Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site

“Partus sequitur ventrem.”

“The offspring follow the condition of the mother.  This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; 1 Bouviers Institutes n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father.”

Bouviers Law Dictionary
  For the past 50 years there has been a national tragedy presented to the American Society in regards to fathers and their role within the American Family.  This well marketed tragedy has intentionally destroyed the American family, devastated our children, and ruined the institution of Fatherhood; yet conversely, it has established a panoply of Governmental Superstructures, all feeding off this planned destruction of the American male.  This myth of the tragic domination of the American Male upon a totally defenseless American Family is brought forwards under the moniker of  “BEING IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.”  It is a cancerous empire of special interests, attaching themselves like maggots and feeding off the sustenance of the American home, capturing the wealth and inheritance of the children, and using those ill-ought gains for those government empires undefined pecuniary interests.  There now, after many years of abuse, is an ever-growing body of work being established to regrettably, document this dichotomy:

“Our business is as imperfect as the human condition.  Although social workers, judges, and lawyers in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems continually mouth the words “best interest of the child,” in most cases we are incapable of doing what is in the child’s best interest.  More often we try to accomplish what is not in the child’s worst interests.


[Wasted, The Plight of America’s Unwanted Children, by Patrick t. Murphy, ©1997, Ivan R. Dee, Inc., 1332 North Halsted Street, Chicago, IL 60622, ISBN 1-56663-163-7; p. 84.]



This Government sponsored empire, is the most organized, coordinated, corrupt and financially supported syndicate in the history of mankind.  It openly, and arrogantly advertises and disseminates errant disinformation campaigns, and promulgates outright lies—and surprisingly—those lies are immediately swept up by the national mainstream media and instantly propagated unto an unsuspecting American public.  They are consistently bludgeoned so much by this incessant information that these lies become part of the American substrate and mindset.  Americans can no longer tell who, or what, is telling the truth in regards to the American Family and the children within this nation.  They are only being presented the feminist/government “politically correct” pabulum which spews forth incessantly from the mainstream media.  From this well-organized sophistry, these lies wind up in the American consciousness and vocabulary as if they were true; even though they are egregiously false.  American Presidents and other Governmental institutions, depend on these lies and mythologies to increase their empires and to allow even more oppressive legislation to be enacted against the father.  Their plan is to debilitate what is advertised as the main prevaricator of this well-advertised ‘abuse’ agent against children and mothers, which is of course the American Father.   It has now become so systematic that Fatherhood clearly is not in the “Best Interests of the Child”, that our infamous courts, the media and the American society have been inculcated to react with a vengeance against the American male and Father.  Fathers are no longer good for the American Family, nor our children; and as we shall see from the voluminous facts and figures in regards to this subject, amazingly; Fatherhood has now become one of the greatest crimes that any citizen can commit in this society.  It is, in fact, the greatest crime in human history.

                The Members Of The System (MOTHs) are told they have power (“jurisdiction”) over you, and this emboldens them to feel secure as they invade your life and use power on you and your children.  (The amount of power used, depends on how you relate to them.)

                Its 4 outputs  The uninitiated might think that the only result of the System is the decision by a judge, but actually there are several kinds of outcomes in The System:

1.)     the independent action of the agencies,

2.)     intimidation by the repeated filing of papers,

3.)     the monetary loss of hiring an attorney,

4.)     the decision of a judge

                The results  The System yields overburdened mothers, absent fathers, angry children, distraught grandparents, repeat litigation, violence, kidnapping and abuse.  The System damages parent-child relationships, overloads the welfare system, demoralizes the removed fathers, and shifts an ever bigger national debt to future adults “in their best interest.”


[Where Have All the Good Fathers Gone?  Child Support and Custody, by Douglas O’Brien, ©1997, Skid 18 Press, P.O. Box 60630, Fairbanks, AK 99706; p. 6.]

            Indeed, this system has propagated not only empires, but legalized hate groups which are openly radical extremist Feminist organizations, and even more insidiously, they are otherwise labeled as “Community Organizations” such as “Women’s Centers,” “Community Centers,” “Safe Houses,” media, and other ‘organizations’ which are extremely well funded by an ever-expanding empire of government grants and funding sources totally dedicated to support the destruction of the American two-parent model nuclear family, and more importantly the American Father.  Presently, through these massive funding’s, these institutions actively support, and implement Radical Feminist teachings and socialist program’s to the point to where parents no longer are in control of their own children (nor their own lives).  They support and implement training programs for public institutions such as schools to teach anti-Christian and antithetical concepts as Lesbianism and homosexuality, and other open ‘alternate’ lifestyles to where our children are being drawn into a new paradigm of ‘tolerance’ of public sponsored perversion, which is not only advocated, but now actively taught as societal norms.  Those who oppose these unclean denigration’s become attacked by an all-too-willing government monolith whose altruistic intent is to destroy those who oppose these questionable life-styles which affirm American morality.  John Stuart Mill addressed this issue in his masterpiece “On Liberty” in regards to this “Tyranny of the Majority”:

     Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.


[John Stuart Mill Harvard Classics Volume 25 Copyright 1909 P.F. Collier & Son]

            Where once fathers were admonished not to dominate and inculcate their children to ‘be like them’ and to mold their children in their own image of rugged individualism and to respect and maintain their own heritage--now presently; radical feminists infest our schools with nascent teachings such as “Heather’s got Two Mommies,” “I’ve got no Daddy” and other institutional programs which are most certainly, inculcating their belief’s upon our own children.  The aggregate numbers of these types of books now being taught in our schools is a grave indicator as to the destruction of the Family and most certainly the American Father:

At the same time, children’s books on illegitimacy and parental abandonment began to appear.  There was resurgent interest in step-parents as well.  A new figure, the violent and sexually abusive step-father, joined a more familiar character, the cruel and calculating step-mother, in the pages of these children’s books.  During the 1970s and 1980s the fascination with these dark themes grew.  In 1977 a comprehensive bibliography listed more than two hundred pages’ worth of children’s books dealing with loss and separation.  By 1989 the list had grown to more than five hundred pages.


[The Divorce Culture, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, ©1996, Borzoi Book, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, ISBN 0-679-43230-2; p.108.]

This clearly appears to be a cogent program to undermine the two-parent model of the nuclear family, within our own schools.  The feminist defend their ‘right’ not only for children to defy and question their parents, or discipline itself, but also to openly demand and access ‘free’ government sponsored abortions, and other alternative lifestyles, without the parents authority and/or consent.  A host of other government sponsored perversions whose only intent is to destroy the Father and conventional two-parent ‘nuclear’ family are readily available—only for the asking.  Indeed, our schools and universities have become foreign-pseudo-intellectual breeding grounds to where it is unlawful to dare to attempt to place a mere Christmas Manger within a school or say something as benign as the pledge-of-allegiance inside our classrooms; yet conversely; now our schools have become feminist sponsored enclaves of the open avocation of Lesbianism, Gay and Homosexual exploration and validation, and training grounds for extreme forms of promiscuity and sexuality—“a woman’s right to control her own sexuality, freedom and reproduction rights”--all under the moniker of “Equality”, “The Child’s Best Interests”, or “It takes a Village to Raise a Child…”  Of course, Western Civilization understood these same teachings to be in another state of society:

Among nations of hunters, the lowest and rudest state of society, such as we find it [is] among the native tribes of North America, everyman is a warrior as well as hunter...


[Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Vol. II Everyman’s Library, Dutton : New York, ©1910 reprinted in 1971, ISBN- 0-460-00413-1, p. 182.]

What can easily be seen here is that Adam Smith, who wrote this over 100 years ago, is clearly describing our modern day Welfare ghetto’s in which these feminist are generating.  He is describing the tribal condition of  Matriarchy, in which the human race tends to devolve to when the Father has been removed from his rightful authority within this institution.  This tribal condition currently is being marketed under the title of “Feminism” or Hillary Clinton’s “Village.”

            Indeed, the subversion of the American two-parent family has willingly been sponsored by the omniscient overture of government which has willfully vilified Fatherhood and in which our courts have radically implemented injustice via an arrogant Judicial Activist,: Anti-Americanism court system.  In cogently creating this nationally sponsored vilification, criminalization, and hatred against the American Father, it has artificially created and sustained a mythical “Bogeyman”—the Father--which it has marketed at the insistence and documentation of radical feminism.  It has allowed a clearly demarcated hate-group, the Radical Feminists, with a clear hate agenda against males, Carte Blanche access to national wealth and government services, media and financial sponsorship in which to undermine that one entity of Fatherhood.   History has noted similar persecution:

“And the reasons for killing of Jews were shams, having no more to do with “reasons” given for why the Germans killed them than had Hitler’s protestations of his peaceful desires to do with the German designs for carving up Czechoslovakia.  Among the reasons First Company reported for killing Jews were: “work-shirkers,” “epidemic threats,” “was without armband,” “bribery,” “leaped from transport,” “vagabondage,” “unauthorized departure from place of residence,” “deportation,” and “hidden after deportation.”  In many cases, no reasons whatsoever was proffered, save the word “Jews,” which was obviously sufficient reason in itself...Since Jewishness was a sufficient cause, all the “reasons” given were clearly no necessary, and were window dressing of one kind or another.”


[HITLER’S WILLING EXECUTIONERS, Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Johah Goldhagen, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, Random House, @ 1996 ISBN- 0-679-44695-8 pp. 196]

As with the Nazi elimination of the Jew, the same sham of the vilification of the American Father and his elimination serves several purposes, the main one being removal of the main authority, power and protection from the American home all under the Feminist guise of ‘equality,’ ‘fairness.,’ and being in “The Best Interests of the Child.”  This vilification and creation of a “Bogeyman” is all too willingly accepted by an unsuspecting American public whom is fed disinformation and outright lies in regards to the facts of this issue.  Because the present population is a product of this feminist indoctrination being not only taught this new paradigm of “tolerance” and being incessantly bombarded with feminist/government propaganda from our mainstream media; in reality; they no longer have the ability to discern the true crisis against fathers or the American family.  Yet, government in gaining authority and absolute power within a society has to remove several key things in which to subvert a society from law to the autocratic monopoly of a power-hungry elite regime.  Once the father is removed as the main authority figure and disciplinarian of the American household, it is at this exact instant, when both parents are instantly removed from their parenting function to one of being reduced to secondary surrogate ad lietem guardians of their own children.  In fact, once the father is removed from his rightful position as the authority and main-disciplinarian in the home, the State, through the doctrine of Parens Patriæ [the state as the ultimate parent] becomes the only real parent of the children.

Criteria for determining custody-generally

“The court is required to give such direction, as between the parents of a child, for the custody, care, education, and maintenance of the child as in the court’s discretion, justice requires having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and to the best interests of the child.  DRL $240 (Subd. 1).  The court is required to determine what is in the best interests of the child and what disposition will best promote the child’s welfare and happiness, and will make an award accordingly.  DRL §170.  In determining a child’s custody, the court acts as parens patriæ to do what is best for the child.  The court is to place itself in the position of a “wise”, “affectionate and careful” parent and make provision for the child accordingly,”  Matter of Finlay, 240 N.Y. 429, 433, 148, N.E. 624 (1925)


[West’s McKinney’s Form’s – Matrimonial and Family Law, Covering Domestic Relations, General Obligations, Family Court, Alan D. Scheinkman, @1985, West Publishing Co., St. Paul Minnesota]

  From this insanity, a parent can no longer dare raise their hand to their own children, no matter what the circumstances be regardless if it is for disciplinarian purposes or an aberrant folly, for in that one instant; the Pandora’s Box has been opened,  At this exact instant, the State can factually, second-guess any attempt at any form of discipline given to the children.  Upon any dissention, they will enter the home, and seize the children and place parents in jail.  The Government under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ is the parent of your child.  YOU are not. 

“Parents do not own their children.  They merely care for them in trust for the rest of society.  To maximize healthy growth and development, all children should grow up surrounded by social relationships that are close, personal, and enduring.


[Child Abuse, An American Epidemic, by Elaine Landau, ©1990, Julian Messner, Silver Burdett Press, Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., Prentice Hall Bldg., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, ISBN 0-671-68874-X; p. 18.]


Conversely, when the father is the head of the family, the state immediately loses this autocratic function.  But with the father subverted to the States’ Socialistic Paternalism’ under the “Parens Patriæ” doctrine, no parent can truly ever-again discipline or even own their own child [place cite here about father who was jailed for spanking], teach their child [place cite here about family who lost their children for teaching Bible and Constitutionalism], or inculcate family traditions or moral values over that of government [place cite here about child being taught homosexuality, also girl who was pregnant and parents didn’t know].  Indeed, parents become no more than Foster homes, temporarily minding the bidding of the State—daring never to supercede its ultimate authority—for if they do, that family is in dire jeopardy.  What has occurred over the last 40 to 50 years due to the direct forced implementation of Feminism and Socialism has proven that when the mother is given custody upon separation or divorce, she cannot take care of the children by herself, she needs outside economic support and government subsidy.  This is what makes the Government the ultimate parent under the doctrine of Parens Patriæ.  Conversely, with the father in place as the head of the household, then; the Family becomes a sealed economic viable unit, and not only does it not need any outside economic support or subsidy: it accrues wealth not only to the contemporary family, but to its descendant’s as well.  Under this model, society also benefits greatly through the resilient strength and wealth, emanating from those families.  Again, note the most pertinent parts of the legal definition of this doctrine:

Parens Patriæ—Parent of his country; refers traditionally to the role of the state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.  440 F 2d. 1079, 1089.  The term is a concept of standing often used by courts of equity when acting on behalf of the state to protect and control the property and custody of minors and incompetent persons.

The court, as an arm of the state, acts in the capacity of parens patriæ when it awards custody of a minor to one parent in a divorce, separation, or habeas corpus proceeding.  By exercising this authority the state emphasizes that a child is not the absolute property of a parent, but is a “trust” reposed in a parent by the state.  26 A. 2d 799, 809...While the term originated in England and referred to the power of the kind, in America it refers to the people or the state.  41 N.W. 2d 60, 70


[Barron’s Legal Guides—Law Dictionary, Steven H. Gifis, © 1996 by Barron’s Educational Series, Inc., 250 Wireless Boulevard, Hauppauge, New York 11788, ISBN 0-8120-3096-6, p. 360,]


                Ad Litem—for the lawsuit; for the purposes of the suit being prosecuted. A GUARDIAN AD LITEM is a person appointed by the court to protect the interests of a minor or legally incompetent person in a lawsuit. [IBID p. 12]

Indeed, this is old history, and this premise of usurpation of the Father’s authority within his own home is best described within Fredrick Bastiat’s treatise “The Law”.

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.


Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?


                                                                The Complete Perversion of the Law


But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.


[Frederick Bastiat, “The Law” (Italic’s, bold’s and underline’s by RLCII for clarity of issues).]


            From this we can see, the state needs these altruistic causes to use as platforms in which to establish a venue in which to gain a reason for ‘public support’ of a cause which they then malign into a broad spectrum of virtually unlimited state powers.  They would rather to broaden the scope and tenor of these powers to unlimited proportions. Attacking the American family, and by vilifying the American Father, the feminists have found a perfect instrument for such a government seeking the unlimited scope of powers through  “Autocracy”.  For once the American home has been subverted, and the core values, traditions and laws of the home have been superceded by government authority—what else can’t a government overcome?  Frankly, the rest is moot, for once government has successfully intruded into the American home by eradicating the Fathers natural position within that home, there is no further restraint or control upon government.  From over-riding the home and family, government then controls all.  The resultant establishment of Single Female Headed Household’s, has failed not only to raise a viable generations of children, but they have also failed to allow the an environment where the traditional two-parent nuclear family can flourish.  This means that once Dad is removed from the home, the remaining woman will need subsidy through government services in which to raise the children, and upon that; the children will not fair very well.  Thereby; in the final analysis, with the Father gone, the State intentionally becomes the final, and ultimate parent.  From this dead weight which is burdened upon society, society thereby has more social pressures placed against it, and thereby; the safe stable environment of the home, where once the United States once categorically placed first across every social indicator across the board, declines.  This is a Matriarchal devolution of the total society which is not a healthy environment for two-parent families with children.

“The distinction of birth, being subsequent to the inequality of fortune, can have no place in nations of hunters, among whom  all men, being equal in fortune, must likewise be very nearly equal at birth,”


[Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, vol. II, p. 202]

Again, Smith describes the matriarchal model of the tribe, the ‘lowest and rudest’ state of society.   Feminists such as Ms. Clinton and her socialist supporters, want this ‘equal’ tribal “Village” model among us all, for remove the father from the home, and society naturally devolves to this tribal state.  Once the tribal state has been established, then; “Government” becomes the parent, and the Welfare state obtains eternal monies, subsidies and power in which to maintain this imperial empire.  They do this through their own system, by legalized Autocracy, which intrudes into the most basic areas of family lives.  This in itself is a pressure which eventually has disastrous effects upon the long-term stability of the home.

            What is really perverse in regards to the Parens Patriæ doctrine, is that it is the ultimate oxymoron.  Beyond that: it’s use by the state, is an outrighf fraud.  Note the following.:


Quintus Catulus, speech before the Roman Senate, A.D. 64, referring to Cicero, after his exposure of the conspiracy of Catiline.  Cicero, In Pisonem, ch. 3, says, “Quintus Catulus, before a  crowded meeting of the Senate, named me father of my Country.”  (Parentum Patriae nominaut).  Plutarch, Lives: Cicero, ch. 23, sec. 3, describes at some length how the title “Father of his Country” ...was bestowed upon Cicero, and adds, “He was the first to receive this title, after Cato had given it to him before the people,”  Cicero nowhere refers to Cato as the coiner of the phrase, so in this Plutarch was probably mistaken.  It will be noted that Cicero uses “Parens Patriæ” but the usual phrase, following Plutarch is “Pater Patriæ.”  Pliny, however, also uses Latin as in English, between it and “Pater Patriæ.”  The latter connoting the more intimate relationship.  Luscn, for instance, De Bello Civilli, ii, 7, has “Parens Rerum” (the parent of things), while Pliny the Younger, Epistles, v. 19, has “Pater famillias” (Father of a family).


“But Rome was yet free when she styled Cicero Parent and Father of his Country. (Sed Roma Parentum | Roma Patrem Patriæ Ciceronem libera dexit. )

[Juvenal, Satires Sat. Viii, 1. 243 (c. A.D. 120)]


To safeguard the citizens is the greatest [virtue] of the Father of his Country.  (Servare Cives major est Patriæ Patri.)

[Seneca, Octavia, 1, 444 (c. A.D. 60)


A good Prince ought to purchase to him selfe the name of the Father of his Countrie, and not to beare himselfe otherwise towardes his subjectes, then a Father doeth towards his sonnes.

[Stefano Guazzo, Civle Conversation. Bk. 11, p. 209 (1574) Pettie Tr.


What the reader will note here is several things.  First, is that Fatherhood apparently was not the ‘terrible scourge’ that today’s contemporary Feminists make it  out to be.  In fact, in relation to Cicero, and in according with Stefano Guazzo, it was once a highly bestowed title, one of eminent responsibility and Justice.  There could be no higher title.

            Another point is that this was bestowed upon Cicero, when “Rome was yet free” when he received the title.  Indeed, again we can see the ancients had made a clear correlation between ‘freedom’ and the father—or Patriarchy--something that does not exist today, or to be more succinct, something which is not Politically Correct today.  Clearly, as a United Nations survey shows, the United States is presently listed in 13th place as far as free nations, where it once stood first for over a century...and unfortunately, it is 13th, and still dropping.  This is yet another clear social indicator that something is terribly wrong under this present Feminist regime of power.

            Lastly, it is an ultimate affront that the Courts and this Government assumes this title and position under its contemporary usage as “the ultimate Parent”—clearly; there is no ‘guardian’ here.  There is only an autocratical tyrant.  They are using the ultimate powers under the Doctrine of Parens Patriæ to ‘supposedly’ save us, yet; their actions are only those of an abusive father, again; a tyrant—clearly the relationship is not as Guazzo points out above,  that of “then a Father doeth towards his sonnes.”  What present Father who has been destroyed by this present feminist “Village” despotism, feels towards either the government or the courts the way a son would feel before his own father?  Presently, to the greatest extent, all men fear this new government.  Clearly, the government is no father in the true sense of the meaning of Parens Patriæ.  Indeed, Thomas Fuller made this observation as how we should feel if this system were truly operating under a system of “Parens Patriæ”: “He whose Father is Judge, goes safe to his trial.”  {Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia. No. 2400 (1732).]   No Father feels safe in these Feminist Jurisprudence dominated courts, especially those who seek to uphold their ultimate rights of Fatherhood over that of the state.  For in fact, in our present courts, just as Fredrick Bastiat noted above,  “The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain.”  Sadly, this has created a crisis so profound, as to spill over into every American’s lives, as nobody can trust this out-of-control Judiciary any longer.

            The arrogance of these people to lay title and claim to our homes and our children, all under the title of the ‘ultimate Father’ or ‘parent’ and then terrorize us under the moniker of the State, in the name of “We the People,” under the title of “law” is an affront to the very foundational fabric of which this nation was founded.  This paradox is as legion as the Germans of WWII placating and leading innocent Jews to their Slaughter, all the while the entrance to their ultimate demise read: “Through work, Salvation.”  The present out-of-control “Village” government and court systems are in fact guilty of this same use of outrageous diametric epiphanies.  What we are documenting here can only in fact, be labeled as high treason.



            It is said, that American law is a building, built brick by brick, each law resting on the case precedence of previous law, the stability of legal reasoning and case precedence aligning the law into a stable, cohesive set of linear legal reasoning’s that can be depended upon, and almost mathematically traced back into antiquity.  This is no longer true in American law, and this modern disjuncture in the precedence of law, is due in great part, to Feminist Jurisprudence.

            There is a present cancer within the law.  Feminist Jurisprudence is unlike the stability of that brick house formerly mentioned.  Under Feminist Jurisprudence, their law starts building completely out of the ether, magically appearing from mid-air starting at the second story without any legal precedent or American legal foundation from the past supporting it.  This incredible feminist legal building creates the bricks from nothing which then are laid out across the planet, into the solar system; perhaps into other dimensions.  It has no cohesiveness, no intellect, no logic.  It is most certainly illegal, and consummately Anti-American.  It is based solely on anarchy and power—and has no lawful precedence in law—even within its own domain.  It comes from Marxist Jurisprudence and Totalitarianism. Yet…Judges adhere to this new Feminist Jurisprudence law with a vengeance, local District Attorney’s apply it daily with insolence, and lawyers will religiously attend to its miscegenation.  Feminist Jurisprudence in fact, is anti-law.

“In addition to civil rights such as free speech, radical feminists are also trying, in effect, to dismantle equal protection in the criminal code.  In their well-founded concern with violent crimes against women—particularly rape and domestic battery—the radicals are intent on eliminating many procedural protections for men accused of such crimes.  Of course, there is no reason to think that such encroachments on procedural process will remain confined only to rape cases; but to those feminist who dismiss autonomy, liberty, and privacy as mere male illusions, that is not a matter of great concern.  At the same time, radical feminists are taking the exactly reverse doctrinal approach to cases of women who kill their partners.  They have worked to create new procedural defense for such women—the battered woman syndrome, which, if taken to its logical extreme, could free any woman who committed violent crimes.  This paradox suggests that to the radical feminists, procedural protections belong exclusively to women.”


[Feminist Jurisprudence, Equal Rights or New-Paternalism?, by Michael Weiss and Cathy Young, Policy Analysis No. 256, June 19, 1996, p. 12.]

            Feminism, is in fact communism, as we will prove in subsequent chapters of this book.  This is the foundation of  principles it adheres to, as it is a direct delineation of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto.  Present “government” is now subverted with a domestic enemy, which now has usurped the foundational tenants of a free America through modern “Legislative Law” which is in direct contradistinction to our form of government.   A domestic enemy has factually overthrown this nation, without a shot—from within--and they have gained this awesome power by overthrowing the principle element of the body politic: Overthrowing the American Male and Father within his own home and community. In fact, communism as some scholars notes, is in fact: defined as non-patriarchy:

“Put another way: like feminism, the Marxist claim is unfalsifiable; no matter how long societies fail to exhibit communism (or non-patriarchy), it can always be claimed that communism (or non-patriarchy) is just around the corner. No exception (as I use the term) is sufficient to cast any doubt (much less to refute) the claim.”


-- Steven Goldberg  (Dept. of Sociology, CUNY)


Dr. Goldberg Replies to "Patriarchy" Debate

From Robert Sheaffer sheaffer@netcom.com:


The organic law established in this nation and Constitutionally supported in both the Common and Statutory Laws through antiquity showed that the Father was the sole head of the household, and leader and protector of the home and family.  Feminist Jurisprudence magically appeared out from this ether, quite recently being commanded out of a sense of conspired and designed exigency; and by a mandate by special interests to only proliferate this ‘special interest’ religion upon the rest of society.  The feminists in conjunction with Government’s need for an altruistic vehicle to apply dominant Federalist power over an unsuspecting people, married the principles of ‘abuse’ charges against the expansionist Federalist policies of FDR’s New Deal and later, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society Socialist programs.  This was a marriage of both need and convenience and gave each group almost unlimited access and control into both power and monies that previously have been unheard of in modern societies.  The family in essence, became to government nothing more than a commodity; a vehicle to be used and harvested at will.  To the feminists and socialists, it became a vehicle to be used to promote a socialist special interests agenda, all the while pretending that they were doing all this, for our best interests.  The true fact is, that they did this as a specific design to overthrow a free nation, and to replace it, with “something else.”

            It was not in our best interests to do this.  Rather, it was done in direct contravention to this nations ascribed laws and procedures, e.g., “the common law” which was once the definitively ascribed process for this nations citizens in their own courts.  It is said a nation is subverted slowly, step-by-step; and not by massive leaps and bounds.  Such was the case with Family Law and Feminist Jurisprudence.

            The law stemming from time immemorial (prior to 1152 and King Richard who first catalogued the laws) clearly gave the father the leadership ability within the home.  For instance, in Rome, the father could in fact beat, or kill his children under the doctrine of Patria Postatis; and no action could be taken against him.  The male, and no other entity controlled the home.  This was not done due to any Patriarchal conspiracy requirements, but rather, it was done more out of design and engineering needs that societies through trial-and-error tend to gravitate to.  As Dr. Daniel Amneus clearly shows in his work “The Case for Father Custody” the creation of Patriarchy was the greatest advent of modern Western civilization.  Civilization was not created out of the new inventions of agriculture, or husbandry, which both existed for  thousands of years before the ‘invention’ of Western civilization (or Patriarchy).  In Dr. Amneus own words: “It wasn’t the invention of cultivation of agriculture or even domestication of animals, both which existed centuries before the invention of civilization, it was the basis of the male-kinship system which evolved over the female-kinship system which took man out of the tribal concept of civilization to that of ordered, civilized society.”  Clearly, this was as big an invention for humanity as fire or the wheel.  It appears to be the causal factor for the inception of true civilization.  If it is not the direct causal factor for modern civilization—Patriarchy is most assuredly a concomitant necessity for it.

            Indeed, the law via the construct of logistic necessity within a flourishing growing society favored  Patriarchy, not as a systematic subjugation of women, as the feminist would have us believe, but rather; it was the path of least resistance to a societies well-being; the families well-being; and everyone’s continued growth and benefit.  Ancient societies made the connection that stable and productive families contributed to the health of civilization as a whole.  Patriarchy was the engineered response to that need, and it evolved through a male-kinship system which regulated the female kinship system, which civilization recognized to be a “lower” or “rudest” order of civilization that lent itself to tribalism.  Due to this fact that Patriarchy did not devolve into a tribal state and that it amassed the accrual of wealth which was the main component needed to start an ascending civilization...in other words ‘surplus.’  The ancient societies understood that the health and safety of all the family members where well-recognized benefits of the nuclear two-parent family; which again; was so recognized and thereby protected and ingrained in early law.  Indeed, one need only to juxtapose the present feminist system, compared that with Patriarchy to know and understand that Patriarchy, through the control of the females sexuality by both the man and society, guaranteed that the male’s children would keep any wealth created by the father. It guaranteed the male an assured product of his genetic expression, that his wife would in fact produce his child.  This mandated his genetic response of protection and defense of his progeny within the family unit, which would ultimately benefit society as a whole.  This in fact, as represented in early law and throughout the history of Western Civilization; clearly shows that such recognized favor of the father controverts the sophistry that “It takes a Village to Raise a Child.”  This is the confederation of Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “Village” thesis: tribalism.

“Children exist in the world as well as in the family.   From the moment they are born, they depend on a host of other “grown-ups”—grandparents, neighbors, teachers, ministers, employers, political leaders, and untold others who tough their lives directly and indirectly.  Adults police their streets, monitor the quality of their food, air, and water, produce the programs that appear on their televisions, run the business that employ their parents, and write the laws that protect them.  Each of us plays a part in every child’s life: It takes a village to raise a child.

I chose that old African proverb to title this book because it offers a timeless reminder...”


[It Takes a Village, and Other Lessons Children Teach Us, by Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, ©1996, Simon & Schuster, Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the America’s, New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-81843-4, pp. 11-12. (Bold and Italicized my emphasis, RLCII]

Ms. Clinton just didn’t choose that quaint old African Tribal proverb—she is in fact, held hostage to it, in implementing the tribal-socialist Anti-American version of it upon an unsuspecting American public.  For she’s not going to find such a quaint proverb from any Western European civilization or advanced cultures background, such as Muslim, Bhuddest, nor even Christian Mosaic law because her “Village” model is quintessentially held to a tribal standard: those of failed ancient tribal societies, or as Adam Smith noted earlier: “the lowest and rudest state of society.”  This is where Ms. Clinton’s theocracy derives from.  These feminist and government sponsored ‘programs’ and ‘entitlement’s’ are in fact, part of the machine of her tribal creation.  This isn’t just about quaint old related concepts given out by some old wise tribal sage’s...no!  This is a complete political attack upon the structure and substance of Patriarchy of Western Civilization itself, which refutes tribalism and controls the Female Kinship system in which to make sexuality work for mankind to create and advanced civilization..  Patriarchy is apparently what early human civilization’s “invented” approximately 5,000 years ago, to supplant the idea that if you clearly want to raise a child in the most beneficial, loving environment, the choice must be Patriarchy.  Therefore any advanced societies choice must be Patriarchy.  This what we understand as the two-parent ‘nuclear’ household, and NOT Matriarchy (tribalism) in which Ms. Clinton and her “Village” people want to intensely support.  This is not only proven by historical analysis, it is proven by modern scientific analysis.  All Communist societies are based on the same feminist premise of  Tribal ‘equality’ under Marxist doctrines.  Such ‘law’ as favored by such societies are ones that work against themselves and devolve.  Those modern societies which are Patriarchies are flourishing or ascending, while those which are Matriarchies are devolving.  In fact—it was directly due to the scientific formulation of Patriarchy, in which society ‘cogently chose’ as the preferred model within society—that in fact caused modern civilization to flourish.  Factually, this is what American society chose, and somehow; from and by unproven Socialist Social Engineering thesis’ (actually, in reality—a completely failed theory—as the Russian collapse has shown the world), the ruling elite regime in the American government has criminally abandoned the foundation of law and order which guaranteed this form of free government.   The now adhere to socialist Marxist doctrine, and call it “Law.”

            Need proof of the Anti-American socialist intent?  Again, one only has to go to Karl Marx and Frederick Engles master work: The Communist Manifesto. 

                “We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

                The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

                Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads in the rights of property.....

                These measures will of course be different in different countries.

                Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable:


1.)      Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.)      A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.)      Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.)      Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.)      Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank...

6.)      Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.....

10.)   Free education for all the children in public schools. 


[The Communist Manifesto, A Modern Edition, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, © 1998 Verso, Verso, UK: 6 Meard Street, London WIV 3HR, ISBN 1085984-898-2, pp. 60-61.]


If these items of this Communist Manifesto seems strangely familiar, they should.  It has been implemented here in the United States “by degrees” for the past 100 years.  The Clinton’s are the graduates of this Marxist school of thought, and Ms. Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village” stems directly from this blueprint, as do most Feminist doctrines.  If you look at the modern feminist movement, what you will document and trace is the burgeoning Soviet socialist order within the United States.  When you research the origins of feminism or the present-day Matriarch’s of feminism, all of them are, and have been, both in the past and in the present: Socialists and Anarchists.

Historically, societies which were Patriarchal, collapsed only when they atrophied into Ms. Clinton’s “Village” Matriarchies.  As noted historians Will and Ariel Durant stated in their book Caesar and Christ:

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it is destroyed from within.  The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggles, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.


[Caesar and Christ, [1944] epilogue, by Will Durant..]

Again, if this sounds familiar, it is exactly due to the same reasons in which overcame Rome nearly 2,000 years ago.  You can catalogue every one of Durant’s documented observations and apply them to modern America.  We only have to then collate the applicable reasons for this devolution and identify the incipient cause. 

Our law, which is an expression of the collective regulations of many Western societies, most importantly England; politically, created something quite new, yet it still relied solidly upon the well established doctrines and maxims of law for millenium which only favored Patriarchy. 

During the first one hundred or so years of American history, a father was, by law and in practice, both head of the family and his children's primary caregiver.  Fathers were actively involved in every aspect of their children's growth, education, development, and well-being.  Fathers taught life skills, both through formal instruction and by example.  Fathers decided who their children would marry and managed their children's entry into the world outside the home.  The United States was a patriarchy, and when divorce occurred, courts almost always awarded full custody of the children to fathers.


[Fathers' Rights, Hard-Hitting & Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute, by Jeffery M. Leving, c1997; BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-5299, ISBN 0-465-02443-2; p. 27.]


This is not only just seen by through the analysis of the common law, which the American Law under the first, fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth Amendment’s guarantees, it is also shown through the structure of Judge made law, through the maxim's of law, common law, and through the Founding Fathers themselves: not to mention Western Civilization.   A list of the Maxims of law shown in Appendix C shows, over and over this tendency for societies, even under Roman Civil Law, which is the law most favored by contemporary defacto governments, to favor Patriarchy over Matriarchy.  In fact, our law only provides for Patriarchy, as it is the support of this institution that provides society with the greatest benefits of success, both economic and social.   It is also the structure which best protects individuals and families.  Indeed—when you speak of law in Western Civilization: you are speaking of familial interactions—Law is family:

"It is this patriarchal aggregate--the modern family thus cut down on one side and extended on the other--which meets us on the threshold of primitive jurisprudence.  Older probably than the State, the Tribe, and the House, it left traces of itself on private law long after the House and the Tribe had been forgotten, and long after the consanguinity had ceased to be associated with the composition of States.  I twill be found to have stamped itself on all the great departments of jurisprudence, and may be detected, I think, as the true source of many of their most important and most durable characteristics.  At the outset, the peculiarities of law in its most ancient state lead us irresistibly to the conclusion that it took precisely the same view of the family group which is taken of individual men by the systems of rights and duties now prevalent throughout Europe.  There are societies open to the observation at this very moment whose laws and usage’s can scarcely be explained unless they are supposed never to have emerged from this primitive condition; but in communities more fortunately circumstanced the fabric of jurisprudence fell gradually to pieces, and if we carefully observe the disintegration we shall perceive that it took place principally in those portions of each system which were most deeply affected by the primitive conception of the family.


[Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry Sumner Maine, first published in 1861, Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press, ISBN 0-88029-092-7, pp. 110-111.]


Put in other words:

But Ancient Law, it must again be repeated, knows next to nothing of Individuals.  It is concerned not with Individuals, but with Families, not with single human beings, but groups.


[Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry Sumner Maine, first published in 1861, Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press, ISBN 0-88029-092-7, p. 214.]


These spillover effects were well known to ancient societies, and those societies cogently chose Patriarchy over Matriarchy because of these benefits which clearly grew from within a stable home environment.  From this, they evolved at a pace never seen before in the prior quarter million years of mans stagnation, which was held under the Feminist “Village” system of tribalism. 

            Our common law, which stems from the roots of English law, trace its way through the Magna Charta right back to our Christian roots of the bible all the way to Roman, Greek, Assyrian and Sumarian law.  The common law is in fact the “unwritten law, the law of great antiquity that lives in the hearts and minds of men everywhere.” 

“Reason is the life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing but reason...The Law, which is [the] perfection of reason. 


[First Institute, by Sir Edward Coke, 1552-1634.]


“There is a written and an unwritten law.  The one by which we regulate our constitutions in our cities, is the written law; that which arises from custom is the unwritten law.”


[Diogenes Laertius,  fl. c. 200.]

In analyzing these ancient roots from the common law to the Bible, there is a substantial declination to favor only the Father as the sole head of the household and owner and protector of his wife and children.  Again, this was not done out of dominance, but rather, it was a logical expression of a societies need to favor Patriarchy in which to assure both the economic success and social stability and growth of the society, which it in fact, did—very well.  There was a clear recognition, that when you have strong families, you have a strong society.  Presently, in the new Matriarchal archetype, the Government is insistent on developing weak families, of men women and especially children whom need government help: programs, grants and subsidies—so that this nation becomes a nation of weak families, ruled over by a strong, overwhelming, omniscient government, which will provide for all their needs: “from cradle to grave.” .  In fact, it has been said, out of all systems, the Patriarchal system under the law while clearly favoring the father and imbuing him with most of the legal rights (and responsibilities) of his home and family,  is clearly the most fair system under the law, (we will come back to this issue in subsequent chapters within this book and  prove as such under the law).  Again, this stems by the fact that the common law is the law of the highest reason.  Of course, the common law is exactly what Feminist hate, and instead, they ‘created’ their mythical building out from “Equity”—another branch of law where no law is used.  Note what Bouvier’s Law dictionary says about equity:

Equity.  In the early history of the law, the sense affixed to this word was exceedingly vague and uncertain...It was then asserted that equity was bounded by no certain limits or rules, and that it was alone controlled by conscience and natural justice...

3.)       ....The remedies for the redress of wrongs and for the enforcement of rights, are distinguished into two classes, first, those which are administered in courts of common law; and secondly, those which are administered in courts of equity.


You might consider this insipid conversation      until you look up the definition of courts of equity:

Equity, Court of:   ...one which administers justice, where there are no legal rights....but [are] used when courts of law do not afford a complete remedy, and where the complainant has also an equitable right.


Now, contemporary Judges will have to convince American Fathers that they have no legal rights—when the facts are that every single human Father entering these fraudulent “Family Court” tribunals has errantly made the assumption that they were entering into Constitutional courts—“under the law.”  Nothing, could ever be further from the truth. Our contemporary system of courts is nothing but a rogue syndicate of anti-law.  They are special “undefined” tribunals implementing Social Re-Engineering through the vehicle of “Judicial Activism.”  All this ‘Re-Engineering” is of a social order which is in direct opposition to our laws, Western Civilization, and most importantly: the American form of Constitutional government.

            Fathers must note this judicial slight-of-hand, as these courts, are taking Fathers, who by law, own 100% of their children, then; they are getting them to “appear” in front these “Courts of Equity”—“FAMILY LAW COURTS” so that they may *wink*-*wink* ‘make things fair for the Father (and child)’.  The hell these people are trying to make things fair.  No!  They are not!!  What they are doing is forcing fathers into secret “Family Court” tribunals to unknowingly get them to silently submit to EQUITY  (where there is NO LAW!).     Once they have these unsuspecting Fathers in the jurisdiction of these rogue courts and “equity” get’s turned on—LAW GET’S TURNED OFF.  Then they steal the 100% ownership the Father has over his child, and offer him “50-50”, and beguile the father to be happy at getting a mere 50% of what he owns 100% of in and by the law.  Then, they further enslave him and force him to transfer his wealth to where they direct.  Long before the father ever dies, he has to ‘volunteer’ his wealth and inheritance, or a greater part of it, to be siphoned into the courts programs and “discretion.”  What is left is ruined fathers, and destroyed children, and national inflating social pathologies, which only grow, and grow….and never get solved.

The bible, which is the root law of the American experience, and is the foundational blueprint and legal reasoning for all our common law and statutory laws (contrary to Federal, ABA, and Feminist myth’s otherwise) mandates Patriarchy for a reason.  The leading legal cite for this is [cite Bible].  Again, the foundation of the legal brick building of the statutory Law under the American system of government comes from the common law which is clearly represented by the Bible.  You can clearly see the lineage of this brick-work in the Common Law up to 1993 in the State California for instance; under California Civil Code sections 22.2, 7004(a) and 5101.  However; under the common law, this construct is eternal, and inescapable, and cannot be changed--and yet with these underlying mandates of the law, the Judges, feminists, and Legislators illegally facilitate otherwise.  What is notable to consider is, that under Muslim Law, Judaic Law and all early great civilizations such as ancient China, all imbued Patriarchy as the model in which to support in which to propagate a society towards its best interests.  Now, this Feminist system is using a Sir Galahad complex in pretending to protect the woman and children, so that it can invoke it’s “discretion” under these “Courts of Equity” (or “undefined” Courts), to throw law out of the courtroom, and thereby; totally annihilate and destroy the Father.  This is what they have been precisely doing for the past quarter century.

            Now why is Patriarchy so beneficial to the children?!?   Why is it so beneficial to the society??  Well, one reason is because of the fact that it uses the right people for their natural job...it makes “sexuality” work for both the family, and for civilization.  Again, going back to the establishment of Patriarchy we see a woman is subjugated and controlled by both the male and society, (more about this control and subjugation issue later).  This sexual control and obedience guarantees the genetic progeny for the male who in turn supports, defends and protects “his own children.”  This simply means that men will know that their children are truly theirs, and they will enjoy and protect their own progeny.  From that, the law again in response to the needs of society, gave legal protections under the laws of Descents and Morte Main (of which we can see that Marx and Engels above truly wanted to get rid of, and conversely, what Thomas Jefferson was severely concerned about protecting).  These laws protected the wealth of the male (ergo: family) upon his death, and guaranteed that his wealth would be passed down to his children (or family).  Conversely, it also guarantee’s that the father will control his wealth, and his heritage (again, yet another disparity from the communal tribal model which Ms. Clinton desires).  (This point is extremely important.)   As anyone with a modicum of insight can see, it wouldn’t take too long to where in a few short generations under a system of Patriarchy, you would have mankind transcend from a tribal-based static planar society to a upwardly mobile society creating the invention of cities and civilizations and progress in general!   For it is the creation of wealth (surplus) which propagates these accouterments to any civilized society via the accumulation of great wealth.  One of the greatest effects of Patriarchy was not that it controlled women, but rather; it was that it created Families and wealth—and that such surplusage stayed in the Family by law.

            What does modern feminism do as implemented by government though our anti-American court system?  It immediately attacks the financial well-being of the father, and immediately severs contact with his own children...completely destroying him and the Patriarchal archetype instantly.  Ms. Clinton and the elite’s whom now infest our corridor’s of power, all under the name of helping us—are implementing this procedure with a fanatical vengeance which correlates to the same fanaticism of the Nazi’s of World War II.  They in fact, incontrovertibly: have made “fatherhood” into one of the greatest crimes ever seen throughout human civilization.  There has never been passed more laws, more intrusions, more penalties for any crime throughout civilization; than being a father, here in the United States.  Again, there has been a completely new branch of law created called “Feminist Jurisprudence” to help destroy fatherhood—and it has succeeded immensely, with full government backing and coercion’s.

            The reigning resonating reason for Feminist Jurisprudence is to destroy the Patriarchal system.  It is doing this amazingly by undermining religion, the father, and Western Law. .  This is something we presently see undermined by Feminist Jurisprudence under a new pretended law.  Contemporary feminism allows the Empire of “In the Best Interests of the Child” to vacuum the fathers wealth long before it is ever passed to the child.  The main benefactor of Feminism is not the Children, it is in fact, government and the Feminists, whom through their socialistic Empires and Superstructures mandate a continual drain and feeding off of the Fathers wealth (and societies wealth).   From this it is not the children who benefit, nor the Father or Parents, nor even society...it’s the “Village”...usually headed up by Elite’s such as Ms. Clinton, and company.  Again, this is done all in the name of the child, whom factually loses his Father in the process and the Fathers wealth which is silently distributed and harvested by this Feminist/Socialist system.  No longer are the protections of Patriarchy accorded to the Father, even though they are an American birthright accorded to males under American law.

“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse: disregard the character of its own existence.”

                                                                  ---Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark


[Quoted in Foundations of Freedom: A Living History of our Bill of Rights, by John H. Rodehamel, The Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, ©1991, p. 97.]


            Yet, the Feminist get rid of anything which demarcates the character of this nation: the Bible, our Laws, our Court system, and even our Government.  They don’t care because the Feminists and Government accrue huge profits from this disemboweling of the American male and Family.  Not only do they gain power, but untold and unaccountable profits, which as far as we have been able to follow, go into ‘Black Budget’s’, which is a corruption of our political regime.  To date, from approximately 1960 to the present, the Feminist/Socialist/Government backed and sponsored programs have conservatively cost this nation 5.2 trillion dollars.  Presently, our national debt is an ‘advertised’ 5.7 trillion dollars.

            How can this happen?  How can the mandate and protections of Patriarchal American Christian-based ‘Common-Law’ be superceded by Tribal Feminist Jurisprudence?  By socialism?  How can a society prefer a disjointed mythological feminist ‘legal’ brick building magically appearing from the ether from the second story on upwards over a magnificently constructed, methodical Patriarchal (Western Civilization) brick building stemming from the solid foundational ground of Christianity, law, and Justice?!?  How can  American’s be so easily betrayed?   How can Judges and Legislators verify and confirm this betrayal?  Especially in the light that this nation was built on the foundation of natural rights?

James Madison--Address to the States, April 25, 1783.


"Let it be remembered finally that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature.  By the blessing of the Author of these rights on the means exerted for their defense, they have prevailed against all opposition and form the basis of Thirteen Independent States.  No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits.  In this view, the citizens of the U.S. are responsible for the greatest trusts ever confided to a political society.  If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude & all the other Qualities which enoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends of Government, the fruits of establishments, the cause of our liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre, which it never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which can not but have the most favorable influence on the rights of mankind.  If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these Cardinal and essential Virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate, will be dishonored & betrayed; the last & fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them; and their patrons & friends exposed will be insulted and silenced by the votaries of Tyranny and Usurpation. “    


By order of the United States in Congress Assembled.


[Our Sacred Honor, Words of Advice from the Founders in Stories, Letters, Poems and Speeches, by William J. Bennett @1997, Simon and Shuster, Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-84138-X; p. 322.]


            Looking back from the Bible in Genesis, through the Maxims of Law that were developed 5000 years ago, we see the first legal support of Patriarchy in the Law that was the basis for this country.  Indeed, these were so profoundly understood to encompass normal men, and their families and home, that they remained unquestioned and inviolate.   Now, they have been encroached upon and usurped, and just as Madison predicted above, our “fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature” are being turned against us.


            Patriarchy is a biased system.  It is an invention as great as that of the wheel, writing, fire, or even nuclear power; but; nonetheless, it is a biased system.  Clearly, when you take the power inherent in interpersonal relations, and place it so pervasively under the authority and auspices of one individual, (the male) there is a clear unmistakable bias and skewing favoring that entity.  Patriarchy is an invention of placing that authority in the individual of the family, the father; that is most genetically suited to disperse the inner mechanization’s of the leadership, provider and defender roles within his own home.  However; how can a system that is so inherently biased be so favored not only by Western civilization, but by families as well, especially in the American elite?  The question must be posed, why did Western civilization follow the invention of Patriarchy, when clearly in the formation of mankind on the plain’s of our primitive human history, Matriarchy through Tribalism was the de facto  norm?  Why did society gravitate to Patriarchy, when it is supposedly inherently unfair, biased and evil?  Why Patriarchy when Matriarchy is “freer” and easier to devolve into?

            Clearly, there was a compelling interest in societies to formulate Patriarchy over Matriarchy, and indeed; to continue Patriarchy which still exists today.  Patriarchy is an artificial invention like the wheel, like nuclear power, is a very unnatural formulation from the gestating stasis of Matriar.hy which existed before that ‘invention’ from time immemorial.  The compelling interest of Patriarchy to society/civilization were several-fold.

            First, was the creation of the two-parent monogamous family unit over that of the sexually promiscuous anarchy of Matriarchy.  Patriarchy controlled the sexuality of the female kinship system, and held women bound to the subservient subferior position, of being controlled both sexually and socially, by the more successful male kinship system.  From this superior authoritarian position, the male could be guaranteed the fidelity of the woman, which from the combined wealth of that confederation would proliferate a known progeny.  This contract enabled the Father to know his children, something which matriarchy most certainly, did not guarantee.  For this fidelity, the woman received many benefits: those of love, protection, of honor, of a surname giving her position and title, and the bond of a home a family. (Briffault’s Law).  At this instant, Matriarchy died as a tribal state of mankind was replaced by Patriarchy through recognition and protection of this system of society.

            From this, society benefited.

            For it was the guarantee of a man’s children which motivated the man to accrue wealth, to become a ‘provider’ to this wife and children.  This motivation stemmed not from greed but from love and devotion, something inculcated within the human species.  In the Matriarchal female-kinship based model, this devotion to the children was spread out over the community, and thereby; (as we can clearly see not only in the Matriarchal model, but also the welfare-state) the intensity of that support to the female and children was spread out ‘generally’ and clearly, not as efficient as in the Patriarchal model, in which the male, as the protector and the provider; worked ‘specifically’ for his own family and child, and thereby, strove to succeed in which to support them.  It was through this Patriarchal model that the invention of modern “Civilization” was borne because each subsequent generation did better than the last...for they ‘inherited’ what the Father (Family) accrued from his leadership and life.  From this domino effect, wealth built up over subsequent generations, and thereby created “surplusage,” something which was not developed in the Matriarchal archetype.  In the Tribal condition, there were no families.  When a Father died, he may not have even been recognized as the parent of his child—and upon his death; the tribe inherited what surplusage he may, or may not have accrued.

            If we look at each model of Patriarchy vs. Matriarchy; society chose Patriarchy due to the success of the male providing from his family, and combining the man and woman into one cohesive union recognized as ‘one’ person in law.  Also, through the developing Laws of Descent and Morte Main, the Father handed his wealth down to his own recognized children, whom again benefited significantly more than in the Matriarchal/Female Kinship/Socialist model.  As history shows us, Patriarchy was chosen not because it was ‘unfair’ or that it maliciously controlled women, but rather; it was chosen because there was mainly money and profit in it, and society as a whole not only benefited, but it also grew into great civilizations and societies, something unheard of in Matriarchal “Village” archetypes.  Simply put, the decision civilization made choosing Patriarchy was not one of dominance, but rather—one of economic and social efficiency and necessity.  Again, it made sex work for society.

            Secondly, Patriarchy was a model that imbued Liberty and Justice.  Even though it was supposedly inherently a biased and unfair system, and held much power in the male he never used that power.  (At least rarely, as documented throughout history.)


Patriarchal societies are benevolent societies.  They rule as John F. Kennedy once noted  “The true sense of power does not reside in those who use it, but rather in those who can use it, and don’t.”  The male-kinship model offered a stability, not only in the law and rule of society, but also in the stabilizing factor that the male, who held absolute control and authority over his family instilled within each of his family members.  The “Family name” and who and where you came from, established towns within societies which were very monolithic in their structure and familiarity.  The rule of law and the common law were very well defined due to this cohesive effect of Patriarchy within a society.  Conversely, in Female-Kinship societies this ‘binder’ of stability was missing due to the fact that the male was missing as the leader of the family unit therefore, they ‘devolved’ into the lowest and rudest common denominator of mankind: Tribalism.  Under the Female Kinship model, anarchy reigned due to the fact that no-one was in charge of the family, nor could anyone be sure of who the children really were whose.   This loss of ‘specific’ dedication to the children to their respective Fathers, established an inferior “Village” model, which although dedicated to the children in a Tribal sense, were dedicated to them in a ‘general’ sense, and not a specific sense that Patriarchy provided.

                “To say that the male sex has been dominant in the great majority of societies ever since written records began is to ignore any personal vibrations between the sexes.  But there is no way of estimating the effect of those vibrations except in the rare cases where biographical or autobiographical details survive.  

                In the days of the early civilizations it cannot have been great.  By cultivating a way of life that legally and socially favored the male sex, the people of the ancient Near East also created a climate in which it was easy for the man to dominate.  When all social forces conspired to anchor a woman to her home, to limit her acquaintance to her family, to forbid her to appear before strangers, the result was to imprison her mind as effectively as her body.  As in later times, there may well have been strong –minded women who focused all their energies, their ambitions, their intensity of purpose on their husbands and children.”


[Sex in History, by Reay Tannahill, ©1980, 1992, Scarborough House Publishers, ISBN 0-8128-8540-6, p. 60.]


            Thirdly, the Patriarchal model established generational families, with history and lineage.  These established a spectrum of various classes within society, and a competitive nature which strove to excellence.  Tribal societies didn’t have this, at least to the precise extent which genealogy through the male line afforded them.  These generational families which clearly could only be developed via Patriarchy, established not only great wealth within those families and society, but also developed a town/community/society national sense that soon lent itself to the establishment of nation-states.  Family names became synonymous who you were and what you did.  Families developed into working-class peer groups, and society benefited by the idea of eugenics and breeding.  Alliances formed because of this.  Again, this came from great families, based on the Patriarchal models, wanting to join forces of not only wealth and property, but also gene-pool prospects.  And from these accomplishments within families, society clearly benefited from the prolific developments of these engineered matrimonial unions….all which would have been impossible through the Matriarchal model.

            Fourthly, and probably most importantly, Patriarchy provided a man with a role within society, which directly benefited civilization.  This need for a place for a man within the home and family, and society; to bind him with a suitable and proper wife, allowed young males in the society a purpose in which to groom themselves (that is keep out of trouble, learn the traits of how to function in the society to become a good provider, and to bond with a woman in marriage which would again, as a civilized influence, keep the male out of trouble.)  This function in Hillary’s Tribal “Village” model has all but been lost to generations of children who are stuck in this warlike  “Village” model that Hillary wants for all our children.  One only needs to go to the Tribal “Village” in which Hillary and her Fellow Feminist have built through the advent of the Single Female Headed Household: the inner city ghetto, (or what some social scientist now refer to as the ‘superghetto’), such as Los Angeles, Detroit, Miami, and New York City—to see this sexual anarchy of this “Village” tribal model rage, unabated.  Where women are clearly dominant, and superior, using men only as temporary sperm inseminators; to show how this “Village” model has impacted this society.   Young males in these societies, have no role, and are not being groomed for the institution of marriage.  Without any place for them in society, with a deferred future in their midst, they natural devolve into gangs and crime—again, exactly following the lowest and rudest state of the ghetto tribe.  One only has to look at figure above to see a clear violent “spike” of criminality coming from children ranging in ages from 15 to approximately 25.  [See Figure 1].   This of course is the age group where they most need fathers, and they are not there.  If this nation could get rid of that criminal “spike,” by just re-establishing Fathers within their own home again, the accrued savings would be staggering.  What the role of Patriarchy one used to assemble these young adults to be groomed by discipline and education into assuming their respective roles within the Institution of Patriarchy…has now been lost generationally, with the attendant social pathology which has attended that fallow Feminist ‘tribal’ model.  These children cannot be held in check by government—but; as history recognizes—they can, and are held in check by the Father:

On a few systems of law the family organization of the earliest society has left a plain and broad mark in the life-long authority of the Father or other ancestor over the person and property of his descendants, an authority which we may conveniently call by its later roman name of Patria Potestas….The implicit obedience of rude men to their parent is doubtless a primary fact, which it would be absurd to explain away altogether by attributing to them any calculation of its advantages; but, at the same time, if it is natural in the sons to obey the father, it is equally natural that they should look to him for superior strength or superior wisdom.


[Ancient Law, Its Connection with the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas, by Sir Henry Sumner Maine, first published in 1861, Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corporation, c1986 Dorset Press, ISBN 0-88029-092-7, pp. 111-112.]


 Conversely, instead of assuming their well-defined roles within Patriarchy, our young men are being taught feminist indoctrination.  Classes are taught in our schools that clearly show and allow young women to ‘beat up on the abusive male’ and pick at his eyes, kick him in the groin to either injury or cripple him.  The only place the Feminists have for the male in this “Brave New World” is the subferior position to the woman, where he cannot control his own household, he cannot discipline his wife or children, he cannot have true authority within his own home.  Our schools have become feminist indoctrination centers where parents are openly challenged, school girls are openly inspected vaginally for sex, abortions are encouraged, condoms and sex education and the indoctrination that a female controls her own sexuality and her own body is inculcated with a religious fervor.  When boys are approached by willing high school female sexual partners who have learned these feminist lessons well, (usually the females are younger to the males as most relationships are) these young girls who want to assert their ‘right to control their own bodies’ entice these young men to engage in sex with them.  Of course when they do, only the boys are arrested for these acts for doing essentially what the feminist tribal system taught both of them!  Boys cannot prevent the sexual anarchy these pre-teen and teenage girls offer them, and more importantly, the females are expressing exactly what Hillary “Village” is teaching them...with a vengeance.  Now, it has come to epidemic proportions, to where instead of women being superior, it is a fact that they are an inferior product, and unacceptable to a Western Civilized way of life.

            When these young girls get pregnant, they can openly march right down to the school nurse, and without either the consent or authority of their own family or more importantly from the boy or boys family who was responsible for the pregnancy, she can abort the pregnancy with the aid and ultimate authority of this ‘Parens Patriæ” state.  Conversely, if she decides to have the child (against the young Boy’s consent) she can then march right back up to the Welfare state and demand subsidy from the boy who doesn’t want the child.  She thereby is protected and he is ultimately ruined.   These paradoxical amoral aberrance’s are presently the absolute norm within Hillary’s “Village” concept, and the staggering national Crime and Welfare statistic’s prove this out.

            This ‘lowest, rudest and most disgusting condition of man’, as our Founding Fathers noted;  was brought about through the imposition of the devolution by the Institution of Matriarchy, which devolved civilizations formally established as Patriarchal archetypes.  Society clear saw the benefits of Patriarchy, and due to this fact, made laws and customs that would bind the female kinship system under the control of the male kinship system, in order to assure the benefits of the most successful model: Patriarchy.   Society thereby controlled not only the sexuality of the woman in which to accomplish this, but gave the Father purpose.  To do this, he thereby had complete unfettered control over his family, which was his ‘property’, legally defined as ‘chattel’. 

CHATTELS, property. A term which includes all hinds of property, except the freehold or things which are parcel of it. It is a more extensive term than goods or effects. Debtors taken in execution, captives, apprentices, are accounted chattels. Godol. Orph. Leg. part 3, chap. 6, 1. 2. Chattels are personal or real. Personal, are such as belong immediately to the person of a man; chattels real, are such as either appertain not immediately to the person, but to something by way of dependency, as a box with the title deeds of lands; or such as are issuing out of some real estate, as a lease of lands, or term of years, which pass like personally to the executor of the owner. Co. Litt. 118; 1 Chit. Pr. 90; 8 Vin. Ab. 296; 11 Vin. Ab. 166; 14 Vin. Ab. 109; Bac. Ab. Baron, &c. C 2; 2 Kent, Com. 278; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; Com. Dig. Biens, A; Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.


            This issue of women and children being ‘property’ is greatly contested by the modern feminist movement.  In fact, they immediately liken this issue as being similar in nature as to being ‘owned’ like a slave or an animal.  This vexatious assumption posed by the modern feminist, although correct in label is wrong in thesis.  For in reality, when the state assumes these wives and children under it’s doctrine of Parens Patriæ, you better believe they are in fact property, (ergo: chattels), under the states law and domain...   The feminist however; don’t make a peep about that reality...  The fact is, that somebody owns our children…but we now live in a society mulct at that recognition, and few are afraid to rise up—and claim what is by law and by nature their own legacy.  Instead, they meekly mouth the state provided pabulum, that they will “take responsibility”  and act “in the best interests of the child” to aid in their own destruction, to the delight of feminists and communists and elites whom continually feed off of this self denial and self-imposed destruction.

 However, when the males enforce their natural rights to their own children and property, well, then they are viewed as being oppressive.  Somehow, the more tyrannical state; is not!  (When they seize and claim children in “the child’s best interests).   Of course the common law reasoning for allowing the Male to ‘own’ both his wife and children stemmed not so much from a need to control, but rather of one to protect and be responsible for his own family..  Giving the Father ‘ownership’ of both his wife and his children allowed him to legally bind his family and protect his family from unwanted intrusion or threat.  Not only that: Fathers don’t need state subsidy to raise their children—and this is factually, the real threat against the modern state.  Clearly, our Forefathers understood that the “Village” could not take care of people as well as Fathers and Families could take care of the village.  (This concept is a proven one as Foster Homes and other State run facilities are factually and statistically the worst place you can place either child or adult into the care of, please read on).  Not only this, but this ideals of property right is a foundation to the manner of controlling the female-kinship system and thereby, guaranteeing the safety and security of families.  This ‘protection’ no longer exists in the feminist/communist/socialist ‘Village’ society—and we can only look to our inner cities to see the ramifications of allowing the anarchy of tribalism to reign supreme over that of Patriarchy.  More importantly, this concept of property was essentially moot through the institution of marriage as the man and woman were joined as one, something many women are lamenting about and long for today.  Above and beyond this, the state allowed the husband within the marriage all these benefits because of another countervailing point: that he was responsible for all the debts and all legal actions of his whole family.   So what he enjoyed by law, was offset by matching responsibilities. CITE MAXIM  Because he was so responsible for his family, he indeed, controlled it, which again benefited society.  Children didn’t worry about police when they broke somebody’s window—they worried about going home to ‘dad.’   Now we have children who have devolved into tribal monsters, who are committing crimes adults find shocking—and when they face police or even Judges--they are insolent, laughing, antagonizing.  There can be no doubt from this fact alone that Hillary’s “Village” has been a categorical disaster.  She has created children, that many of us do not even recognize anymore...”Monsters” within our midst.

            In fact, under the management of Patriarchy, both the wife and child were well protected by the father, as the father assumed all legal burdens of his property (which meant if they made a mistake, he was responsible).  However; the father could easily invoke his considerable will (i.e. ‘protection’) over his family and protect them from any damage that they might inadvertently come upon.  This considerable protection has no-where been seen or afforded in any other model known to man, including Ms. Clinton’s “Village” model, which is a farce.

            Another spill-over effect from this ‘protection’ of accorded to the Father could be seen documented by the safety afforded to the Family and the family’s position in society.  Even the lowliest of freemen could be assured that Government could not intrude upon the safety provided within the home.  As William Pitt once boldly declared in the common-law:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown.  It may be [a] frail [home]—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement!”


[William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, 1708-1778, Speech in the House of Commons 1763, p 312.]


“For a man’s house is his castle.”  (Et domus sua cuique tutissimum refugium.)


[Sir Edward Coke, Third Institute, (1628).] p. 152


“The house of  everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well as for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.”


[Semayne’s Case. 5. Report 91, Sir Edward Coke] p. 152


In fact, as Alexis De Tocqueville noted in his masterpiece Democracy in America “in America, a young unmarried woman may, alone and without fear, undertake a long journey.” [Democracy in America, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 402.]. 

This protection which venerated both the woman and the children of a Patriarchal home, stemmed from the ability of the Father to legally ‘protect’ his home and property.  Anyone whom but dared offend his home, woman or child of good name would not only have to meet that father in court, but very well might have to suffer imprisonment or even a personal duel!  Sometimes, in recognition to the Father, communities would banish such people whom transgressed these well-defined rights of the Home and Family.  A woman who was ‘dared’ dishonored or raped, could very-well see her attacker hung.  Indeed, women and children were severely protected under the Patriarchal model of society.  This, again; is no longer true under the new ‘state’ operated “Matriarchal” archetype..  Nor is it true that either women or children can walk our streets in safety under the new feminist tutelage of society:

"The laws of courtesy had much influence upon the development of the character of the colonial child.  Everything in the community was made to tend to the preservation of relations of civility; this is plainly shown by the laws.  Law suits were common for slander, scandalmongering, name calling, lying, etc....But all this rigidity tended to a preservation of peace.  The child who saw a man fined for lying, who beheld another set in the stocks for calling his neighbor ill names, or repeating scandalous assertions, grew us with a definite knowledge of the wickedness and dander of lying and a wholesome regard for the proprieties of life.  These sentiments may have not made him a better man, but they certainly made him a more endurable one.


[Home and Child Life in Colonial Days, by Sirley Gubok, @1969, the Macmillan Company, Gollier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd., Lib. Cong. Cat. Card No., 69-11295; p.105.]


            That responsibility was vested within the laws, and accorded to the male of each and every family and could be invoked at any time when the Father of the family, (as the legally recognized leader and protectorate of his family), felt his family (i.e. his ‘property’) was either dishonored or attacked outright.  This investment was widely recognized and gave civilized protection to not only wives but children, but a safe community environment whom were provided with a two-edged benefit without police or other state involvement.  The first of these was the responsibility of the wife and children, who carried the Fathers surname and had to act and behave not only lawfully, but honorably in accordance with their name and family honour.  This example of good-moral character and exceptional attention to honor to ones good family name, has been all-but-lost in the Matriarchal conversion of this nation.  However; during the age of Patriarchy, it was a woman’s and child’s responsibility to act according to their station and their family name, otherwise; they would suffer the vengeance of the authoritative controlling factor of the Father of the household.  Loss of good name could mean economic catastrophe for a family, loss of honor, and thereby; the family in its extension of intrapersonal relationship to the community, was not only civil, but very select.  This had clearly a stabilizing effect on crime, as no child ever forgot where he came from.  This lesson, again; has been lost generationally to our society to societies grave safety and detriment.

            Society recognized this self-regulation of the Patriarchal family, and strove to protect it, not only in the laws, but also by more sanguine accountings within the community.  Society dared not cross the threshold of that sovereign household of the Father who ruled within his own home, lest their threshold and freedom’s be violated.  Government’s understood, that if they crossed that sovereign threshold, then the very fabric of an ordered Patriarchal Society would dissipate.  Society complicity with Patriarchy venerated the women, and protected and admonished the children who were controlled from within the Family.  This was a give-and-take relationship, on the one side demanded from the home, and on the other side, mandated by society which afforded freedom and safety unprecedented in human history.  Although Patriarchy was in fact an artificial creation invented my mankind, it established a structured ‘natural order’ between man and woman and the community.  It used the natural attributes of the species and allowed those gender differences to work in favor of the home, family, men woman and children.  Society and Modern Civilization grew from this symbiotic natural order.  The ‘invention’ of Patriarchy made the complements of man and woman work in concert with each other in conjunction with society, it turned the open unbridled sexuality of man from a state of anarchy, and again; made sex work for both man and society.  This ‘making sex work’ for both man and society, took discipline, from both the male and female partners, the children; and society as well—this was unlike the sexual freedom which Matriarchy allowed which took no discipline to implement, and thereby ‘was of a lower order.’

            Again, in Matriarchal societies, these acknowledgement’s towards one family name and honor has been completely lost.  Presently, the “Village” concept obfuscates these lessons.   From this we can see that no longer are women ‘venerated’ and respected; no longer are the children truly protected.  What society winds up with is a tribal concept of an insouciant society, which no firm grounding or protections, just the ‘general’ protections allowed by the society at large (the Tribe).  No longer can our women walk the streets in safety, and once a woman has been raped or a child has been violated—‘society’ is the main benefactor of justice, and no longer do American’s enjoy the protections of the Father, the home, nor the family.  Society devolves due to the raging antagonism’s ingrained through insolvable paradoxes within the tribal model itself, in essence; anarchy evolves because, nobody truly has a home, nobody truly understands where he comes from or the protections of his family name and more importantly, without this foundation of family: no one truly understands the law anymore...which we have documented; stems directly from the Family.  Of course, unbeknownst to us all, this anarchy is intentional, and planned, as the Socialist desire to own and control the family was demarcated long before the Feminist second wave social revolution of the 1970s when Radical Feminists began destroying this nation from within:

“In the origins of the family, private property and the state  Engels refers to Patriarchy as a form of the family whose essential features were the incorporation of the bondsmen  and the power vested in the Paternal head of the family.  [F. Engels (1884).  The origins of the family, private property and the state, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 488.]  Similarly in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to ‘The little workshop of the Patriarchal master.”  Here Patriarchy is understood as a social relation of domestic production.  [K. Marx and F. Engels “The Communist Manifesto” in D.  McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, 1977 p. 227.]

                However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by Marx and Engles is a limited one.  Patriarchy refers to the system under pre-capitalist modes of production in which the means of production and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the head of household, rather than a more generalized system of female subordination and male domination.”


[The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7.]


            We can see that Patriarchy was the main model of selection for societies seeking ascension and not devolution.   Through the systematic analysis of  Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ process, civilization chose the model of the Male Kinship System of Patriarchy not out of a need of control nor success or a biblical need to subjugate or ‘own’ the woman…it chose Patriarchy due to the factual reason that as a sustainable human construct of happiness, safety, protection and wealth…it is clearly and systematically a superior model.  The “best” model.  Any society which implement’s it, clearly and historically is destined to succeed and prosper.  Prosperity, protection and stabilization are the main components that mandate the use of the Patriarchal model over any other competing model in a modern structured society.  This factor is the reason why America was a Patriarchal society.   The founding fathers researched many societies in their dissertations in creating the American civilization, one need only to read the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers to understand that they had a solid understanding of the history of mankind and our history.  They settled on Patriarchy, not only as adherence to a Christian mandate, but also as an empirical model of success.  For in the ordered structure of Patriarchy is ingrained the tenets of Freedom, Liberty and Justice.  Sigmund Freud also understood the implications of Patriarchy:

“Mitchell goes on to argue that such a reading of the Levi-Strauss is consistent with Freud’s definition of culture as Patriarchal. Freud’s work is seen as a analysis of Patriarchal society, not a recommendation for one—as culture is seen as predicated on the symbolic exchange of women by men.  Mitchell argues that for Freud the Oedipal moment signifies the entry of man into culture, into everything that made him human.”


[The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE, p. 10.]


They all recognized that Patriarchy took discipline, gave everyone responsibilities and benefits, and allowed the Family the greatest freedom to pursue the blessings of Liberty which this our civilization strove, and fought for, and most importantly, which made man ‘human.’



            What we are establishing here, and what the main thesis of this book is all about; is the fact that between the two models of Matriarchy and Patriarchy, each factually align themselves to disparate political domain’s.  Patriarchy is the culmination of the fruition of the American Model of Governance, and clearly; our history, religion and laws stem from the common law reality of the Sovereignty of individual rights and that of the Parent, home and Family. There can be no dispute that the nuclear family is the invention of Patriarchy.  Without the Father (the weakest link of the Family) there is no family for immediately the family devolves into its association to a state of “animals and slaves” as the maxim of law predicates above, ergo: Matriarchy: the Single Female Headed Household.  The main drive-engine for tribalism for the new welfare state..

            Matriarchy on the other hand, aligns itself with Socialism or Communistic rules of law and coercion, in fact; it is the succinct extrapolation of Marxism.   First, one need not only look to the formulative effect of Feminism upon the American society, one only has to look at its inception, which was clearly from Socialist/Anarchist/Communistic roots.  Look at the women who built the house of Modern Feminism:

“...Ellen Wilkinson,...had served her political apprenticeship in the feminist and peace movements, and in the communist party..”                  

[pp. 123 A Century of Women.]


“Anna Louise Strong doctor in philosophy, campaigner for child welfare and socialist party member, appeared to be the epitome of radical progressivism...(she) found herself facing empty tables at the American Unions against militarism: ‘The respectable members were returning to war work.  The President’s of the Women’s Club’s were “swinging behind the President.”  Only a handful of socialists, anarchists and industrial workers of the World—“Wobblies”—remained.     

[pp. 91  A Century of Women.]


“Cristal Eastman in contrast, challenged the political mainstream as a socialist-feminist. 

                                                                                                [p. 97 A Century of Women.]


“Socialists and Anarchist who continued in opposition were severely persecuted, when Emma Goldman organized a No-Conscription League, the government arrested every young man attending the meeting.”                  

[p. 100 A Century of Women.]


“...In Europe (Margaret Sanger) researched the history and practice of birth-control, meeting writers on sex psychology like Edward Carpenter and Havelock Ellis, with whom she had a love affair.  She also made friends with anarchists and socialist advocates of birth control Rose Witlop, her companion Guy Aldred and Stella Browne.  Havelock Ellis was however, to convince her that the cause of sexual reform would be best served by separating it from  the left.

                Sanger’s supporters in the United States tended to be linked to the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World or Anarchist circles.”

                                                                                                [p. 111 A Century of Women.]


“The Socialist-Feminist Journalist and agitator Agnes Smedley, for example, was arrested in April 1918 because of her support for Indian Nationalist as well as birth control, bringing Margaret Sanger to her defense.”

                                                                                                [p. 112 A Century of Women.]


“In 1922...the Anarchist Rose Witcop and her companion Guy Witcop...[along] with these Socialist and anarchist women gained support no only from women who were anxious to lima their families, but also from radicals committed to sexual liberation.  For example, Harry Wicks describes his autobiography, Keeping My Head, how birth control and free love were part of the Battersea Socialist movement, along with vivisection and vaccination.”

                                                                                                [p.  140  A Century of Women.]


“Egalitarian in theory if not in practice, the party attracted numerous women like Dorothy Healey.  Healey joined the Young Communist League (YCL) in 1928 at age fourteen and went on to serve as the leader of the Lost Angeles district Communist party for over twenty years.”

                                                                                                [Second to None, Vol II, by Ruth Barnes Moynihan and Cynthia Russett © 1993 The University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 0-8032-3166-0, p. 189.]


“From the vantage point of an African-American feminist, with revolutionary aspiration toward socialism that refuse to go away."


[Malcom X, In Our Own Image Joe Wood, Editor, @1992, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, ISBN 0-312-06609-0, p. 41.]


...The girls became the world's first lady stockbrokers and, when that palled, proprietors of the Welsley newspaper that was first to publish Marx's Communist Manifesto in the United States.

[SEX IN HISTORY, by Reay Tannahill, @1980, 1992, Scarborough House/ Publishers; ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 397.]


The late Eleanor Leacock was an anthropologist and feminist who published claims of societies that were supposedly "Egalitarian," in regard both to wealth, and to sex. Her writings display a strong Marxist bent. She wrote a long and admiring introduction for her new edition of Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, which was published by International House Publishers (New York, 1972), the publishing arm of the Communist Party of the USA.


[Deceptions of a 'Gender Equal Society':

Eleanor Leacock's Depiction of the 17th-Century Montagnais-Naskapi

by Robert Sheaffer, June, 1993]



In a new book, "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique", Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind.


In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the publication of "The Feminist Mystique" launched the modern women's movement.


Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.


...Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife "was in the world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and "seldom was a wife and a mother".


[From: Betty Friedan's secret Communist past Why has this feminist icon continued to cover up her years as a party activist?

By David Horowitz

SALON magazine

Jan. 18, 1999 ]


These Socialist roots are now the causal impetus to enforce government sponsored Matriarchy upon the Landscape of America.  This in effect, is the expropriation of the American system of governance and replacing it with Socialism, all under the guise of “The Best Interests of the Child” via enforced altruism.  The “Village”.  Exactly as Bastiat warned.  The Democratic Party, is in fact, through it’s own actions and political platform; the Communist Party of the United States.

            What most men do not know, and most American’s are totally unaware of, is that this system is being used to harvest not only Fathers, but the American system of government as well.  And attack on a Father is in essence an attack upon America.  Those who believe in Patriarchy: God, County, Mom and Apple Pie and the American way of life are planned to be eradicated by military courts (via our Military Court or “Equity” Court System which has replaced peace-time civilian “Law” courts) “Village” model of socialism which cannot exist while the father rules within the home.  This is one reason why being a Father has become one of the greatest crimes that anyone can commit in this society with the most sweeping penalties in any society throughout human history.  For if Matriarchy and Feminism cannot conquer the home by using ‘broad’ sweeping criteria for abuse and other crimes, then; Socialism cannot be implemented within the United States:

                “In times of profound and overwhelming social change like the present, however, extreme view hold out the appeal of the simplicity.  By ignoring the complexity of the forces that share our personal and collective circumstances, they offer us scapegoats.  Yet, they fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the Global Village [Read: New World Order, ergo Socialism. RLCII]

                At present, the extreme anti-government position is the noisiest one—or at least the one that gets the most attention from the media.  There are few people are arguing for more government.  Instead, the public debate is primarily between those who argue for much less government, period.  And those who advocate a smaller, less bureaucratic, but still active government to meet the demands for the information age.  Anti-Government rhetoric appears to offer a vision of greater efficiency, self reliance, and personal freedom.  Unfortunately, this rhetoric ignores what has historically been mostly valuable about our skepticism toward government—the emphasis it places on personal responsibility from all citizens.  [Read:  Everyone must support big government via Socialism.RLCII]

                ”We must ask ourselves: Who benefits from the elimination of Federal Regulations that protect us from outbreaks of contaminated drinking water or cases of tainted meat?  Who Benefits from a decrease in Federal Pollution Standards, or from the kind of massive deregulation that could allow companies to dump toxins into our nations oceans, rivers, and lakes?  Certainly, not our Families or our children.”

                                                 [It Takes a Village p. 308]


Indeed Ms. Clinton...who does benefit??   It positively is neither Families, Fathers or Children under the present draconian “Village” system...presently; American Families are undergoing stresses and economic and social pressures never seen before throughout history—short of outright war and conflagration.  The American Family via the direct attack against the Father, is ripping apart at the seams.  Children have never done worse as they have now, with each year, government and the media shrilly extolling the eternal problems of our youth…yet as literally trillions of dollars get collected to “solve” this problem, the problem only worsens.

This passage eminently shows that government intervention into the Family is Big Business.  As you read Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s expose here you can see the classic switch and bait, of which Feminism is famous for.  First, Ms. Clinton talks about social issues and the crisis she develops through laws, which she and those like her want Government to intrude into and monopolize.  Secondly, create the bogeyman, the bad guy.  (This is the Father in contemporary society, it was the Jew in WWII in Nazi Germany, it was the Black in the Antebellum south).   Thirdly, discount the crisis, and switch the issue; she does this masterfully here by asking: “Who benefits from the elimination of Federal Regulation?”

            Clearly American Citizen’s and Families do!!  Yet the crisis the pretends to in the first instance have a direct causal relationship with government accruing huge economic benefits and power!   Upon analysis of these paragraphs, we can see that Ms. Rodham-Clinton is relying upon the thesis that American’s want a New World order, otherwise Masked as the Global Village.  Ergo: “Village” being the socialist village that we all are grouped to.  Secondly, we can see her create a bogeyman, the nebulous and malicious extreme Anti-Government Right Wing.  This ploy is used to disassociate the reader from his or her common sense so that any reader would intellectually be revolted from the ‘radical’ Anti-Government movement (a movement which, incidentally; has been unmercifully bastardized in the mainstream media and labeled as “angry white men”), then of course she closes with a Mutilated Beugar argument, thereby creating a panoply of altruistic “causes” that are openly and arrogantly used by Socialists in which to usurp American Constitutional and Natural born rights.  (Again, what Bastiat warned us of).  She cites the most egregious examples of pollution and pestilence’s known to man—to whence—she again, closes the argument right at the Feminists ground-zero for all their reasoning:  “...Our families or our children.”

            Quick:  What does Families and children have to do with Social change, the Cold War or the Global Village?  This argument is three times removed from the real intent of what is really being discussed here, and this is the issue of this book.  Most men don’t even understand what is happening to them, because they think its about something they’ve done...it isn’t.  This is about two political systems, one communist, one American.  Only one will win here.

            What is happening not only in America but around the world is an attempt to impose the “Village” of Ms. Clinton upon the face of anything they do.   This is why all Government’s argument’s lead to the family.  On the one hand they state that under our system of Government, that we are Individuals, that we live in Freedom, that we have untold liberties.  They then pass a mass of laws which no society can live with, so many and covering such a range of issues that in fact make everything illegal.  However; the myth, of any family sovereignty or that, more importantly; a man’s home is his castle, is quickly wasted away upon the slightest provocation or event.  Upon this reality, there is an empire of laws, officers, Agents, Code Enforcement Officers, Assistant DA’s, Councilors, Psychologists, County Counsels, United States Marshall’s, FBI Agents, CPS and Social workers, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, all there to eternally: manage the ‘problem’ which they keep creating.  These American Socialist systems have never solved any problem—they just eternally manage them.

“I think I have observed that integrity in the conduct of both the living and the dead takes a stronger hold of the human heart than any other virtue.  It is placed before mercy by the name of Justice in the Scriptures, and Just Men are in may parts of the inspired writings placed upon very high ground.  It is right is should be so.  The world stands in more need of Justice than charity, and indeed, it is the want of Justice that renders charity everywhere, so necessary.”


[Our Sacred Honor, Words of Advice from the Founders in Stories, Letters, Poems and Speeches, by William J. Bennett ©1997, Simon & Schuster, Rockerfeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, ISBN 0-684-84d138-X; p. 313.]


            What we see here, by Ms. Rodham-Clinton’s own hand, is the classic mind of the Socialist, which was classically exposed by Bastiat in his Treatise: The Law.  That is to create any conflict, then as a facade, to hold up the weakest and most helpless among us as those willing to deserve charity.  Invariably, this always markets the Family, and most certainly; our children.  The Family is incredibly Big Business, accruing on the order of 1.2 Trillion dollars a year in pure unadulterated profit for government.   More importantly, it is and has been used as the vehicle for the Socialists of this nation, including the Clinton’s and those of their ilk,  to impose massive laws and economic impositions against our society.  To put it bluntly, our society is being held hostage just as the family and father are being held hostage. They are using our women and children as a shield to get into our own homes.   Wives, girlfriends, children and family are also being used as a shield for usurpation of the American system of government to impose the autocratic Socialist “Village” form of government that Hillary and her fellow Elite regime demand from us. 

            Frankly, Ms. Rodham-Clinton could care less about you or your children.  She and those corrupt misfit’s like her do care however, about the Global Village, and about those corridor’s of power they tend and groom in which to meet their own agenda.  They care about themselves and their ideals—which incidentally—are directly Anti-American.  Ask Ms. Clinton her multiculturalist elite if smoking will be a crime in the future, and they will answer: “It might.”  Yet, ask them how this squares with the countervailing principles of law and foundational Constitutional doctrine, and you will find them surprisingly mulct.  These same exact concepts are being implemented to create laws which make everything illegal, especially those which might occur in the home—which according to our foundational laws and precepts, government is not supposed to ‘dare’ intrude.

            In reality, the agenda of America is to be a system of governance by and for the Individual.  It is supposed to be an experiment in freedom.  Presently; every American is directly and succinctly under attack by the secret systems being used against them to steal their money, to usurp their own individual power and authority; and more importantly; to slowly implement “something else” all under the guise of “Law and Order” and “The American Way.”  These newly created laws, of which there are thousands of them created from thin air each year by State Legislatures, and the Federal Government, (not even considering the hundreds of thousands of rules, practices, policies and procedures of government Administrative Agencies), are in fact, making ‘everything’ against the law.  Unfortunately; the greatest crime of these all: is simply Fatherhood.  These range of laws are no longer there to protect “We the People” but, sadly; they are there for more scurrilous reasons.  An eloquent quote from Bertold Brecht sadly enunciates the present reasons for this malefarious operations by our new ruling elite whom are so intent on changing the basic tenets and laws of our nation:

“The law is simply and solely made for the exploitation of those who do not understand it or of those, who out of naked need, cannot obey it.”


This fact remains: either one of the two competing system’s of Matriarchy and Patriarchy will win out within any society, for they both represent countervailing precepts of Government that are antithetical to each other.  Like matter, they cannot occupy the same space together. 

It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that materiel welfare and economic problem, and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements.  The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of “Democratic Socialism” by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by “Totalitarian Socialism” in Russia and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements.  The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain combinations of political and economic arrangements are possible, that in particular, a society that is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.


[Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Freedman, ©1962; University Chicago Press, p. 7]


Under the constraints of Feminism and Matriarchy, neither can the nuclear two-parent American family or Hillary Clinton’s “Redesign of Humanity” occupy the same space together.  Hillary’s ideal for America and the American Constitutional premise of America are two completely disparate realities.  If in fact, Feminism win’s out, it will in fact mean the destruction of Patriarchy and the American form of governance.  This in turn will be the destruction of the Father.  In turn, this will mean the destruction of the nuclear, two-parent family.  And finally, this will most certainly, aid in the destruction of our children and will admit the devolution to this or any society which embraces such feminist convention.

            This of course is in direct opposition to this nation’s formative foundational doctrines.  When John Winthrop sailed over leading the Puritans in 1602, he gave a vision as to what was to become the American dream:

....”The Puritans envisaged a society that would be composed not of individuals, but of Families.  Therefore, women and children were present from the outset, as they had not been in Virginia.  In [John] Winthrop, the men and women who founded Massachusetts had a leader of extraordinary talent and intelligence, one who participated in every detail of social, political, and religious life.  A man of deep and unwavering conviction, Winthrop laid out his conception of society even before the settlers had landed.

                In his justly renowned lay sermon, A Model of Christian Charity,  delivered aboard Arbella as the Puritans were about to disembark, Winthrop argued that the Puritans had come to America on a special mission under a covenant with God.  In order to satisfy the terms of the Covenant, the settlers would have to “be knit together in this work as one man....always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, our community as members of the same body.”  If the colonist kept their bargain, Winthrop said, God would keep  His and would protect them and ensure their prosperity.  He went on to warn his fellow settlers to “consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.”


[The American People, A History, Arthur S. Link, ©1981, AHM Publishing Corp., 3110 N. Arlington Heights Road, Ill. 60004, ISBN 0-88295-804-6; p. 50.]


Clearly, modern feminism shares no part of this dream as their doctrines and outright hatred is factually directly against these very things with which Winthrop and other Founding Fathers established and inculcated within this nation.  The only problem with this is, that presently our nation’s government also has taken up this hatred against these foundational precepts, and along with the feminists, is proactively attempting to destroy, and eradicate these bedrock principles of American governance.  These principles were quickly recognized as an asset to the human condition, and the world if not humanity itself, exactly as Winthrop presaged, did indeed take notice.

“The Americans had the chances of birth in their favor, and their forefathers imported that equality of conditions into the country whence the democratic republic had very naturally taken its rise.  Nor was this all they did; for besides this republican condition of society, the early settlers bequeathed to their descendants those customs, manners, and opinions which contribute most to the success of a republican form of government.  When I reflect upon the consequences of this primary circumstance, methinks I see the destiny of America embodied in the first Puritan who landed on those shores, just as the human race was represented by the first man.”


[Democracy in America, by Alexis De Tocqueville, ©1946, Oxford University Press, New York, Inc., p. 185.]