several sophistries. 

1.)                 The Children as starving and in poverty.

2.)                 Children as being Beaten and Abused.

3.)                 The wife as being Beaten and Abused.

4.)                 The The Father/Male as a Wife Beater/Abuser/Rapist.

5.)                 run-away or abandoning Father.

6.)                 Wife and Children as being poor.

7.)                 The mutilated Beggar Syndrome—wife and children always need help.

8.)                 Sainted Mother postulate—mothers can do no wrong.

9.)                 The ‘EQUALITY’ Card.

10.)              Mothers are the supreme parent and must stay with children at all costs over the Fathers rights.


These ten items have been widely indoctrinated into the mainstream mindset by both government and the mainstream media.  To  virtually every item, almost each and every one of these then things is a national collective disinformation campaign, designed solely to subvert and undermine the Father, who is “invented” into either a Bogeyman or an outright criminal.  Simply put, the Father is statistically the overwhelming singular best environment in which to place this nation’s children.


U.S. News & World Report recently described the frightening reality faced daily by residents of fatherless city neighborhoods this way:  "There are places in America where fathers--usually the best hope to socialize boys--are so rare that bedlam engulfs the community.  Teaches, ministers, cops an other substitute authority figures fight losing battles in these places to present role models to pre-teen and teenage boys.  The result is often an astonishing level of violence an incomprehensible incidents of brutality."


[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. 47.]


 And this is the main reason why he has been physically and legally driven out of his home, and disenfranchised as a parent, provider and leader of his own home.  What the American nation, our Founding Fathers, Western civilization and even civilization itself once fully understood and chose as a blueprint for advancement within society has been mistakenly thrown away for the promise of a “new,” “redesigned,” “more efficient” social order highlighted by radical Feminism.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and a warehouse of staggering facts and figures demarcating this national disaster, is concisely demonstrating that this new redesign was as flawed as the ancients once recognized.  They threw away this design, “Matriarchy” which existed for a quarter million years before the advent of Patriarchy, and which never really produced a thing.  They chose Patriarchy not as a system of oppression as the feminist would have us believe, but rather, as an engineered design, one of discipline, formal direction, morality, and justice—and most importantly—one that assured wealth, or ‘surplusage’ which in fact was the true reason why civilization was invented in the first place.  As U.S. News & World Reports and others are beginning to recognize, there is an ever-growing bedlam which is attached to this feminist model, one of devolution, one of destruction.

We must understand the other side of this equation, that Patriarchy is not a system of lies and deceptions as Matriarchy is..  For it’s base and foundation is based in logic and timeless observation of not man but civilization as a whole has determined these truth’s.   Western Civilization selected and chose Patriarchy for a reason; not only that, our whole foundation, laws, and civilized logic emanates from this time-tested selection. Patriarchy takes the natural leader, the physically stronger and more aggressive of the two entities between male and female, and allows him to assume his proper role within the family and the home, to protect, to lead and to provide for them.  He can only do this if given the empowerment over his domain: his own family.  In Lord Coke’s own words, he must be “Lord.”  No lies, deceptions or sophistries are needed to implement Patriarchy.  The facts are clear about this, Patriarchy gives the male his assumed role within the family and society.  Matriarchy however; has no concomitant role for such men, excepting that of sperm donor, gay male, or prison inmate, which has been well documented and is a growing reality in today’s society.

            This reality is not to belittle the female by any means.  Indeed, Patriarchy celebrated the female and allowed her, to assume her role as well, which required just as much effort and discipline (maybe more so) than even her male counterpart.  They recognized that the female appears to have ingrained other attributes and qualities which make her different, and perhaps much more needed within this system.  We know her brain is wired differently.  She is more sensitive, acutely aware, her powers of observation appear to be superior, less prone to violence, etc.  She is more sensitive, more resolute.  Western Society has correctly determined that both the male and female are needed in civilized society to build strong homes and families.  In essence, the nuclear two parent Family doesn’t need the “Village” as much as the “Village” needs the two-parent Family.   Present day feminist dogma desists this model altogether and tries by every means possible to formulate and invent substitutes for the nuclear family. What I call a prostitution of function.  These include ‘mentoring’, ‘foster homes’, ‘child care’,  and a host of other ‘substitutes’ which have continually document the failed experiment of feminism.  The failure of feminism is the thing that now devolves this society by a negative social pressure and tries to push it into a tribal domain.

            This in fact is the expression of nature: the Ying and Yang of the masculine of feminine.  Patriarchy does not denigrate these differences, rather; it openly venerates and celebrates them and combines them into one for mutual benefit.  From this recognition, it uses this intrinsic differences between the male and female to place the proper person as the proper function within the home and family. Clearly; by that design,  it makes human sexuality itself, work for the family and the society.  This system which America chose as a foundational blueprint for this nation, was marveled at by both Europeans and De Tocqueville himself:


Thus the Americans do not think that man and women have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as being of equal value.  They do not give to the courage of women the same for or the same direction as to that of man; but they never doubt her courage; and if they hold that man and his partner ought not always to exercise their intellect and understanding in the same manner, they at least believe the understanding of the one to be as sound as that of the other, and her intellect to be as clear.  Thus, then, while they have allowed the social inferiority of women to subsist, they have done all they could to raise her morally and intellectually to the level of man; and in this respect they appear to me to have excellently understood the true principle of democratic improvement.  As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the woman of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen women occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked now that I am drawing to the close of this work,  in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity attributed, I should reply—to the superiority of their women.


[Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., pp. 402-403.]


This of course, appears to totally contradict the contention by the radical feminist that women were useless and just being slaves to their men within the American home.  No—in fact; it appeared that America had made a link as to which other societies before them did not, and that was that the Females within the society, held not just a position in society; but rather, they held an esteemed, and precious position of solemn and loving responsibility within the home.  From this discipline, women were not just cattle, in fact as De Tocqueville describes above, they were viewed superior.  This is a far cry from the mindless second wave Feminist Mystique mantra being chanted today.  More importantly, it is timeless praise emanating from one of America’s most definitive study ever undertaken in reference to understanding this country.

Feminism appears to contumaciously lie about the existence of sexual differences and how they relate to society and the family; and it opposes them upon every front.  It tries to overcome the obvious by and through the unequal application of “Equality;” and as Betty Friedan describes “The Problem With No Name”, which has been used to promote an unequal playing field in which to skew the tests or performance to that lesser gender of the ‘protected class’ in order to gain the equality of affirmative action.  In simple terms: they apply an unequal assessment in order to allow the inferior person an advantage in which to show that they can succeed through their engineered skewing of tests or performance.  The definitive example of this was shown at the San Francisco Fire Department entrance tests where the women tested could not lift the ladder during their performance examination.

            The result?

            There was an immediate re-evaluation of the test and more particularly: the ladder.  It was ‘too heavy’ and had to be ‘replaced’…or so the Feminist contended…  This is the application of ‘Equality’ as applied by feminist sophistry.  Not just in the physical aspects of our society, but rather; in every aspect, in testing, education, science, and even Military war.  The Feminist contend that females are equal, if not equal, then superior—if tested correctly.  This correlation between Feminist inspired mythology and sophistry in which to obfuscate the obvious is a well developed tactic as implemented by Matriarchal institutions. 

            At Georgetown University, there was a group of undergraduate females known as the Georgetown Girls.  These young women XXXXXX [explain their problem.]  When confronted by a feminist coalition at the University hearing, these young Georgetown Girls inadvertently posed a question in total exasperation to the Feminist tribunal before them and incredulously asked:  “What do you want us to do?  Lie?!?”  to which the tribunal immediately responded:  “Yes!  If it places forwards our goals towards our social agenda!!!”  These young Georgetown Girls were incredulous, but; they were meeting what men have met headlong for the past 50 years: the Feminist “Village” mind. Feminist Lies and Disinformation.

            Not only was there a stunned silence from the Georgetown Girls, but there was also a stunned silence to many whom have dealt with this radical feminist mindset.  But we must consider, this as the working grease of Matriarchy, the ability to lie and apply disinformation at will, in order to place forwards their social agenda—at any cost.  It is one of the main components to allow Feminist and Matriarchy  to survive, as otherwise; it could not. 

            This is one reason why there has been such a complicit media, ready, willing and able to disseminate the most egregious lies the Feminists disseminate in favor of their cause.  The media has become such willing conspirators to this sophistry, that they no longer can either tell or afford the truth.  The American mainstream media, in both print and electronic; have become willing conspirators towards the liberal cause of Matriarchal development for “The Best Interests of the Child.”  They have become no more than a willing propaganda machine now intent on keeping truth from the public as much as they are mandated to inform it.  This was not true only within the corridors of the mainstream media, but also the research communities as well.  This has been a well documented problem within the Radical Feminist regime:


“In the past these issues have turned out to be too difficult and too politically risky for debate.  In the mid-1960s Daniel Patrick Moynihan then Assistant Secretary of Labor, was denounced as a racist for calling attention to the relationship between the prevalence of Black-Single-Mother families and the lower socio-economic standing of black children.  For nearly twenty years, the policy and research comminutes backed away from the entire issue.


[Children in Crisis, edited by Robin Brown, ©1994, H.W. Wilson Company, New York, ISBN 0-8242-0853-6; p. 23.]


            This closes all doors to any meaningful discussion or opposition by Patriarchal factions within our society.  No longer can the public be informed as to what public policies to implement, due to the fact that most facts and figures that have been presented to them have been well-publicized lies.  These lies have knowingly been left to propagate and become part of the national mindset, leaving the public incapable of making any decisions upon this matter, especially serving on a jury at trial..  As especially noted by President Clinton’s $34 billion dollar lie that men owe this amount in child support, when the facts over and over have empirically proven different.  The whole American mindset in regards to Fatherhood: is a complete abject lie!  These lies are willingly and cogently reintroduced incessantly and insistently to the American public, even though the media has full knowledge that these facts and figures being disseminated—are in fact—outright lies.  Yet, these Feminist sophistries continue…and they grow.   They grow exponentially.  Presently, even the American public has become fully cognizant that our media has become nothing more than state-sponsored propaganda machine.  They recognize something is wrong, and the media for the first time in over a century, is seeing a huge migration of the populace move from the ‘traditional’ media models, towards ‘alternative’ news sources.  Never before has paper and television news lost such a share in market due to their attendance and support of Feminist Sophistry and state-sponsored propaganda.  Even with this recognition, it is with great reluctance that they intent to change, in fact, they are not changing.

            This clearly establishes a combine of interests between government, media and the Socialist/Feminist factions.  They clearly act knowingly, in collusion, to support the myths presented by the modern Matriarchal order.



                It was during the heyday of the Antebellum South that the roots of modern Feminism and Matriarchy first established its model within the United States.  The southern white-male separatist faction unwittingly through the economic vehicle of slavery of the importation of African Blacks, established Matriarchy as we know it today.  They imposed it for their own economic viabilities, destroying the Black Father, stealing whatever wealth his labor made for him, separating his family, stealing and selling his children, selling his wife, and using him only as a sperm donor.  Indeed, what the White Southern slave owner was doing was emulating the exact function of the modern Welfare state today, which does these same exact things to the Black Male, except this time: under the guise and in the name of “We the People” of the State.

            Slavery is a system based on injustice, economic subjugation, and peonage/servitude for the benefit of either an individual or a society.  It is a system as old as mankind, and can be either an evil or mercenary benevolent institution.  It is not an American institution, as derogated by the foundational precepts of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  However; that contumacious point aside—modern Feminism/Matriarchy was gestated from that former institution as it developed within the antebellum south.

            From that southern model, we saw a clearly demarcated ‘species,’ a Black African—who was sold into bondage, for personal economic gain of mostly whites.  [Please note however; history shows that there were cases of blacks who as freemen, also owned slaves in the south, as well as conversely; the Founding Fathers who also could not resist the temptation of that pragmatic economic institution.]  Focusing on this plantation model of slavery, you usually had a white freeman, landholder, usually with a family and property, owning a slave or slaves, who worked at their masters bidding.  Their toil promulgated wealth for the master, and the agrarian society which fostered slavery.  As a subset to the master, the Black African slave was compelled to do whatever his master desired, unconditionally.  However; this Black Slave lived in a separate order, a world unto himself; and usually assimilated the Matriarchal societies from Africa from whence he came.  This condition of Matriarchy was exacerbated by the Master, using the slave as pure chattel, as property, and animal sold and used at will. 

            If a slave propagated children, the wife and children of that slave could be separated from that slave at the will of the Master, they could be sold into bondage, or the wife of the male slave could have duties as a concubine, or prostitute among the other male slaves, essentially, the benevolence or denigration of the Master reigned supreme.

            What we had here, led by this Master/Slave relationship developed in the Antebellum south was the exact contemporary construct of the Modern welfare-state.  Indeed, if we again look to the maxims of law, it was clearly recognized that children raised in such a sexual abstract situation, without the regulation of the male (father) was indeed the condition of “slaves and animals”.  This state laid the bedrock for the formation of modern Welfare slavery.  The modern Black woman in accepting Welfare has betrayed and driven her society backwards to the slave/master model...

            In the modern Welfare State, the substitution for the white Male Master is the Government through the Doctrine of Parens Patriæ.  As in the Antebellum model, the Black male, who has been conditioned by centuries of Matriarchal oppression (read slavery) now is only a temporary sperm donor.  The female, whom has unwittingly provided this slave seedbed, is now the state subsidized administrator of the household, using the male as only a sperm donor, holding no loyalty or obligation to him, and living a life of promiscuity and irresponsibility.  Today, this is called ‘freedom’ by many feminists.  As are the condition of slaves, this sexual anarchy is the singular, main component of why the Black society within the United States has never been able to rise out of poverty.  It is not due because of lack of desire, intelligence or effort, but only due to their unknowing enslavement to Matriarchy within the slave model of Modern Welfare State which mainly holds them in bondage.  When a man no longer holds the function of a man, but that of a temporary accouterment to a woman’s sexual freedom, he enslaves not only himself, but his children as well.  This has been accomplished and conspired against the Black community, generationally. 

            As Le Roy Marshal an ardent Black Fathers Rights advocate in Englewood California and Director of Fathers United Against Slavery noted in East Los Angeles: “Our woman seek men, but don’t find any.  All the women here want to be married, but can’t, because they don’t respect the Black man.”  Indeed, this is the condition of Matriarchy, that of slaves and animals.  This is also the exponential of Briffault’s Law which states that “The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family.  Where the Female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”.  As the Black slave of the Antebellum south toiled for another in the fields of Southern America, his female counterpart was busy keeping her children together, (if she was able to keep her children), as she could not depend on the man for support because slavery was tearing him apart.  This is of course, the total ordination of Briffault’s law.   Unlike Patriarchy, his wealth was foiled and unjustly taken from him, and when he returned from his labors, he had nothing to show nor to give his woman in which to improve her condition.  There is no ‘benefit’.  This is the classic delineation of Matriarchy at its best it enjoins Briffault’s Law:  The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family.  Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.  [The Case For Father Custody, quoting from Robert Briffault].

            What we have here is the influence of hypergamy.  Women marry up, (towards riches and wealth), men marry down (towards beauty, youth, and offspring).  In Matriarchal archetypes, the man has been undermined; his endeavors have been superceded for another’s best interests at the expense of his own.  (The State.)   He does not have anything really to offer the woman, (other than temporary insemination), thereby; forcing the woman through the natural selection of hypergamy, to seek a male ‘or something else’ that is a better provider or ‘offers the woman something’.  To that end, she will not hold her allegiance to him as Briffault’s law has been broken.  When that ‘ability to provide’ is taken away from the male, as can be seen in the case of the Black Community and its intimate association with Welfare, the woman are left with economic desolation.  Thereby, they have to marry the state, and from this choice, driven by Briffault’s Law, they get the benefit and security in which their own males are supposed to provide.  In the Black Community this is a generational condition, men have lesser choices and economic opportunities due to the fact of the implementation of Matriarchy/Slave-based conditions.  From that, the Black women have no real expressive choice within the Black Community as her men have been relegated into slavery, thereby making the Black male a poor choice for a Black woman to choose or hold fidelity to.  This is but one of the reasons why Matriarchy and Feminism is the “condition of slaves and animals.”

            This model is solidified within the Welfare State by this economic modeling.  Black women get pregnant earlier, thereby opening the ‘door’s of opportunity and freedom to these young black women who obtain instant gratification and security from the Welfare “Village”.  Striving to better themselves they do; as their new husband: “The State” grants her subsidies to do so; thereby she takes college courses. When these women enrich themselves through the panorama of ‘special support’ and opportunities of a virtual cornucopia of Welfare programs such as GAIN, WIC, PIC and other educational, and child-welfare programs, the are accepting the ‘benefit’ of which Briffault’s law describes..  Indeed, from this, a majority of Black Women obtain degrees, opening the door to economic freedom within the socialist state itself, which was the Feminist/Matriarchal intent in the first place.


        Prosecutor Hayes rose to cross-examine Cheri.  She asked curtly whether she had sought a job.

        “I’m always seeking employment,” Cheri told her.

        “Anything now?”

        “Not at the moment,” Cheri said.

        “How do you support yourself?”

        “I’ve been borrowing money from friends.”

        “How often do you go out on job interviews?”

        “Résumé’s are sent out every month,” Cheri said.  “Most recently, I’ve applied as a field organizer for NOW.”

        Hayes asked why Cheri’s Welfare payments had been cut off.

        “Failure to provide information they needed from my child’s birth certificate,” Cheri said.

        The cross-examination ended without any specific questions that might have forced Cheri to testify about her part-time, late-night jobs.


[Myth of the Welfare Queen, by David Zucchino, ©1997, Scribner, 1230 Avenue of the America’s, New York, NY 10020; p. 267.]


So the Black Woman obtains a career from the Welfare State, and the monolith of feminism which as Cheri admits above—is also a main player within this game; which of course is a engineered corollary which increases the power and breadth of those continually expanding institutions.  (It should be noted here, that any male under-going this same line of questioning—would have been placed into jail or most certainly have lost any ‘government  benefits’ he/she was seeking.  However, the Cheri above, was apparently able to keep those benefits even though she was only getting job-interview reports ‘monthly’ where a man would have been required to get them either weekly, or most certainly: daily.)  The Welfare woman cannot obtain this same type of security, wealth and safety from the a poor American male.  This system viscously makes a class of men, POOR men mostly ‘marginal’ or ‘unmarketable’ for marriage or to provide security for either their woman or child at the outset—and poor men have no hopes of competing with this national Welfare system.   The woman, however; is guaranteed these things, especially the security through the Matriarchal tribe.  So she substitutes the benefits of the  Welfare State as the functionary husband of her household, the state now becomes her husband.  Of course, the Black male has been usurped and he doesn’t even know it, and has no say upon  this illegal usurpation and intrusion into his home, in his supposed castle.  In accordance with Briffault’s law, the Black female marries the state, as the state now provides her with benefits and security most Black males cannot counter.  No Black male; nor can many White or other males, provide as well, with as much security and safety as Welfare does.  This of course, is a complete conversion of our system of governance and American society itself, but those within the system do not care—because providing these things is “their daily bread.”


        In the sixties and seventies we thought the situation we read about in Michael Harrington’s The Other America was desperate.  Then, when I climbed the stairs of housing projects and visited tenements on Chicago’s South and West sides, I knew firsthand the bleak lives of the poor.  But these were the good old days when the poor were just poor and not [an] underclass, and when we felt no fear in walking inner-city streets or negotiation housing project stairwells.  Today, two and a half underclass generations later, I compare the underclass I see in court today with the poor I represented twenty-five or thirty years ago, and the comparison is invidious.  No fathers.  Never fathers.  Schools that do not and cannot without parental involvement educate; empty factories in the inner city; a welfare system that deprives people of dignity, fostering irresponsible behavior and belittling self-discipline; drugs sold on street corners as freely as soda, and guns as available as the drugs; and the whole mess a Gordian knot resisting solutions and ready to explode in the outer city as random violence and in the inner city as rioting and looting.

        A young Department of Labor economist named Daniel Moynihan publicized all this in the 1960s, but white and black liberals placed his report outside the ambit of public discourse by the simple device of branding it as racist—though they never argued that the raw facts he reported were untrue.  Instead, as the messes of the underclass raged out of control, Democrats blamed Ronald Reagan and his revolution.  It really wasn’t a revolution at all, but it has given the Democrats a convenient excuse...

        Moynihan argued that the growing trend of black children raised without fathers would ultimately lead to catastrophe.  The left shouted him down because they feared racists would use Moynihan’s report as proof that black people were less moral, ethical, and family-orientated than whites.  Many on the right felt that way to begin with, so they didn’t pay much attention to Moynihan or his report.  Moynihan had the audacity to pick up a large rock, uncovering a thousand nasty, crawling creatures.  We shoved the rock back in place, but the problems were still there.  And they grew and multiplied.


[Wasted, The Plight of America’s Unwanted Children, by Patrick T. Murphy, ©1997, Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1332 North Halsted Street, Chicago 60622; ISBN 1-56663-163-7; pp. 90-92.]


            Young Black Males have been under direct economic attack by their new Slave Master, the Welfare State “to Provide” for this Welfare institution which is in turn destroying him.  He has been immediately undermined, as his authority does not reign supreme, the court (Welfare State) will direct him, his life, and his children even against his most basic will or authority.  The  courts in essence, have now become the White master.   At every opportunity he will be undermined, enslaved, his life profits drained from him.  He like other males will obediently become a slave.   He has no idea what is happening to him, for on the one hand, the Black Male, who is proud and willing to care for his progeny, tries to enjoin in his own demise to show he cares for his own children.  He provides for “Child Support” as long as he can, but usually is quickly destroyed by the system (an intentional by-product of this system).  Thereby, he is undermined by the engineered Sophistry of “The Best Interest of the Child”, the Feminist Tribe demands that he destroy himself by direct financial subsidization of his own destruction.  This sophistry as in the Master Model of the Antebellum south, accrues huge profits to the Welfare State.  The Black Woman along with the Welfare State essentially ‘split’ the wealth of the Black man whom is trying to do the best thing, but is undermined by his own planned failure by this system.  In fact, District Attorney’s around the country, try and push as many undeserving, and problematic cases onto welfare as they can, for they fully understand as well as others within the system ‘understand,’ that this is where their “daily bread” comes from:


        Joann was addicted to crack.  She was twenty-three, pretty, bright and came from a lovely family.  Her mother was a Bank Teller, and had cared for Joann’s three-year-old son for two years.  Kinship Foster care, of course.  After a twenty-four-month residential drug program, Joann came to court ready to resume the care of her child.  The attorney argued that before her boy could be returned, Joann had to open up a public assistance case and get a subsidy  from the city for an apartment.  Joann readily agreed, but I almost had a stroke.

        “Welfare?” I shouted.  “Oh no!  She is going to get a job.”

        Well, you would have thought that I just maligned the Pope.  “No Welfare,” I said.  “that’s hopeless.  You have come too far to get on the Welfare spiral.”  Then I adjourned the case for eight weeks for Joann’s job search.

        When Joann returned to court two months later, she had been employed full-time for six weeks at a Roy Rogers restaurant.  She looked terrific, and although she was not crazy about the job, it was a beginning.  Joann needed a nudge.


[Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining, America’s toughest court Judge Speaks Out, by Judy Sheindlin, ©1996, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022, ISBN 0-06-017321-1, p. 235.]


            In the final analysis, it is not the Black women who accrues the males wealth, nor her children; but rather the Welfare state.  Hillary and others embedded throughout this perverse system fully know this, and understand this.  That is the  institution which benefits mostly from this parasitic slave-based arraignment.  Neither the singular Single Female Headed Household’s, or those children therewithin, nor the community can rise up from this constant attack upon their males, as any gross wealth developed by that society is drained out from that community.   Thereby, the community itself cannot comprehend why, which government program after government program that they attach themselves to—the community somehow is always held down into poverty.   There Welfare roles keep on increasing, crime keeps rising, police and prison populations keep on expanding.   This is the classic impressment of the promise of the devolution of the Welfare tribal state, which really only devolves these communities into anarchy, crime, social pathology, and eternal poverty. 

Until the Black community exorcises itself from this addiction of the Welfare state: their communities, will continue to devolve into the Tribal condition of anarchy.  The historical analysis and the attending facts and figures in regards to this reality—are not just overwhelming—but rather: staggering:


        By 1984, over 90 percent of births to black women under age twenty were illegitimate.  As the president of the National Council of Negro Women noted in 1985, although early marriage and the resulting early motherhood were once common among blacks, today the overwhelming majority of all black babies are born to unwed teenage mothers—a situation described by Eleanor Holmes Norton as a “natural catastrophe in our midst, a threat to the future of Black people without equal.”  In 1985, the Children’s Defense Fund described marriage as a “forgotten institution” among black teenagers, when the adolescent single mother had become the rule, rather than the exception that she was in the black community in the 1950s.


[Domestic Tranquility, A Brief Against Feminism, by F. Carolyn Graglia, ©1998, Spence Publishing Company, 501 Elm Street, Suite 450, Dallas TX 75202; ISBN 0-9653208-6-3; p. 298.]


Two years after the riots, a report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights went further in probing the root causes of Miami's unrest.  It cited poverty, unemployment, poor housing, and declining public schools--all of which blacks suffered in disproportionate numbers--along with a widely held belief that the criminal-justice system was biased.  In criticizing Reno's office, the report noted that three times as many blacks were being prosecuted in Dad's juvenile courts as any other racial or ethnic group.  Reno said the report offered few constructive suggestions for change.  "It will only exacerbate community tensions," she said.


[Janet Reno, Doing the Right Thing, by Paul Anderson, @1994; John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-01858-9; p.83.]


        "Yet the statistics along with an entire array of economic and social criteria are sobering.  According to teh National Urban League, the median net household worth for black families in 1988 was $4,169, compared to $43,279 for white families.  Over 29 percent of black families had zero or negative net worth, compared with 87 percent of white families; only 5.2 percent of black families had net worth’s above $100,000, contrasted with 29.2 percent of white families.  In 1992, 33.3 percent of all blacks were below the poverty level, compared to 11.6 of whites.  In 1991, the black unemployment rate was 12.4 percent, more than twice as high as the white unemployment rate.  The black-to-white unemployment gap has actually widened between 1964 and today.       Likewise, the Urban League reports that blacks are 6.4 times more likely to die by homicide than whites.  In 1991, 46.4 percent of all black families were headed by single females--a figure that has doubled since 1960.  In 1970, 38 percent of black births were out-of-wedlock; by 1988, that number had grown to 64 percent.  By the year 2000, the proportion of black children living with both parents is predicted to decline to 24 percent.  For these children, the odds are great for a life of poverty.       

        Educational prospects are equally bleak:  in 1991, 19.6 percent of blacks between the ages of 20 and 29 did not have a high school diploma, and an additional 46.4 percent did not progress beyond high school.  The National Assessment of Educational Progress in 1995 reported that only 12 of black high school seniors (as compared to a dismal-enough 40 percent of whites) were proficient in reading.  According to Shelby Steele, 72 percent of black college students drop out.  The educational statistics manifest themselves in additional ways: as many as three-fourths of black males between the ages of 25 to 34 who dropped out of high school had criminal records.  Overall, nearly one of every three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 is in jail or otherwise under supervision of the judicial system, which represents a 30 percent increase since 1989.      

        ....Traditional civil rights remedies do not hold much hope for the truly disadvantaged.  As political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset observes, "Whatever the causes of childhood poverty, affirmative action is no remedy for this group.  Preference policies or quotas are not much help to an illegitimate black ghetto youth who grows up in poverty and receives an inferior education.  Race-conscious affirmative action is relevant only to those who are eligible for job, business, or college opportunities--and utterly irrelevant to the remainder....It seems clear that massive welfare programs and the race-specific policies of the past 30 years, despite their enormous costs, both economic and social, are not up to the task of bringing large numbers of economic outsiders into the mainstream of American life."


[The Affirmative Action FRAUD, Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?, by Clint Bolick, @1996 by the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; ISBN 1-882577-28-0; pp. 20-22.]


This of course is classical paradox of “The Best Interests of the Child” in conjunction with the Black Male being economically and socially obliterated is the classical modus operandi of the Modern Welfare State, which in fact, is the exact model of the Slavery model of the pre-Civil War Antebellum south.  In both cases, the Black male is having his wealth stolen from him, undermining his chances of success, which can ONLY be gained through Patriarchy.  The final result?  Within a few short years over 90 percent of them lose all contact with their children—thereby, maintaining the generational Welfare cycle.  The final result?   Children are destroyed: society no longer has strong resilient families (by intended design) and thereby; are burdened to support an ever burgeoning Welfare ‘underclass.’  This model is now leaking over into other classes within our society; White, Black, Asian, Hispanic: no nationality, no nation will be able to stand in the way of this devolution once it takes root.

            This condition has been folded over against the Black Society and the complete American Society as a whole.  What the Black Society has suffered through via the seemingly inspirational offering of the Modern Welfare state, is in fact, engineered enslavement, but on a vastly greater scale, spanning generations, and crossing all ethnic and race barriers within America.  In this regards, we are all being ‘equalized’ into slavery.   This is why the opening quotation of Chapter One is so important.  This is why every American Father and every American school child must be required to memorize that maxim of law.  “Those children that follow the condition of the mother are that of animals and slaves.”

            Hillary, and her multiculturalist elite have been building a slave-class society through welfare, so that they can profit from the destruction which ‘should’ go to the home and family, and then ‘should’ be absorbed by the local communities throughout America.  Instead, by this Welfare State cancer—Fathers wealth is immediately compromised at his paycheck.  It never starts up the food chain which would help to enrich so many individuals from the bottom up.  They demand that it ‘trickle’ back down through Welfare from the top down, by subsidy and through ‘entitlement’s’ and ‘grants.’  It is factually, a transfer of the males wealth to the Feminist “Village” and the Government’s supporting infrastructure.

            What this has done to the Black Society in America has devastated them categorically across every social marker across the United States.  The Black male is exponentially more probable to suffer gun use, drug use, teenage pregnancy, suicide, high school drop-out rates, imprisonment…really…the list is to long to categorize here.  This has been a planned war against the lower classes of the Blacks, in favor of the white and elite classes of the United States.  It was a planned way to engineer their demise, and to control their population (or any population) by offering them the ‘salvation’ through the addiction of Welfare.  Yet, like everyone else, the Black male and community do not recognize the problem, they know they are slowly sinking; yet they too, look up and blame the sails instead of the gaping hole in their hull for sinking their ship.  It isn’t the sails: it’s feminism destroying and feeding off of these communities.

            It is time that the Black American categorically rebuke feminism and Welfare.  It is time that they assume their rightful position as men, and lead their society out of poverty, into the prospects of Patriarchy, which will allow individual men to gain wealth, to obtain a wife, to have children, and to work and keep his wealth in his family.  They must control the female kinship system as the rest of us must do.  This is the seed of progress which was chosen to invent modern Western culture, and the ancients as well as our Founding Fathers recognized this.  In the present Matriarchal model, it is clear that the main benefactor of the Welfare State is NOT the children, as we shall see all too soon, they have been annihilated by the welfare experience, across the board.  Any child within the grips of Welfare has a zero chance of getting out of poverty.  It is planned that way.  It is engineered for this solution.  The Government elite want it no other way…the facts and figures proving this allegation are, plainly: I-N-C-O-N-T-R-O-V-E-R-T-A-B-L-E.  Welfare, is planned to feed off of and destroy the children, as that seedbed is the future harvest of a panorama of ‘Alphabet Soup’ Government agencies which feed off and depend upon those future harvests for their future industries, interests, and controls.


“Our society fails to guarantee this support. We have a thirty percent illegitimacy rate and a sixty (no longer fifty) percent divorce rate with virtually automatic mother custody.

A judge may try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother’s custody. He may try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the man he sends to prison grew up in a fatherless household like the one he created in the morning when he tried the divorce case. He sees no connection between the two cases.

Fatherless children are 5 times more likely to commit suicide, 32 times more likely to run away, 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders, 14 times more likely to commit rape, 9 times more likely to drop out of school, 10 times more prone to substance abuse, 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution, 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Fatherless girls perpetuate the next generation of fatherlessness, encouraged by the removal of the stigma on illegitimacy and by the growth of a government Backup System which is designed to repair the damage created by fatherlessness, but which actually encourages and subsidizes it.

Family instability and the resulting fatherlessness has produced children who are impulse-ridden, overly aggressive (or overly passive), drug abusing, with low self-esteem and poor judgment. Their educational performance is a national embarrassment.

Father custody, formerly mandatory and automatic, stabilized the mid-nineteenth century family. There were only a few thousand divorces annually in America when the Seneca Falls feminists complained in 1848 that in divorce mothers automatically lost their children, when in 1869 the English philosopher John Stuart Mill complained in The Subjection of Women that "They are by law his children." Between 1870, when judges began the shift to mother-custody, and 1920, by which time mother-custody was the rule, divorce increased by a factor of fifteen. Today’s sixty percent divorce rate is wrecking marriage and the family and society.”


[The Case for Father Custody, by Dr. Daniel Amneus, Cover Sheet]


From this, government through the courts is opening a gateway to all women and easily allowing them to enter the Welfare State.  Women; through their own selfish interests and needs, are entering a engineered sophistry that is antithetical to they ever finding a mate within their own community, as their ‘tough’ choices from the very beginning in entering the Welfare State are undermining the male to which they are ultimately seeking.   They are throwing away their males, and any allegiance they may hold to their race by ‘marrying’ Hillary’s Welfare “Village” tribe. As Mr. Marshal laments: “They can find no males here.”  Of course not, the Black females have betrayed their males with their marriage to government and the attendant Welfare State!   They know via the intrinsic lessons of Briffault’s law which exist throughout the animal kindgom, that the women will consistently replace their males with the best thing that can support them.  In this case the  ‘benefit’s’ of the Welfare State. This is because it provides the most secure assets in which women derive benefits from, and as we said before, most men cannot begin to match these benefits and especially the security.  The Black American woman has betrayed her man and her race, for the chump change of Welfare and it’s special government programs which binds her society, and her men, and her children into that generational slavery.  Because of their own immediate greed, they cannot abstractly reason that in the final analysis, through this model, that Hillary’s “Village” is going to enslave someone to ‘pay’ for her freedom.  And it does, by generationally harvesting men (and soon women, for more women default on child support than men) in which to enslave, and steal from so they can keep the whole tribal Welfare state alive and constantly enslaved.  This process has unwittingly harvested males within their and our populations generationally.


        A few years ago I attended a meeting called by the news director of the local affiliate of one of the major television networks.  In the wake of the highly publicized deaths of several children in Chicago, the director had pulled together people active in child welfare.  He generously offered television time to educate the public about the problem of child abuse and its proposed remedies.

        About thirty of us sat around a long heavy oak table in a luxurious boardroom.  I was enjoying myself because the buffet table we loaded with good strong coffee, gourmet sweet rolls, and fresh fruit and juices.  Then the meeting started.  When the director asked for our suggestions, one of the first out of the starting blocks was an articulate, intense attorney for a well-known civil rights organization.  She quickly set the boundaries.  This is not a racial issue, she announced.   As many white children as black are abused.  The station would be acting irresponsibly if it showed only instances of black children being abused.  Just about everyone in the room nodded in agreement.

        When my turn came I pointed out that race was the overriding issue.  Cook County, which includes Chicago, is about one-third black, yet 88 percent of the abuse and neglect cases at Juvenile Court involve African-American children.  The same situation bogs down child welfare and criminal justice systems in every major city in the United States.  I pointed out that if we removed the so-called underclass from the equation, the attorney from the civil rights organization was correct.  But the underclass—primarily black in our major cities because of our blighted history of slavery, segregation, and employment discrimination—is the equation....

          The social workers, child welfare types, and lawyers sitting around the table coughed, blew noses, scraped chairs, sipped coffee, stared at their hands, or scratched stick figures on yellow pads.  The news director diplomatically moved on.  Knowing I was defeated, I waited fifteen minutes or so and then left, explaining I had to be in court.  But the coffee and rolls were great.


[[Wasted, The Plight of America’s Unwanted Children, by Patrick T. Murphy, ©1997, Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1332 North Halsted Street, Chicago 60622; ISBN 1-56663-163-7; pp. . 94-95.]



            Because of Briffault’s Law, low income females have a choice to select the best system that will provide for them or their children.  They have clearly made their choice, and have selected the Welfare State.  In fact, this paradox will not only continue, but broaden within the Black community (and all other communities) until Males within that Community, assume their proper roles superior to government within their own homes, and drive out the Welfare State by refusing to support it.  What is saddest is that, Hillary’s “Village” is now leaking over into the white and other populaces.  In that regard, we have now become truly color-blind.

            Presently, government has enslaved the Black man, by forcing him to pay for that enslavement.  It is called ‘Child Support’.  As such, it is a fraud, as Hillary and those who support this system fully understand, the whole system is a fraud.  And as noted above by Mr. Murphy, those who inhabit this system, don’t want any other discussion to avert them from their ‘daily bread.’  Unfortunately, many in the black community don’t realize that this ‘feminist’ Welfare construct is a new advent to their population.  The blacks in inner cities did not display and entreat the underlying problems of which now permanently binds them to the Welfare state:


With many black men employed as sailors, the households far exceeded those of whites.  Among Blacks between the ages of 15 and 40 in 1860, Females outnumbered males in New York County by 4,267 to 2672.  Females accounted for 56 percent  of the Black population.  Similarly, 58 percent of the city’s Irish were female in 1855.  Irish and Black domestics shared a second demographic trait.  Few had children.  In 1860, there were ten percentage points fewer Black women with children than white females.  Domestic work also  lowered the Irish birth rate.  As poverty, drinking, fighting and desertion undermined marital relations, matrimony became devalued, and Irish Female Headed Households became common.


[A History of New York State, David M. Ellis, ©1967, Cornell University Press, Ithica New York, Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 67-20587, p. 11.]


Yet, oddly, it wasn’t the Irish who were dragged down into the depths of Welfare’s generational despair—it was the Black American population, even though they had less children, and less families... 

Please note the full understanding of these facts and what they relate to, compared to a previous generation of Judges who made the insight that they had a duty to actually protect the male; from a case called Fanning v. Fanning in a court case stemming from the late 1890’s:


Fanning v. Fanning

“...As guardian[s] of the interests of the public and persons not parties to the record, it is our imperative duty to prevent dissolution of the marriage relation by means which the law condemns and expressly forbids.

                An infant child is the issue of this marriage, and we cannot tolerate that its character shall be sullied and its career clouded by a Judicial conviction of the Father on such evidence of infidelity to the most sacred obligations.  Since the “common-law marriages,” so called—another name for concubinage—is so obtrusively prevalent in the community, and our calendars are crowded with applications for divorce, it behooves us not to relax the stringency of the rules which, in the interests of good morals and social security, have been prescribed by law for the safeguard of the sanctity and stability of the marriage relation.


Daly Ch. J., and Bischoff, J. Concur.


[THE MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS OF NEW YORK, Book 2, Delehanzy, Judges of the Several Courts Reported During the Period Covered by this Volume, p. 94]



Both past Judges and Society as well, had a sense to protect both the Father and more importantly, the Family from any denigration—for the good of morality and the social good.  Presently, they have completely turned their backs on such self-evident truths and have abandoned their protections of the Family in ‘supposedly’ assuming the “Sir Galahad” complex of now protecting only the Female.  From this modern feminist intellect, the “Family Court” calendars have exploded—something again in opposition to Fanning’s sage warning’s and admonition’s.  The result has been a social pandemonium and anarchy which rages as various wars across the landscape of America.  And any Father or group, social scientist, or politician who dares to challenge these facts, or even note the obvious, is quickly shouted down, attacked, and most importantly; either vilified or outright imprisoned.  Presently, the courts have turned their back on both law and order, as within their own courtrooms and outside their doors flowing into the streets and schools and homes of America, they directly from the war that they intentionally created.  As Dr. Amneus notes above,  by overtly removing Fathers from their own children and from their own homes—these courts now establish and sustain various social pathologies directly related to their acts and omissions, that now fills our prisons, kills and wounds our children, homes and families, all under the direction and in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ for the feminists.



            Paradox.  This is the force and weight of Matriarchy.  It is the embellishment of Sophistries and disinformation within a society to obtain needed goals at the expense of others, with no attendant responsibility; all in the name of “The Best Interests of the Child”.  Placing the propaganda machine of the media before the American public and incessantly inundating the public with the fallacies and sophistries of Modern Feminism, establishes the unholy combine of the media, the Feminist and Government in a managed program to undermine the American male, and thereby destroy the family: FOR PROFIT.

            It is the support of the male: the father; who as head of the household which establishes individual wealth and prosperity, inculcates mores and traditions, and generally is the true binder and propagator of the two-parent nuclear household.   This implementation of Full Patriarchy is the thing that combats an errant government, and keeps it within the control of its specified ‘enumerated authority’.   Self-governance requires a robust, intelligent society.   Matriarchy does not require a robust people, and it most certainly doesn’t require intelligence, it does however; require slavish obedience, and the ability to never question.  This is the Ultimate Paradox, to either support the a robust society and thereby an ‘unbiased’ structured system of Full Patriarchy, and from that have a society grow in ascension, liberty and prosperity, with low social pathology indexes; or to conversely, support the ‘Equality’ and ‘Fairness’ and ‘Freedom’ of Feminism, which gains unlimited power and wealth to a ever-burgeoning government, with no limits, who imposes huge restraints on personal freedoms, with an extreme, never-ending social pathology index fed by the sexual anarchy that then reigns upon an unwitting society, (whose ignorance of course, again, feeds the power-construct of the Matriarchal Welfare archetype by allowing them to ‘create’ even more problems to solve and manage).

            The average mainstream media indoctrinated modern citizen would quickly viscerally choose the ‘equality’ ‘fairness’ and ‘freedom’ of feminism, then; shortly thereafter wonder why he/she is paying so much out in taxes, and wonder why children are being killed upon the streets and wonder why there is a cop on every corner.  Conversely, in accepting the structured and ordered system of full Patriarchy, they would revolt and wonder if the men were going to rage and beat their women and children inconsolably within the quiet unprotected sanctitude of their own homes—yet then amaze in their surprise at the order, prosperity, freedom and safety that such a system provides.  They would wonder at the paradox presented before them.

            Clearly, as William Pitt noted, it is the male and his supreme authority in the home which keeps government at bay at the threshold of each and every door.  Take the father out of the home, undermine him, and you have lost the true underpinnings of the control of government, and thereby; for instance--no longer is there a need for any fourth-amendment warrant...they just come down and break-down your door as they do today.  It is the individual acting in the status of “We the People” who controls the authoritative chains of the ‘enumerated power’ clause of an unrestrained government.  Remove the Father from within his own home, undermine him as he lives there, and government now instantly becomes the Master of “We the People”.  No longer does the American public have a protector living within the home as William Pitt declared, nor any authority over government whatsoever.  The main force of power in the home has been replaced by the state through feminism.  Remove Fatherhood, and the family goes into disarray, and more importantly, the real authority and control of government is removed.  This is the most important part of the Feminist and Socialist agenda within this nation today.  They are silently removing what groundwork the American system of governance has established over the past 400 years.

            From case study to University studies, there is a clear correlation of the father within the home as the main disciplinarian which gives a family structure and limits.  It is the placement of the Father within his own home that raises both children’s I.Q. test scores and scholastic test scores, just by the mere fact that he is there.  Place a father in the home, and suddenly, you establish children within that household that have limits, with respect for the law, with a sense of identity; of family name and heritage; ergo: you tend to produce ‘super-children’ within these environments.  Go to a Patriarchal society such as Japan, and you have children which astronomical test scores in relation to our test scores, a society with insignificant illegitimacy and teen pregnancy rates.  A society with the lowest crime rate in the world.  Follow that Patriarchal construct to this nation, and those households following the Patriarchal model indeed, follow that bell curve of establishing “super-children” within this society.


        “Walter Miller’s (1958) well-known article, “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency,” argues that the lower class concern with toughness.


Is probably related to the fact that a significant proportion of lower class males are reared in a predominantly female household and lack a consistently present male figure with which to identify and from whom to learn essential components of a “male” role.  Since women serve as a primary object of identification during pre-adolescent years, the almost obsessive lower class concerns with “masculinity” probably resembles a type of compulsive reaction-formation. (P. 9)


        Rohrer and Edmonson (1960) develop a similar analysis of the origins of adolescent male gangs among New Orleans Blacks:


Thus an organized form that springs from the little boy’s search for masculinity he cannot find at home becomes at first a protest against femininity and then an assertion of hyper-virility.  On the way it acquires a structuring in which the aspirations and goals of the Matriarchy or the middle class are seen as soft, effeminate, and despicable.  The gang ideology of masculine independence is formed from these perceptions and the gang then sees its common enemy, not as a class, nor even as a sex, but as the “Feminine Principle” in society. (Pp. 162-163)


        Whiting, Kluckhohn and Anthony (1958) extended the hypothesis by arguing that “insofar as there has been an increase in Juvenile delinquency in our society, it probably has been accompanied by an increase in the exclusiveness of mother-child relationships and/or a decrease in the authority of the Father.  (P. 70)


[The Myth of Masculinity, by Joseph H. Pleck, ©1981, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, ISBN 0-262-16081-1; p. 97.]


            Remove the father, and instantly; you tend to show immediate pathologies within the children.  Place those children into the confines of the Single Female Headed Household and in the first instance, the social pathology within those children go astronomically off-scale, across the board within all limits of the social pathologies represented.  The Ultimate Paradox is of course, is the  implementation of Full Patriarchy establishes singular, maintenance-free homes and families, free from the watchful eye of government and the Superstructure of waiting Welfare programs standing at the ready to help needy families.  Place the father within the domain of his own home, allow him to be a father, and instantly; government loses its eternally engineered Socialist Superstructure.

            Government cannot, and will not have this, and will fight the re-implementation of Full Patriarchy at every instance.  Like the War On Drugs, Welfare and the artificial enforcement of Matriarchy is a generational program, intended to be an eternal, ever-growing part of government.  An Empire.  Replace the Matriarchal “Village” family concept, with the Patriarchal “Ozzie and Harriet” concept of a Patriarchal Family, and you destroy the Welfare State categorically by the following ways.


1.)                Matriarchal Societies are Debt based Societies, Patriarchal are Free Saving Societies.  You return the wealth of the nation back to those whom produce it.   You go from a debtors society of one of savings.  A government can more readily control a debtor society than it can control a society that is free from debt.  Also, allowing those whom to produce their wealth to keep it, stops the “Welfare Filter” of the absconding of money, via taxes, special programs and outright confiscation.  This alone will be a loss estimated in the billions, and not only that, it will be a loss of control for government, whom will no longer be allowed to delve into the personal savings issue of every American who are ‘mandated’ to support welfare.

2.)                Matriarchal Societies are Slave-based Uneducated Societies, Patriarchal Societies require a Robust and Educated populace to viably survive.  Strange, yet the two are axiomatic.  Matriarchal societies are socialist in nature, and as the natural extension of the Matriarchal society is the Single Female Headed Household which produces less-educated children.  Those children are more likely to be unassuming and easily swayed by a Communistic/Socialist state propaganda machine.  Patriarchal homes however, are those in which the two-parent household’s flourish, and the greater attendance to education occurs.  These households are more apt to produce intelligent children, those who will not unwaveringly swallow anything a Government presents them with.  The responsibility of Self-Governance requires an educated public, clearly the Patriarchal model is where this flourishes.  From that, you obtain a Government restricted by a well informed, educated populace; which of course lead to free, just societies, ones that are ‘self-determinate’.

3.)                Patriarchal societies Create a Nation of Personal Savings Funds which Propagates Private Industry.   In the “Golden Age of America” personal savings in this nation was XXX.  These savings held in trust bank accounts funded Private Industry which provided 93% of the jobs in this nation.  Presently, due to Matriarchy, we are a nation without savings. [show us vs. Japan’s savings]  Now, Government provides 40% of the jobs within this nation and that percentage is growing.  Clearly, Government exponential growth is intimately tied to the restraint upon personal and family savings, which are either taxes out from the populace’s use, or it is seized outright by an ever arrogant and burgeoning government.

4.)                Matriarchy is the seed to fund Government growth and “Empirism”.  Through the well-established fact of the Single Female Headed Household propagating the majority of crime and social pathology within this nation, this is the causal engine that supplies and feeds the Superstructure of the Welfare State.  Removal of Feminism/Matriarchal archetype from this society, will drastically collapse that monolithic entity.

5.)                Patriarchal Societies imbues the family over that of the socialist State or the Feminist tribal “Village” model.  Presently, through Ms. Hillary Rodham-Clinton’s assertion that it “Takes a Village to Raise a Child” will be completely eradicated through the re-implementation of Full Patriarchy.  A Patriarchal society is one with lineage, history and tradition, which venerates its family and community.  Matriarchal societies are that of a Tribal State, with limited if any sense of legacy and tradition.  Matriarchal societies venerate the doctrine of Parens Patriae, the state as the ultimate parent, with absolute control and invasive authority into the panorama of human existence.  Presently, families cannot make any decision without Government’s willing consent.  In fact, there are Orwellian program’s being developed right now that will have a social worker assigned to a child, present in the birth-room upon delivery; that will be the sole agent for that child for life.

6.)                Matriarchal Societies are those modern societies devolving.  Patriarchal Societies are those ascending.  The tribal condition imposed by Matriarchy is a drain on a society’s resources, and thereby—as the outright failure of Soviet Communism indicates; socialism is a devolving pressure against society ascending.  Because of this tribal social condition where wealth is transferred by the state, such societies most likely assume one of two states: either the first being stasis, or no advancement; and the second devolution towards destruction.

7.)                Placing the Father back as the head of his home and family forces government out from being a superior law to that of the father in his own home.  Once you place family (the Father) as the main law in the home, government must retreat to its former constitutional role as being subordinate to “We the People”.  The individual becomes once again supreme over that of government, as shown in Model one of Lawrence H. Tribes Constitutional Law.

8.)                Re-Establishing the laws or Morte Main and the Law of Descents.  Once Full Patriarchy is re-established, the wealth of the father will be handed down upon his death to his children.  Presently, due to the Welfare State, a Fathers wealth is seized by Government for government purposes and interests, to support its Empire and enrichment.   This is done in the “Best Interests of the Child” (or other social doctrines which allow the state to steal) whom in fact at best only receives 27 cents on the dollar.  [Show how for one dollar it takes a 1.63 to collect, yet only gives the child 27 cents of it.]  Reestablishment of the laws of Morte Main and the Law of Descents will again, through children who will be the direct beneficiary of that Patriarchal instrument of protection, is the causal reason why societies tend to ascend using Patriarchy as the model for order within the society.


Clearly, Governments have a vested reason to align themselves with the false promises and the Sophistries of modern socialist Matriarchy.  Implementation of the “Equality” effect has a wide range and scope within a society, in very covert ways.  Most societies have no idea they are being undermined, for each society feels the pain of every child and wants to help and they buy into this ‘protection’ through the doctrine of “In the Best Interests of the Child”.  Clearly, it is the nature in cultures to believe in ‘original sin’, to create and vilify those whom Government vilifies and condemns.  However; in this instance, this is the ultimate betrayal, for in the first as well final analysis, there never was a bogeyman within the American Father.   Government and the Feminist needed to create one, and through their sophistries and propaganda, took a very unassuming and rare problem at one extreme end of the bell curve and exploded it to vilify the American male and Father so that society now believes all men are abusers!   Presently all males and Fathers are inherently evil, and ‘must have’ done something terrible.  Therefore, they must be controlled.  Our society has been become conditioned to the national propaganda of Matriarchy, which they now believe unquestioningly.  It has become a national mantra.   Close analysis and empirical reasoning show only one thing: that children did not have the massive problems that were advertise to initiate the Welfare State, and presently, they are factually in worse condition now that the Welfare State is here.

            These are serious  charges.  One that lend themselves to treason.  For Factually, Matriarchy is exemplified in Radical Feminism, which is no more than a extreme liberal hate group, one bent upon gaining supreme privileges and “super-rights” that supercede constitutional authority.  They do this at the cost of enslavement, and destruction.  Enslavement of the Father and Society, and the destruction of our children, all, of course, “In the Best Interests of the Child.”  This of course, makes huge profits within the Welfare state, who ‘manage’ these maladies that will never end or be solved...


            “Be careful Lisa, most of those girls are lesbians, you know.” This was my mother’s rejoinder when, during a telephone call to her my sophomore year of college, I announced that I was a feminist.  I remember a wry smile crossing my lips as her words echoed through my head.  Her warning was a bit late: Unbeknownst to her, I had already come out as a lesbian.  I found her prescience amusing, but I was more intrigued by the fact that even though she lived in the Bahamas, miles away from any organized feminist movement, my mother had fallen prey to that popular myth: All feminists are lesbians.

                Bahamians hold no monopoly on misconceptions about feminism.  The current U.S. sociopolitical climate is rife with rhetoric about man-hating feminists and feminists who prey on other women.  Who can forget that during the 1992 presidential campaign, Pat Robertson wrote a fanatical fund-raising letter opposing the insertion of the word “women” into the Iowa state constitution?  Robertson claimed there was a “secret feminist agenda” that was “not about equal rights about women [but rather about] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”


[Listen Up, Voices from the Next Feminist Generation, edited by Barbara Findlen, © 1995, Seal Press, 3131 Western Ave., Suite 410, Seattle, WA 98121; p.45.]


Well, we must all be chagrined, that Pat Robinson’s and this poor mother’s alarms although wasted on deaf ears have in fact, come true for the most part.  In being non-aligned with Pat Robertson, and in being directly on the front lines of the Fathers Rights movement, especially in battling the courts, and in researching not only the feminist agenda, but also its pragmatic, real life applications across this nation, I can factually tell you that Mr. Robertson’s prescience is in fact, dead on correct.  The fact that this radical lesbian feminist, chuckles at her mothers concerns and warnings about Feminism being closely linked to Lesbianism, when the reality is totally true; it proves somewhat that there is in fact, a ‘secret feminist agenda’ being propagated upon college campuses around this nation.  These are tax-funded government programs designed to implement Radical Feminism from the most remote American small town-enclave right up to our nations largest cities—all through the miracle of our present educational systems..         


        Intellectual trends in the law also left Bork relatively isolated.  One of the most vibrant forces in legal academia was the Critical Legal Studies Movement (described by one of its leading members as a "political location for a group of people on the Left who share the project of supporting and extending the domain of the Left in the legal academy").  In terms of legal scholarship, this enterprise meant applying European literary criticism and neo-Marxist social thought to the study of legal doctrines.  That, in turn, meant dismissing old notions of legal reasoning as historical artifact or the will of the dominant classes.  For "the crits" (as they were known), law was a hegemonic struggle for power, and the vast body of judicial decisions reflected little more than a sinister desire to perpetuate the class, gender, or racial advantages of the lawmakers.   

        The crits deconstructed the law, exploding what they perceived as myths about the potential for objectivity or the value of tradition, history, and the common law.  They deconstructed law schools, too.  Duncan Kennedy, one of the movement's founders, went on tour as a CLS evangelist with such "modest proposals" as equalizing the pay of janitors and professors at Harvard (where he taught) and having them exchange jobs for a while.  Heirs to a sixties radicalism, the charismatic leaders of CLS charmed students with their "context smashing" doctrines while a follow-up army of feminist, multiculturalists, critical race theorists, and champions of gay rights borrowed deeply from such attacks on the established order.


[Closed Chambers, The First Eyewitness Account of the Epic Struggles Inside the Supreme Court, by Edward Lazarus, c1998, Times Books, Random House, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8129-2402-9, Pp. 236—237]


Government and the Media have aligned themselves to this liberal radical hate-group with its roots buried deep within the doctrines of socialism and anarchy,  for  their own concomitant gain and benefit.  Clearly, there are hidden agenda’s being implemented here, without the public’s full knowledge or consent.  They have falsely vilified the American Male and Father, whence other societies have not.  They have enslaved the Father, imprisoned him, created a second-class citizen, and enraged a public upon the false doctrines and dogma of national propaganda, which is the only way they could have established, and continually maintained these outright lies.  In fact, this mantra has gone beyond lies and deceptions and has become a sustained shrill staccato throughout the American experience: “save the children”—“not one more child.”

            Such are these charges that they go beyond treason, that they are factually: a terrible, terrible sin.  They were needlessly brought, and they were pathologically hate driven and implemented against an unsuspecting public, and a totally bewildered male.  They have brought a plague against mankind, all managed by an Imperialist Federalist Government, whom happily assumes the task of replacing the Father and in forcibly replacing him, and benefits greatly by doing so.  The explosion of crime, prisons, and government empires are endless due to the singular replacement of the Father, but those within this monolithic system, do not care.  They will never recognize that they are the fulcrum of the problem and that it is not the American Father, who was not the problem in the first place!  The intrusions upon an unsuspecting public, whom must eternally and unquestionably fund these massive socialist superstructures throughout the government’s empire, which of course, strangely, never accomplish their goal of ‘solving’ the said problems that created these empires in the first place!   They have become an eternal blight upon the American landscape of freedom’s and liberties, most of which have to be abrogated in which to defend against the pathologies which have become artificially produced and Legislatively sustained.  Yet, these pathologies generate huge capital, and more than that; they inspire ever-increasing control of an omniscient, Orwellian, ever-pervasive and intrusive government over its own people, all in the “Best Interests of the Child” of course.

            Clearly this Ultimate Paradox is no paradox whatsoever.  What it has become is a systematic and surreptitious irruption against what was a once Free American society.  It clearly was a planned attack upon the American people, who had no idea that it was coming, whom did not vote for the establishment of the Welfare State, and who in fact, even without having the tools and information of the true facts and figures presented to them, greatly deny and hate this system that was created and imposed upon us, by a Socialist oligarchy.  The weakest element of this paradigm is through the autonomic consent to this system which is given by American’s who unwaveringly and viscerally want what is in “The Best Interests of the Child”.  They have no idea of the scope of the perversion that they unwittingly delegate to Government and the Feminists in which they use to gain power and control within this nation to ‘solve’ these unceasing problems; yet, this is how that phrase has been used to implement destruction and havoc upon our children and families.  It has become a Pandora’s Box.

            During World War II the Japanese who were desperate at the final outcome of the War in the Pacific, used children as a physical shield against bullets. They put their armies behind that shield, and placed guns upon the shoulders of those innocent children in which to use them in a similar paradox to hopefully overcome superior American forces who the Japanese knew would hesitate, and not shoot the Japanese army out of fear of killing innocent children who marched before them.  The modern Welfare state does not only this exact thing, but also something worse; it forcibly removes the father from the children’s lives and vilifies and criminalizes that same exact father, to allow Government and Feminists to intrude upon that home and obtain huge profit’s and a the same time, to implement their socialist agenda against this nation, in which to subvert the American ‘individualist’ form of governance. 

            Indeed, this subversion has been given voice through the tribal pressures which now have become unleashed through the complete access of women to their supposed “freedom.”  They have escaped the supposed “tyranny” of the ‘dreaded’ “Problem With No Name,” and have brought a tribal devolution to the American culture which has devastated generations of men, destroyed and killed children, developed them into several generations of a national uneducated underclass, all the while consuming several national budgets which should have been used to ascend this society.  Because Fathers have been disenfranchised, they can only find anarchy throughout the institutions of America...just like Pat Robinson predicted above.  So have other men:


        I figured it this way: The world had taken away my wife and in compensation had made all women my wives.  For a while it felt all I had to do was reach out and there one or two would be, beauty queens from remote Fijian Islands, eager to help me mourn.  It was as though I was hopping from honeymoon, to honeymoon, when all I wanted was my wife in our Sunday morning bed with our boys on either side.  But it was never her, my southern belle who had gone savage.  She whom I wanted most had succumbed to military rhetoric over family life, turning into a kind of Apache Sado-Squaw.  A member of some tribe warrior women who thought that the answer to an unhappiness they couldn’t name was to scalp the men they loved.

        ...I was just sadder than hell because I was wasting my life suffering for her when there were women out there who were lovely and deep and maybe even true.


[Men on Divorce, The Other Side of the Story, edited by Penny Kaganoff and Susan Spano, Harcourt Brace and Company, 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, Florida 32887-6777; pp. 177-187.]


What must sound most remarkable through this man’s pain and heartache; is that he is most eloquently describing the Tribal state of which Feminism is devolving this society into.  He is describing what I am empirically observing throughout this book.  The savagery, the rampant, uncontrolled and unrestrained sex, again—based within a freedom that has no concomitant responsibility attached to it.  What is most saddening however; is that it is most certain that this man probably will not find a woman who is “lovely, deep and maybe even true,” for most cannot withstand the social pressure and anarchy of which Feminism empowers them with.  

            Yet, this isn’t the saddest thing this system is developing and devolving us into.  What most certainly this man’s two son’s will begin to experience, will of course lead to the next generation of destruction, of which Feminism has invested it with.  America is quickly becoming Hillary’s ‘redesign of Humanity’ however; nobody really knows what this redesign is about: all we are doing is recording the casualties in the wake of the Feminist national disaster, all the while Ms. Clinton and her immoral counterparts, profit immeasurably by this slavery and national destruction.  Note the following documented casualty:


        “I don’t have a dad,” says Megan 8, a tiny blonde child with a pixie nose who gazes up at a visitor and talks of her hunger.  “Well, I do have a Dad, but I don’t know his name, I only know his first name, Bill.”

        Just what is it that Fathers do?

        “Love you.  Kiss you and hug you when you need them.  I had my mom’s boyfriend for a while, but they broke up.”  Now Megan lives with just her mother and older brother in Culver City, California.

        What would you want to do with your Dad?

        “I’d want him to talk to me.”  She’s hurting now.  “I wish I had somebody to talk to.  It’s not fair.  If two people made you, then you should still be with those two people.”  And she is sad.  “I’m not so special,” she says looking down at the floor.

        “I don’t have two people.”


[Children in Crisis, edited by Robin Brown, ©1994, H.W. Wilson Company, New York, ISBN 0-8242-0853-6; p. 60.]



This is no longer just the promise of modern Feminism, it has become our all too painful reality.  We have been sold a bill of goods which is no more than a fraud, and surprisingly; they want to continue this massive conflagration—to propagate even more empires and socialist dreams.  All the while the Fathers, Families, and children of this nation get decimated in the process.  And a rising cacophony of a single question begins to sing from these small children which all begin to sound out the same question, “Where’s my Dad?”

        Shoshana Alexander’s In Praise of Single Parents is a good example of second-generation advice literature.  Alexander does not minimize or rationalize children’s grief at the loss of their intact family.  Indeed, she tells story after story of sad children, mired in the misery of divorce.  There is the story of Danielle, whose parents split up when she was three and a half.  Immediately after the divorce the little girl comforted herself by adopting the Holy Family as her own and engaging in nightly conversations with Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, who, in her imagination, hovered at the foot of her bed.  But nine years later Danielle has not “gotten over” her parents’ divorce.  She still yearns for an intact family.  She fills dozens of spiral-bound notebooks with her own stories with her own stories of happy two-parent families.  "“ make up families,” she says.  “That’s what keeps me alive.”  According to Alexander, Danielle’s mother is stunned by the persistence of her daughter’s grief and mourning.  “Even though I have been so aware of the lack she has suffered, and I have so much wanted to address it...I am astonished that I have not been able to do that...she has obviously experienced tremendous fragmentation.”

        Similarly, the literature gives a painful accounting of the distress caused by an unknown or vanished or inconsistent father.  Children began pestering mothers with the “daddy question” at an early age.  Indeed, the testimonies of single mothers on the child’s early consciousness of father absence are consistent with the research evidence on children’s precocious awareness of fatherlessness.  “It just broke my heart each time Trevor would ask the question: Why don’t I have a father who loves me?” one single mother lamented.  Shoshana Alexander’s son, Elias, at age three wants to know who made his daddy go away.  “did you make him go away?” he asks his mother.  Then he raises his deeper concern: “Did I make him go away?”


[The Divorce Culture, by Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, ©1996, Borzoi Book, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, ISBN 0-679-43230-2;  p. 101.]


            This failed social experiment now only goes in direct opposition to those American visionary dreams and precepts which we are a society have agreed to live under.  As the beginning quotation noted which started this chapter:  “No man can struggle with advantage against the spirit of his age and country, and however powerful a man may be, it is hard for him to make his contemporaries share feelings and ideas which run counter to the general run of their hopes and desires.”  What is amazing is that doctrine of Feminism runs absolutely against the spirit of this nation—yet it is flourishing...all the while many of us (mostly poor) devolve.  This is the present paradigm we men must solve.  How does something which is so countervalent to our American form of government, survive when our contemporary society is also against it?

            This is the real paradox we must have the courage to meet, analyze and answer, before we can hope to answer these children’s more important questions about the problem of Fatherlessness in their lives...