|
|
|
Worldwide Portfolio:
Patriarchy
Region:
Mid-Atlantic States and Washington D.C.
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
Bedfellows: Dobson & Zuckerman
In a newsletter dated November 19, 2007 Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family praised publisher Mortimer Zuckerman of U.S. News & World Report for his support of the family. I have waited these few months to respond to the article because of my respect for Dr. Dobson; however, I do not feel that I can ignore his comments any longer and still be true to the mission of our organization.
The quote from Mr. Zuckerman that Dr. Dobson admires follows:
“The stable family of two biological parents—surprise, surprise!—turns out to be the ideal vessel for molding character, for nurturing, for inculcating values, and for planning for a child’s future. By comparison, the children of single parents or broken families do worse at school and in their career[sic]. Marriage, or the lack of it, is the best single predictor of poverty, greater even that race or unemployment.”
That is a true statement and is in accord with our message as well. However, in a blog on mensnewsdaily.com in an article entitled The Boy Crises I pointed out that U.S. News and Newsweek consistently played down boys and men on the cover stories of their publications. I wrote:
The emphasis on the female and the relative absence of the male on the covers of these major news magazines is not coincidence or oversight; it is a concerted effort on the part of the media to eliminate the masculine influence, breakdown the family, and establish a completely socialistic government. US News provided proof of this viewpoint in an article written by Jodie T. Allen entitled, “Are men obsolete?” that appeared in the June 23, 2003 issue. Some of her statements are; men are a perennial and perhaps deepening problem; boys dominate in such dubious categories as remedial education, stimulant-drug prescriptions, and suicide; and there remains, to be sure, one large sector in which men retain unquestioned domination: crime. She asks, “What shall we do with all the men? Jodie T. Allen was not some disgruntled reader who wrote a letter to the editor, but a paid member of the staff of US News & World Report. She is on the Zuckerman payroll. Thee Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News, owner of The New York Daily News, real estate magnate, and billionaire. A man with these credentials cannot claim ignorance; he knows the effects of lambasting the male in his national news magazine. All the cover stories and this article written by Jodie T. Allen are part of a strategy to breakdown the family. Mr. Zuckerman is evil. He is a power among those who would destroy our way of life.
In light of the above it seems strange that Dr. James C. Dobson considers Zuckerman’s comments to be worthy of a special letter of appreciative acknowledgement. However, upon reflection I realized that for all the many years that I have been reading Dr. Dobson’s newsletters, I do not recall that he ever addressed manhood. His organization will try to lay claim to their interest in manhood by their suppport of the Promise Keepers, a well funded impotent organization that needed Biblical direction to figure out why they were men, and then didn’t undertand it. This well funded organization went into backruptcy; the fate of all organizations that lose their virility.
In his concern for the family Dr. Dobson refers to fatherhood, as though it were a job clasification such as plumber or accountant. He neglects to go through the chain beginning with manhood, then being a husband, and then finally a father. Everything begins with manhood. Everything.
The readers of MND frequently commented that Dr. Dobson never addresses the men who are in jail because of false allegations of rape, sexual harrassment or spousal abuse. He does not address the men who are in the equivalent of debtors prison because they cannot keeep up with child support payments, not infrequently for children that are not theirs. He does not address the men that have not seen their children for years and for no wrongdoing on their part.
Dr. Dobson is too busy worrying about Muslims and homosexuals to address the needs of men, those whom God gave the authority and direction to care for his world. I think Dr. Dobson’s main interest is to promote his religion through government fiat, and all else takes second place. Consequently, efforts to preserve the family have failed on all fronts; the rate of marriage has fallen, and the rates of divorce and adultery have increased. The takeover of the administration of child care has reached the point where biological parents are merely the custodians of the governments children.Apparently Mr. Zuckerman and Dr. Dobson do have one major commonality of thought; neither of them promote the development of real men. The former by design and the latter thorugh ignorance. By ignorance I do not mean the lack of intelligence, for Dr. Dobson is a brilliant man; however, he does not have any knowledge of the principle of gender and how it affects the lives we were ordained to live. He accepts the concept of the equality of the sexes in the workplace, as though the development of the workplace was the objective of human existence. The objective of all existence including human, is the propagation and preservation of the species. The masculine principle provides the environment and means for the feminine principle to bring forth life and nurture it. Only men can provide that environment. Real men.
Since men of such diverse careers as Mr. Zuckerman and Dr. Dobson fail to support the development of manhood it is only natural that society has become impotent. The government has stepped in to fill the void that resulted from the suppression of male authority and has reached its tentacles into every area of our lives. Focus on the Family is also affected by this same malady and its receipt of contributions has fallen off, its staff has decreased, and its influence has waned. Bye bye Dr. Dobson—Mr. Zuckerman is laughing at you.
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
Marc Roemer's Latest article
|
|
|
|
|
Patriarchy: Life in Balance
Men's activists indicate that we live in a social structure that reserves many special rights and privileges for women and none for men. Perhaps the most obvious example is the female's exemption from compulsory military service and dangerous combat, a practice common in even the most egalitarian-minded societies and which most people,myself included, accept and support. "Equal rights" are simply not desirable in many instances, because most people want women to have the privilege of protection. My question then becomes, what compensating rights, privileges, or special treatment do men deserve?
The work of anthropologists Robin Fox and Lionel Tiger may help answer this question. They vividly describe the social structure of primates in The Imperial Animal, which in their view is essentially a system for ensuring the success of a breeding group. They maintain that this basic structure, with important modifications, persists and will always persist in humans: alpha males in the middle, surrounded by all the females and young males, and all the other adult males on the fringes. The alpha males lead, resolve disputes, breed with their choice of females, and work together to maintain their position. The adult females demand help with their young from the alpha males, acquaint their male offspring with the alpha males as a means of promoting them, and ward off (or occasionally run off with) other adult males. They are always protected from invaders, and strive for access to the alphas males. On the fringes, the non-alpha males provide defense from predators, challenge the alpha males in dramatic ways, and occasionally partake in liaisons with adult females.
What makes this system stable is the attention paid to the alpha males; indeed, without a patriarch or set of patriarchs, the primal group dissolves completely. The demands on the patriarch can be so onerous that some find they don't like it and wander off, either tolead a solitary life or one with the other non-alpha males. Unless a new adult male takes over the role, a group without a patriarch scatters, and each of the pieces joins up with another group that does have male leadership.
The natural human system is similar an many respects. The often-heard adage that "If you look at those who hold a lot of power in society, you'll find they're almost all men" is a true statement, and the "If..." part is emblematic of the primal tendency to ignore marginal males such as military conscripts, workplace fatalities, the homeless,and so forth, while star-struck by the high-status guys. The term "male-centered culture" as well reflects the invisibility of those in the outer circle. The "old-boys" network is real, and exclusive; just as real but less recognized are the challenges involved in maintainingmembership such as enduring harassment by the females, challenges by younger males, a lack of privacy, and so forth.
In this system, there is no mechanism of patriarchs promoting or caring for lesser males. In fact, lesser adult males mostly constitute a threat to the patriarchs. Lesser males must usurp authority; they are not given it. This is another reason besides the undesirability of"equal rights" that petitioning the power structure for relief from injustices against males is unlikely to succeed.
Of course, we are not exactly like apes. Fox and Tiger mention a few characteristics of humans which distinguish them from the other primates, with the supposition that these changes were necessary for survival: people make deals to share food and resources, men play an important part in raising the young, and as men began hunting together male bonding evolved. All men were eligible to participate in the hunt.
Because men so easily and routinely bond with each other, as only the alpha males do in the primal system, I believe men have a capacity for the role of patriarch to a much greater degree than the other primates. However, a limited number of positions can ever be available in large human groupings, and usually involve stiff competition. Until recently, the family offered most men a means of expression for their primal tendency to lead, resolve disputes, reproduce, help raise the young, take responsibility for defense, and so on.
In The Decline of Males, Tiger says we are devolving into the primal system with the human modifications greatly diminished. This comes as a result of industrialization, which causes individuals to act as independent contractors, instead of an integral part of society. The devolution consists of men living increasingly on the fringes offamily and political life, and marginalized to the point that they must sneak around to engage in male bonding. Today family courts routinely drive men away from their families and out of their homes. Laws and institutional rules increasingly disallow normal male behavior, and cries to ban an all-male golf club fall on many a sympathetic ear. In my workplace, the only time men seem to spend together is their lunch hour playing cards in the corner of the cafeteria. Men's activism against these recent changes often takes a strident, revolutionary tone, underscoring their place on the fringe.
Based on these facts, I suggest the set of compensating rights, privileges, and special treatment that men can fairly claim for themselves is the legitimate position of patriarch. This position includes responsibility and authority to provide for and protect womenand children, to raise girls to be capable women and boys to be capable men, and to coach each other actively in their performance of the role. As Elder George states frequently, "Men provide the environment and means that enable women to bring forth life and nurture it."
If the baboons can do it, why can't we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
What Are We Going to Do?
Yesterday a woman media consultant asked me what I would ask those who understood my message and were willing to support it, to do. A man asked me a similar question seven years ago. He asked, “If I had ten men who read your book, believed in it, and were willing to support you, what would you have them do?” It’s natural to ask that question, and I could point to our mission statement as an answer, but that is putting the cart before the horse. Those ten men would not be able to do anything more than any other men could, for the reason that they have been emasculated.
The degree of emasculation of the American male is so great that he hardly functions as a male anymore. He has become an automaton consumer—a jackass on the treadmill of production—a work unit and nothing more. He has no authority over anything. He can no longer change anything. The government has usurped his every natural role. When he bands together with those like himself they collectively cannot bring about change.
I have a list of 125 men’s movement organizations, and most of them are defunct; the few that have survived are ineffective. I learned that the National Center for Men recently shut down its New York City offices. The greater New York area consists of 14 million people and the NCFM couldn’t create enough of a following to sustain themselves. What has Men’s News Daily changed? What have any of the well-meaning writers and organizations changed? Nothing. Everybody is writing about what is wrong (that’s what females do) but no one is writing about what to do to correct the wrongs (which is what males are designed to do).
The emasculated male does not even know the cause of his neutering. He blames socialism, feminism, and various conspiracies all of which have their roots in the West, and all of which are effects of an underlying causative factor, which is ignorance of the principle of gender and the universality of patriarchy.
Even an understanding of the universal principle of gender and recognition that patriarchy is family will not be sufficient preparation to make change. In addition to receiving enlightenment men must be empowered.
The thinking of most Western men is that change will be brought about through the system and through collateral efforts on their part. They actually believe that they can keep their jobs, position in the community, family activities, and church involvement at an uninterrupted level while bringing about change. They do not realize that those who bring about change make change their primary activity and everything else becomes collateral.
The system created this mess and it will not be corrected by collateral efforts. Change never occurs through collateral efforts, it comes about from the action of men who make change their primary effort.
The Christian disciples made the propagation of the faith their major function. Earning a living served as the collateral function. The followers of Gandhi and Mandela made the bringing about of change their primary activity. Walter Reuther and the early union pioneers all made earning money the collateral effort to bringing about change. Fidel Castro started his revolution in the jungles of eastern Cuba with a motley band of followers each of whom gave up all that they had to be with him.
Western man has become inured to the feminine materialistic society in which he resides and like a woman he fully expects that if he complains someone else will make change for him. After all didn’t Congress and the various forms of state and local governments advance the feminist agenda? Why if we would just hire lobbyists and work on our legislatures we will be able to do just what they did. And what did they do? They destroyed every vestige of family and the patriarchal structure necessary to maintain it. They were pawns of the liberal movement that sought to have government control humankind, which could only be done by the emasculation of the male and the consequent destruction of the family. They had a congress and nationwide governmental structure comprised of European limp dicks and black honkies tripping over themselves to accommodate them. That’s not what we want to become a part of, that’s what we have to get rid of.
The only way change will come about is for dedicated men and supportive women to make change their primary activity, and all else their collateral activity. Jesus said, “What does it suffer a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.” Isn’t that what men do when they say they can’t become involved in change because they need to build their future security? And what of men who point to the personal obligations to their children? Are they going to send them to grade schools where they receive graphic instruction in oral sex, where they are taught alternate lifestyles, where grade school girls have sex clubs, where when they reach adulthood they can go to California and work as interns in pornographic films so that they can put together a resume saying that they are certifiable whores and then get jobs at big city strip clubs? Are they being taught to leave the home and nurturing of the race for jobs in industry, which in reality is peddling their asses for a buck and has been known since the beginning of time as whoredom? Is that the legacy that real men want to leave to their daughters? Is having every shred of masculinity torn away from their sons so that they try to escape the system through sports, entertainment, substance abuse, gambling, and pornography; the legacy real men want to leave to their sons? Is it not better to leave all of that behind and work to provide your children an environment that will enable them to be real men and women who together will fulfill their god given direction to propagate and preserve the species while growing spiritually?
And those single men who have only themselves to care for, what possible reason can there be for making change a collateral effort? A young intelligent single man told me recently that his job was his main concern but he could make participation in Men’s Action a collateral effort. What good is he to the organization? A man cannot serve two masters. Desire for change must be the all consuming thought and activity of men in order to get rid of the old and bring in the new. A young writer who had somewhat of a grasp of the issues told me he was moving to another country to ride out the storm. He has given up. When these young men realize that there isn’t any purpose to living in this unnatural society, they will be ready to make change. Men’s Action will welcome them.
Making change requires dedication and perseverance. Machiavelli said, “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” We at Men’s action are taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. To do this we need enlightened and empowered men.
Castro did not land in Cuba with 50 men, many of them seasick, to do battle with the Cuban military. He landed there to build and army; and he did. Walter Reuther did not immediately attack the industrialists; first he built an army, as did Gandhi and Mandela. St. Paul spent his life building an army.
To answer the question of the first paragraph, if I had ten men who believed in and were ready to support Men’s Action I would ask them to find ten more, and then 20 more, and then 40 more until we had a local army that could be empowered to implement our objectives. In the process of building this army we would develop a sense of camaraderie and also a sense of family—of knowing there are others who have similar views and who can be called upon in time of need.
Are you ready to make change your primary mission and take part in building an army? Then let me hear from you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
I'm Busy
T he statement “I’m busy” permeates our society. Radio and television interviews will invariably elicit the “I’m busy” statement, as will newspaper and magazine commentary. Support groups and self help businesses strive to assist people in coping with busy. “I’m busy” accounts for a lack of sleep, nervous tension, depression, and psychiatric care.
In the midst of all of this “I’m busy” living I decided to share with you the knowledge that I am not busy. I have never been busy, nor will I ever be busy. I am a man and I control my environment. Busy is a condition that I deal with; I do not become it.
“I’m busy” comes from the kitchen. Women are responsive, accommodating, and adaptable; they become their environment. Mom is busy don’t go in the kitchen, mom is irritable don’t talk to her, mom is late don’t bother her. Mom becomes her environment. She becomes the clothes she wears. She also becomes caring, joyful and passionate, which we will come back to later.
Now that women have permeated the work force “I’m busy” has permeated its language. Also, since most children are raised in an environment with a minimal masculine presence they pick up the language and mannerisms of the kitchen. They make excuses for their performance. They were busy. Even more, they now return calls and take action when they are ready rather than when it is appropriate. They act like a woman being courted rather than as a man fulfilling his obligations.
All my life I have returned calls within 24 hours at the latest, and I still do. A few months ago I severed my relationship with a 27-year-old man who was taking care of my computer because he was always “busy.” It’s not that he wouldn’t come and do the work, but he always responded late, didn’t answer his messages, and then when I would see him he would indicate “something came up.” That phrase “something came up” has been in the female vocabulary as long as I can remember. They are always responding to what comes up—a natural activity for them. What is not natural is for a man to become his environment.
The feminine principle is responsive, that’s why we check the weather every day—to see what kind of mood mother earth is in. We don’t have to check sunrise everyday—that has been calculated for the year. The Sun is constant; mother earth is inconstant. If the Sun were to become inconstant the solar system would break up. If men become inconstant society breaks up. Have you noticed?
It is one thing to understand that patriarchy is the natural way of life and another to live it. It is one thing to say, I AM A REAL MAN, and to live it. Being a man starts on the inside. You are a center of consciousness around which your world revolves. When you change the inside the outside will respond accordingly. When I lived in Harlem a song I heard sung in the churches was “Working on the inside, changing on the outside.” Those words contain a great spiritual truth.
You can’t get by with just saying you’re a man—you have to act like one. You have to be dependable, constant, reliable, considerate, and respectful. When you do that then you will find women will be caring, joyful and passionate with you. Mother’s milk flows freely when she is safe and secure. A woman can only feel secure with you if you conduct yourself in a manner to make her feel that way—firm, yet caring.
You don’t have to go to a foreign country to get a good woman; all that you have to do is act like a real man here. I will grant you that most American women are spoiled, but if you want to find out who spoiled them look in the mirror. When you change the image in the mirror you will start unspoiling the women.
The reason I have prepared male Enlightenment and Empowerment seminars is to wash away the feminine habits that our men have acquired and replace it with their natural masculine attributes.
In your relationship with men your word has to be your bond. Women make excuses; men give reasons and there are few reasons that hold up to the WILL to accomplish. Today’s society subscribes to the philosophy that if a fly shits on a railroad track, the train stops. That philosophy has no place in Men’s Action or among real men.
In my solicitation of members, I look for quality, not quantity. I look to build a core group of real men who will train the quantity of people who will join next year. Those men who conduct themselves as real men will want to associate with their peers. Men’s Action to Rebuild Society is a place for this association.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
Defining the Enemy
T hose familiar with my writings know that I favor no particular political party or philosophy. I believe that extended family and the tribe are the natural societal structure and any deviation from this norm results in problems of various sorts. Nevertheless, I have always found it disconcerting to hear Rush Limbaugh use the term feminazi. Does he not know where feminists have their roots? I'll come back to the source of feminism later, but why do we refer to fascists as the ultimate in human suppression, rather than communist? When we refer to excessive intervention of the government into our private lives we call them Gestapo-like; why not KGB-like? Are we no better in history than Limbaugh? Has liberal revisionist media influenced the minds of MND as well as political conservatives? Let's take a brief look at the conflict between Nazism and communism in World War II and see who did what.
In the spring of 1941; when the German armies reached the Ukraine they were met by Ukrainian women distributing flowers to them. The general of the Ukrainian army attempted to negotiate the defection of one million soldiers to the Germans, which would have been the largest mass defection of soldiers in history. The Ukrainians treated the Germans as liberators because the communists had starved seven and half million of them to death in the early 1930's. This information is not conspiracy information; it is easily accessed. I saw the pictures of the Ukrainian women distributing flowers to the Germans in New York newspapers. A TV documentary hosted by Bill Moyers on Channel 13 verified the starving of 7.5 million Ukrainians. I went to the Ukrainian Consulate in New York and researched their files and verified that 7.5 million Ukrainians had been starved to death; that's a few million more than had perished in the holocaust.
The human carnage inflicted upon the Ukrainians was just the tip of the iceberg of what Stalin had initiated. He also sent to death 13 million Siberians. The most conservative estimate of the death toll during the Stalin era was 22.5 million people and this did not include wartime casualties. Yet these figures are rarely if ever referred to even though they dwarf the death toll of the holocaust.
The slaughter of human beings by communists did not end with the passing of Stalin. During President Carter's administration his National Security advisor Zbigniew Brezinski stated that international communism had been responsible for the deaths of 50 million people.
The communists are responsible for the greatest mass annihilation of people the world has ever seen. The mass slaughters conducted by the Mongols and Tartars were against the enemy. Communism annihilates its own people. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia exterminated 25% of its population. This is a key point. People do not willingly submit to socialism. They are forced to accept it. Communist riflemen posted in the rear of the Russian army would fire upon its soldiers if they surrendered to the Germans or retreated.
To hear people use the terms Gestapo, Nazi, fascist, and Hitler not only makes the liberals feel good, but they probably laugh inwardly at how they have kept the slaughter of tens of millions of people by communists out of the public mind. When Rush Limbaugh uses the term feminazis he compliments these liberal efforts.
Liberals are great proponents of freedom of expression when it comes to promoting their own ideology, an example of this is a store located in downtown New York that has a large communist flag hanging in the window and offers all sorts of communist and socialist literature and paraphernalia. If that same store had a Nazi flag hanging in the window it would be considered an affront to society and would be closed down. Former Hippy writer Harry Stein in his book, How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, relates how in a discussion with one of his colleagues where they had a point of difference, he was called a fascist. Anyone who is not in sync with the liberal thinking is a fascist.
Nazism as a national political force died when World War II ended. The same however, does not apply to communism, and the reason that I make an issue of it in this article is that we have a candidate for President of the United States, one Hillary Clinton who supports the communist ideology and work towards its implementation. She attended the 4th International Conference on Women in Beijing, China in 1995 with Bella Abzug and other heavy feminist hitters. Two primary objectives on the agenda were the elimination of God and the elimination of gender in society. That viewpoint is pure Marxism. The implementation of that viewpoint is destroying our country. All the moaning and groaning that I hear from men in this country about child custody issues, sexual harassment, divorce rates, and adultery, are issues brought about the godless and genderless political agenda of the liberals.
Doesn't Rush Limbaugh know this? If he does why doesn't he use the term redfemies instead of feminazis? When the Conservative Party complains about government intrusion into the privacy of people why don't they refer to KGB activities instead of Gestapo activities? Are Rush Limbaugh, Bill Riley, the Conservative Party, and liberals one and the same? I think so. They work hand in hand in carrying out the neutering of the male in society and the dominating of all aspects of our lives by the state; one of many reasons why change must come from outside of the system. Until then, defining the enemy is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masculine Input Required to Improve Society
I n the article A Trinity of Accomplishment I gave illustrations of how the masculine influence acting upon the receptive feminine entity produces all things. Without the interplay of gender nothing can be produced, and within that interplay nothing can be initiated without the masculine principle. An example of what happens without the involvement of the masculine principle is the inability of our society to change things for the better.
Whatever your age, from the day that you were born until this moment those things that you consider bad, wrong, or negative in society have become more so. The rates of incarceration, substance abuse, divorce, adultery, unwed motherhood, and teenage sexual activity have all increased. Academic performance, marriage rates, family togetherness, standards of all sorts, honesty, reliability, and integrity has decreased. You live in a society that is incapable of making positive change because it does not understand the principle of gender and attempts to solve all problems trough material means such as money, academia, and police power.
The prophet Jeremiah downplayed these attributes by stating: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, nor the valiant of his valor: nor let the rich man boast of his riches.” Nevertheless, our society consistently uses all three of these material tools in an attempt to remedy things and it never works. A classic case of this thinking was Hillary Clinton’s health care plan, which had nothing to do with health; it had to do with sickness and how to deal with it. Accepting the condition (a feminine trait) and nurturing it (another feminine) is what Clinton’s program was all about. She is again promoting the program in her presidential campaign but she cannot change the approach because she does not know how. She will again suggest more money, government power, and technology.
Education too has not responded favorably to a similar approach. Cutting down class sizes and paying teachers more does not improve academic performance; having fathers at home does. Money cannot effectively substitute for fatherhood nor can the government effectively substitute for manhood.
Materialism can never be creative nor make any human or societal condition better; all it does is rearrange existing material. Building a log cabin does not create, it rearranges the lumber of the forest into a home. Building a skyscraper just rearranges more stuff. The continual rearranging of that which has been given to us is polluting the world and destroying humankind.
The air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the thoughts we think are all polluted, and we are the richest nation in the world. We are so enamored with the accumulation of material things that we are even willing to tolerate some sickness to attain them. All this materialism has not made our lives better—only worse.
Of course we need material things, but for the purpose of supplying our needs. Instead we acquire these things to fulfill our greed, which never becomes sated. We have an imbalance in our lives and in our society. Excessive materialism does not work to our benefit; it destroys society.
Only when a balance is reached between the unseen masculine assertive influence and the seen feminine receptive entity will society’s ills lessen and natural health restored.
Sickness decreases as health is developed, arrests decrease as values are developed, substance abuse decreases as security and self-worth increase, and unwed motherhood decreases as the purpose of life is understood and inculcated. If these changes are to be made, men will make them. Real men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR Elder's site Click
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's Stop Trying to Fix the Unfixable
W ould you buy a car that never worked? If the salesman and mechanic explained that it is the best-designed car on the market, it’s just that a few kinks have to be ironed out, would you buy it? Would you go to a surgeon who had never performed a successful surgery? Would you go to a doctor who had never treated your type of illness? Then why tote a form of government that has never worked?
The defenders of our republic, Constitution, and democracy offer an infinite number of reasons why it doesn’t work. The following were two in response to my last article: “The emasculation of the American male was done through feminist lies, news media lies and incompetence, and judicial activism. A lot of that was both unconstitutional and undemocratic.” “The lawmakers and judges in particular have failed the Constitution. Lawmakers pass laws contrary to the constitution. Judges interpret the constitution any way they please, contrary to the intent of the constitution.” If lawmakers and judges can’t make the Constitution work, who can?
Our conditioning through the educational systems causes us to “believe” that democracy and a representative form of government is the best system, but it has never worked anywhere. The ancient Greeks tried it for a short time and got rid of it. Plato considered it to be the worst form of government before complete tyranny set in. Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all regretted what they had created. De Tocqueville wrote about the failings of democracy in 19th century America, and MND offers an unlimited source of those who make excuses for the failure of democracy.
I offer you Patriarchy. It has worked everywhere! In North American, South America, Africa, Polynesia, and Asia. It has worked for millennia. For the Bible toters, are you not familiar with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Their society was patriarchal, and polygamous as well.
The make up of the central government becomes inconsequential when patriarchy is firmly entrenched. Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and the Indian Satraps, all came and went without affecting family life. Patriarchy is an insulator of family life. Patriarchy is the rule of men. The only other choice is the rule of law. I opt for the rule of men any time. The rule of men results in the establishment of family life: the source of our character development, the center of nurturing, and focus of our daily activities.
Those men who are sitting in prison because of unjust accusations of rape or sexual harassment are not interested in some excuse as to why democracy hasn’t worked. They want out. Those men who have lost custody of their children are not interested in tinkering with something that caused their loss. They want their children back. Those men who have seen the destruction of all that they lived and worked for through “no fault divorce” are not interested in a dissertation of representative government. Those men who are on probation, who are facing prison, whose lives are in shambles want the hope of something better than that which caused their problems.
We live under socialism that is rapidly devolving into tyranny. I am looking for men—real men to stand up and make change. To be counted. To say that they have had enough, that they have nothing to lose, and that they have everything to gain to make change. I am looking for men who are tired of being classified as wage earners, industrial donkeys, and jackasses on the treadmill of production. I am looking for men who want to reassert their manhood. I am looking for men who are ready to stand up and shout I AM A MAN, I AM A REAL MAN.
Enough with the naysayers and excuse makers, I am looking for men of action. Let me have your comments or contact me at www.mensaction.net. Now is the time to assert yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
