Friday, May 7, 2010

The Matriarchal Paradigm is Ascendant

From the SpearheadFiles
May 8, 2010

Dr. Daniel Amneus wrote the Garbage Generation in the late 1980's.

It was a seminal indictment of matriarchy and about the long term, societal results of the feminist platform's loosening of sexual mores and the institutions of no-fault divorce and family court system becoming normalized.

It's now been two decades since he wrote about the inevitable results of instituting matriarchy to replace patriarchy. He predicted that the more matriarchy became ascendant, the more America would resemble the matriarchal ghettos of the inner cities.

We're almost there.

Four in ten babies are born outside marriage in the U.S.

The number of children born outside marriage in the United States has increased dramatically to four out of ten of all births.

Figures show that 41 per cent of children born in 2008 did not have married parents - up from 28 per cent in 1990.

Remember this the next time you encounter the "conservative" argument that is passionate about "saving marriage" from the gays.

Researchers have concluded that although Christian values still play an important role in American society, public attitudes have changed.

Hah. Most "Christian" values have changed to accommodate the public attitudes.

Having a child out of wedlock does not carry the stigma and shame it once did, they say.

Anybody remember the huge media brouhaha when VP Dan Quayle criticized the portrayal of single motherhood as no big deal on the TV show Murphy Brown? He was lambasted, ridiculed and had all sorts of insults directed at him.

Oh yes, Dan Quayle was absolutely right.

Gooooo Longhorns!!!

Let's take a look at some substantial excerpts of the speech that contained the criticism of the TV show that got so many feminists and liberals panties twisted in a bunch...and put it into the overall context of the accurate points Quayle was making.

This country now has a black middle class that barely existed a quarter-century ago. Since 1967, the median income of black two-parent families has risen by 60 percent in real terms. The number of black college graduates has skyrocketed. Black men and women have achieved real political power -- black mayors head 48 of our largest cities, including Los Angeles. These are achievements.

But as we all know, there is another side to that bright landscape. During this period of progress, we have also developed a culture of poverty -- some call it an underclass -- that is far more violent and harder to escape than it was a generation ago.

The poor you always have with you, Scripture tells us. And in America we have always had poor people. But in this dynamic, prosperous nation, poverty has traditionally been a stage through which people pass on their way to joining the great middle class. And if one generation didn't get very far up the ladder -- their ambitious, better-educated children would.

We see the exact thing here in Hawaii. I've seen it play out amongst Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan, Chinese and Micronesian families that migrate here. They often live in poverty-laden areas, with ten family members living in a two or three bedroom apartment, with the parents working long hours at menial blue color jobs...saving money to put their kids through school. Within a generation, these families go from penniless immigrants to middle and upper-middle class citizenry, when their educated kids become doctors, lawyers, bankers or small business owners.

This, of course, is a stark contrast to all those families that come here and instead of working hard and saving to invest in their children's future, they opt to go on the welfare, become dependent on hand outs and adopt the matriarchal ghetto lifestyle. I've seen families of all races take one or the other path, with reliably predictable results. The underclass really has nothing to do with race.

Nevertheless, the Black family in America leads the way in manifesting the societal results that occur when you adopt Government policies and laws that offer incentives for single mothers to have children out of wedlock. The black American family was the canary in the coalmine in terms of what happens when you effect social policies that impact the structure of the nuclear family.

As Dan Quayle noted:

The inter-generational poverty that troubles us so much today is predominantly a poverty of values. Our inner cities are filled with children having children; with people who have not been able to take advantage of educational opportunities; with people who are dependent on drugs or the narcotic of welfare. To be sure, many people in the ghettos struggle very hard against these tides -- and sometimes win. But too many feel they have no hope and nothing to lose. This poverty is, again, fundamentally a poverty of values.

But the underclass seems to be a new phenomenon. It is a group whose members are dependent on welfare for very long stretches, and whose men are often drawn into lives of crime. There is far too little upward mobility, because the underclass is disconnected from the rules of American society. And these problems have, unfortunately, been particularly acute for black Americans. Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black poverty in particular in the 1960s and now.
* In 1967, 68 percent of black families were headed by married couples. In 1991, only 48 percent of black families were headed by both a husband and wife.

* In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28 percent. In 1989, 65 percent -- two thirds -- of all black children were born to never-married mothers.

* In 1951 9.2 percent of black youth between 16-19 were unemployed. In 1965, it was 23 percent. In 1980, it was 35 percent. By 1989, the number had declined slightly, but was still 32 percent.

* The leading cause of death of young black males today is homicide.

It would be overly simplistic to blame this social breakdown on the programs of the Great Society alone. It would be absolutely wrong to blame it on the growth and success most Americans enjoyed during the 1980s. Rather, we are in large measure reaping the whirlwind of decades of changes in social mores.

Of course, these changes in social mores didn't "just happen."

Unless we change the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we cannot expect anything else to change.


Instead of changing the basic rules of society in our inner cities, we've adopted them society-wide, which is precisely why we are now living through the decline of Western Civilization and entering into a Brave New World Order: Global Socialism Based on the Matriarchal family model; controlled and manipulated by dependence on the Ruling Elite.

For the government, transforming underclass culture means that our policies and programs must create a different incentive system. Our policies must be premised on, and must reinforce, values such as: family, hard work, integrity and personal responsibility.

But that would be racist, sexist and homophobic!

I think we can all agree that government's first obligation is to maintain order. We are a nation of laws, not looting. If a single mother raising her children in the ghetto has to worry about drive-by shootings, drug deals, or whether her children will join gangs and die violently, her difficult tasks becomes impossible.

Safety is absolutely necessary. But it's not sufficient. Our urban strategy is to empower the poor by giving them control over their lives. Empowering the poor will strengthen families. And right now, the failure of our families is hurting America deeply. When families fail, society fails. The anarchy and lack of structure in our inner cities are testament to how quickly civilization falls apart when the family foundation cracks. Children need love and discipline. They need mothers and fathers. A welfare check is not a husband. The state is not a father. It is from parents that children learn how to behave in society; it is from parents above all that children come to understand values and themselves as men and women, mothers and fathers.

And for those concerned about children growing up in poverty, we should know this: Marriage is probably the best anti-poverty program of all. Among families headed by married couples today, there is a poverty rate of 5.7 percent. But 33.4 percent of families headed by a single mother are in poverty today.

The system perpetuates itself as these young men father children whom they have no intention of caring for, by women whose welfare checks support them. Teenage girls, mired in the same hopelessness, lack sufficient motive to say no to this trap.

That Dan Quayle sure was a stupid, moron, wasn't he?

Answers to our problems won't be easy.

We can start by dismantling a welfare system that encourages dependency and subsidizes broken families. We can attach conditions -- such as school attendance, or work -- to welfare. We can limit the time a recipient gets benefits. We can stop penalizing marriage for welfare mothers. We can enforce child support payments.

Heh. I wrote too soon...note the inherent contradiction in that last paragraph. He first calls for dismantling the welfare system...than immediately makes proscriptions that reform the welfare system, not dismantle it. And in fact, all of those conditions he mentioned were eventually effected with "Welfare Reform" during the Clinton administration. The Daily Mail article now shows us just how effective that was. American bastardy is at an all time high.

They should have ended it, not "mended" it.

This is what happens when you get "compromise" by "conservatives" so they can appeal to the "left" to achieve "bi-partisan consensus."

Ultimately, however, marriage is a moral issue that requires cultural consensus and social sanctions. Bearing babies irresponsibly is, simply, wrong. We must be unequivocal about this.
Too late, Mr. Quayle. They reformed welfare and normalized babies born out of wedlock. The Matriarchal paradigm continues it's ascent.

It doesn't help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown -- a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman -- mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another "lifestyle choice."

I know it is not fashionable to talk about moral values, but we need to do it. Even though our cultural leaders in Hollywood, network TV, the national newspapers routinely jeer at them, I think that most of us in this room know that some things are good,and other things are wrong. Now it's time to make the discussion public.

Our cultural "leaders" in Hollywood, network TV and the national newspapers have won that particular debate.

Sounds to me like Quayle was well versed in Senator Moynihan's report about the destructive effects of matriarchal policies and programs on the black American family.

No wonder the liberal mainstream media, talking heads and late night comedians had to continually push the meme that Quayle was barely above the intellectual level of retardation because of his dispute with a grade schooler on the spelling of the word potato(e).

Dan Quayle was right, and he certainly was no dumbass when he made the argument that Murphy Brown's single mother storyline was in fact a glorification of single motherhood, a marginalization of the role of Fathers, and that it would subversively influence the viewers by normalizing bastardy in our culture.
Can anyone now say it with a straight face that Dan Quayle's predictions didn't come true?

Notable Commentary from the Original Post

finsalscollons May 8, 2010 at 15:09:

I read “The Garbage Generation” about a year ago and now I realize that it was written in the 80’s. It could have been written yesterday. It is that relevant.

About Dan Quayle, I remember the liberal lynching due to the Murphy Brown affair. I hadn’t read the actual text until now and it strikes me as a reasonable, moderate and not offensive at all. That the liberal media launched such an attack to such a moderate speech says a lot about the liberal media. When their totalitarian ideology is questioned, they react like the Spanish inquisition, trying to burn the heretic.

nemo May 8, 2010 at 16:01:

This may seem a bit off-topic, but bear with me. How many people remember the media coverage of Sarah Palin’s church being firebombed in December 2008?

You need to read the backpages of the newspapers in America and make lots of mental notes to find out what’s really happening because the natural tendency of liberal reporters is to downplay the faults of liberals and focus almost exclusively on the faults of conservatives.

The bombing of black churches during the civil rights era still gets more “play” in the media than the Palin bombing. You won’t often hear it mentioned whenever anyone calls Palin a “flake” for resigning from her post as Governor of Alaska. It seems that she had legitimate concerns about the safety and survival of her family.

Imagine what would happen if Obama’s church was firebombed …

On a closely related topic, I remember seeing a headline this week that stated that 41% of all mothers were unmarried. When I clicked on the link, the title had changed to “Study: Older, unmarried, educated moms on the rise”. The spin sisters in the media must have deep-sixed the original headline because I can find only one link that still has it:

Same story, different headlines, and the one that’s more truthful and less politically correct is now almost gone from cyberspace. Hmmm …

It’s a bit Orwellian to click on a hypertext link and find that the headline has been changed before you can even read the story. The Ministry of Truth isn’t necessary if you control the media.

ElectricAngel May 8, 2010 at 16:09:


I find it interesting that other groups can rise out of poverty in Hawaii. That is an urban phenomenon: working in agriculture will never raise the great class of people out of peasantry. Jane Jacobs wrote about this process in The Death and Life of Great American Cities. There’s a bit of an overview of this here:

It seems that the more cities are independent, and functioning as urban economies, the better off the people become. It’s notable that the growth of the urban economy was predicated on education in the “school of hard knocks,” as small entrepreneurs found spinoffs of existing businesses. The bureaucratized megacorporation is sterile, dead, much like the graduate-degree earning women who staff it. The solution to those unemployed men 25-54 is straightforward: an entrepreneurial urban economy that rewards risk-taking. We see that today in Hong Kong, and might again in the USA.

3DShooter May 8, 2010 at 16:13:

I’ve often said that politics is the bastard step child of religion. A degenerate form of the hierarchical social model.

And yes, Mr. Potatoe-head leaves a gaping hole in his thin veneer of values rhetoric with statements like

"...We can stop penalizing marriage for welfare mothers. We can enforce child support payments."

In other words: end welfare by perpetuating it. Child support IS welfare and it is time to abolish the practice of state mandated/manipulated indentured servitude.

keyster May 8, 2010 at 16:56:

The purpose of ascendancy for a man was to achieve higher status among other men, eventually being recognized and “chosen” by the most desirable females. This dynamic still exists but to a much lesser degree as male accomplishment and female sexuality are similtaneously devalued.

The dissolution of this “check and balance” system strikes at the core of our modern moral decline. The great gender power-shift is the beginning of the end, because we (liberals /feminists) thought we could outsmart human nature. It’s a war of attrition. Men receding to the fringes. He needs to redefine himself, because “husband” and “father” are roles he can no longer aspire to. The risks now out-weigh the rewards.

epoche* May 8, 2010 at 17:06:

"This country now has a black middle class that barely existed a quarter-century ago. Since 1967, the median income of black two-parent families has risen by 60 percent in real terms. The number of black college graduates has skyrocketed. Black men and women have achieved real political power - black mayors head 48 of our largest cities, including Los Angeles. These are achievements."

I criticize Dan Quayle for uttering this nonsense. If social engineering achieves 2 good things and 200 bad ones, we need to criticize the very idea of social engineering, not preface our criticisms with a prepackaged rejoicing of all the “wonderful” achievements that progressives have accomplished. There is a line in Democracy in America where de Tocqueville state that the “government is happy that the people rejoice provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.”

There was an article a month or 2 back that stated that half of the country doesnt pay any income tax. Think about that for a moment. With all of the entitlements that our government wonderfully provides, half of the population doesnt pay any income tax. I dont believe there is a worse figure in American history than LBJ and his Great Society. We need more radical attacks on the very concept of social equality.

TrollKing May 8, 2010 at 17:40:

About Dan Quayle, I remember the liberal lynching due to the Murphy Brown affair. I hadn’t read the actual text until now and it strikes me as a reasonable, moderate and not offensive at all. That the liberal media launched such an attack to such a moderate speech says a lot about the liberal media. When their totalitarian ideology is questioned, they react like the Spanish inquisition, trying to burn the heretic.

Maybe this just shows how things were bad back in the day, and even worse now. You are trying to paint this as democrat v. republican, but its more than that. Its about men. Our constitution was written with men in mind. Not women. Our founding fathers understood the concept of gender. They understood that men help women, women don’t help men. Women don’t provide or protect males. They protect the herd. Men however protect women. Men protect their own families. What do women do? They drown their children in the tub or lake and then blame it on the closest black man.

Hell, murphy brown was nothing more than a show based on the concept of shielding women and the public from the fact that women create more child abuse than men. How many boys were raped and no one listened to them because murphy brown said it couldn’t happen. How many. How many boys grew up during the 80’s and 90’s with this shit shoved down our throat. How many? I am one. And I know other men are out there too.

Its amazing to look at people like him. He obviously knew what he was talking about. But no one listened. I think most mras know how that feels. we can define our struggle and we can tell others about it. But what happens, we get made fun of or ignored. Its amazing and scary to me. I was 8 when he made that speech. I have gone to public schools and I have seen the REAL world. Meaning I know about gangs and guns and drug dealers. Ive had to deal with meth heads in person since he wrote this. Ive had friends die from hillbilly heroin and ive buried friends due to suicide. FUCK HIM. He could have done something. But what did he do???? NOTHING. He simply complained and grabbed his balls while he stuck his thumb up his ass. Again maybe if he hadn’t sat there and tried to use ’smart’ words and instead had helped, well maybe some of my friends would still be alive. Fuckin bastard. Im gettin pissed at assholes that think they are holier than thou because they were there in the day. Its like the fuckin hippies who preached love and peace and shit and what happened, they got high and watched as over a million cambodians were slaughtered. Real fuckin manly. Lets sit back and watch an entire generation go to the gas chamber, or more likely simply be lined up and shot against a wall. Maybe one day this will happen to feminists. I won’t do it cause im a lover, not a fighter. BUt I won’t lose sleep over it either.


keyster May 8, 2010 at 18:09:

The idea was to hijack mass media and prime the social pump with liberal propaganda, (and they’re still doing it), and mass media is now being over-run by the internet as the medium of choice for news, information and entertainment. They thought if they could keep the messaging constant and loud enough people would eventually adopt liberal idealism. Exalt enough examples of fictional female empowerment, upper middle class black families along with the first female/minority to accomplish something heretofore done by only white males, “breaking barriers”…and the masses would see that it really is possible and follow along.

But the real world and human nature isn’t like that. Things don’t just happen because. You have to work at it and with good timing and a little luck, you might make it. All things are possible for the individual, but as soon as you identify with the victim group all bets are off.

Vitamin May 8, 2010 at 18:31:

Men have been each other’s worst enemy since the dawn of man. Do I trust my buds? Nope. I know deep down they’d fuck my wife or one of my daughters if they had the slightest chance.

My own dad and brothers came on to my beautiful wife in our early years and when she gently tried to tell me that they were making her feel uncomfortable at family gatherings with their advances I instantly knee-jerk stood up for my brothers and father and told her flat-out she was full of shit. Until I walked in on my father lifting my wife up and rubbing her all over his body as a supposed ‘hug’. I apologized to my wife and and told her how horrified I was that my own flesh and blood kin would do that but, it still didn’t stop. My father would grab her and set her on his lap for photos, it became obvious and it upset my mother too. My wife stopped visiting my family altogether which caused a huge rift in the family dynamics because everyone wanted to know why my wife was rejecting my kin. It got ugly.

The only thing that changed it all was when I stopped working for my father and I struck out on my own and started my own carpentry and construction business. My father had to respect me from that day forward and that meant respecting my woman.

To this day men still ogle my wife even when I’m with her which takes all of my internal fortitude to not go ballistic on the idiots who have the audacity to ask if her hair is real or if they can touch it (she has really long hair).

Sorry for the rant but, I can’t help but find that in the case of male to male relations we are often more enemies than friends when it boils right down to it. When a man can’t even trust his own father and brothers, yeah, not cool.

GlobalMan May 8, 2010 at 19:19

Yes. Men have always men the ones willing to put the sword to other men in ‘competition’ or ‘war’. Men know that they have to compete with each other for the wimminz and that some percentage, like 10%, fall through the ‘glass floor’. Wimminz have ALWAYS had it better than men have. This inbuilt competition is one reason why men do not get together and defend their own rights very well as is clearly evidenced by the lack of any such collaboration in the MRA area. Such collaboration is only achieved when men realise they have a common enemy. THEN they will get together to get rid of the common enemy. Soon after they will settle back into their petty squables. This is why I continually point to the MEN at the top who are our common enemy. If men in the MRA area could come to understand that the REAL enemy are those few men at the top they would simply put those guys ‘out of business’ and then we could all get on with our lives. Men seem real keen not to notice this. I mean you can see pretty much ALL politicians flash the Illuminati diablo hand signal like Quayle in this article and yet men will say ‘there can be no conspiracy’ despite the fact the worlds history has been one long story of conspiracies for powerful men to stay powerful.

And yep, my brother hit on my gf then finacee because she was one of the FEW girls who did not chase after him in school when he was the ‘football hero’ type and I was the ‘nerdy’ type. I’m pretty sure it pissed him off I got the hotter looking wife! LOL! Such is life. Men compete with each other. Even brothers. My ex was one who ’stopped the traffic’ when she was young. Now? Shes fat. Women age like milk. Now? I date women who are even hotter than my ex was at her hottest. I like that.

Common Monster May 8, 2010 at 19:29:

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead already wrote a piece called Single Mother Birth Rate

Graph: Welfare Spending Increase Proportion

Migu May 9, 2010 at 06:52:

Yeah money a medium of exchange. Follow legal tender money doesn’t exist in a naturL form today. Cent by cent your dollars will be inflated away. Wouldn’t it be cool if we get inflation coupled with an insolvent government…….oh yeah.

finsalscollons May 9, 2010 at 15:02:

Vitamin, this is not the place to talk about God. You will be objetc of derision and scorn. One of the signs of our decadent times is that all the best things in the world are mocked: family, fathers, altruistic love, ideals, God.

When people stop believing in God, the only thing to live for are their own biological urges. Too bad that these biological urges are programmed to produce a matriarchy (as in Stone Age times). What we are living today is only the consequence of people living without a trascendent framework. Women follow their nature, men follow their nature and the end result is having 20% of alphas monopolize 80% of women.

But this is not the place to speak about this (I am making the same mistake than you by touching this issue but I only wanted you to know that not everyone here despises what you said and some of us really cherish it)


Anonymous said...

Enjoyed reading this.

Every country we invade (in the name of fighting terror of course) 1> we will see us introduce domestic violence laws (like the one we just introduced in Afghanistan that widely expands what is considered domestic violence),
2> and build them plenty of public school buildings (where their next few generations will be indoctrinated, and where kids will feel 3> peer pressure to adapt to the new norms they are beholden to in the 4> entertainment media they will be shown via satellite TV as mechanisms to signal higher status to each other........

EXAMPLE: Khatarina is cooler than Persiamella because Khatarina dresses more like sexy American Britney Spears and is bragging about being sexually experienced, and thus the most desirable boys like Dhavi and Hassan like her)

Its not really all that hard to look ahead 70 years to see what our long term goals are. If you make women comfortable in filing for divorces and still recieving benefits (shelter, food, clothing)using "abuse" and "neglect" and "unfufillment" as a pretext, then as employed working women they will be doing so, just like women in the West. The birthrate will plummet just like it has here.

I wonder how many years back that this basic plan has been discussed by the elite? Does it go back past "Rosie-the-Riveter"? Why do I have a feeling that these things were discussed and formulated by social scientists on elite-payroll as far back as the 1920's-30's as a way to potentially cull human numbers, bring about debt-slavery globally, and to bring about a one world currency and one-world bank, ruled by an elite that reigns out of the spotlight, but just as firmly in real control as a dictator? It really does make sense.

Its all stemming from the same urge in my opinion, that is as ever-present in our current elite as it is in every elite throughout history: the Feudal impulse, or the desire to control everyone lower on the social scale than themselves by means of ground-rent to inhibit them from ever being equals.

Making war on another civiliation's families is a way to destroy that civilation. Thats precisely what we are doing

Anonymous said...

One more thingy.....

The right to print money is the right to steal through inflation.

Our elite is currently stealing from the working classes by intentionally making their money worth less and less, so they have to work more and more and are in increasing levels of debt-slavery. Every fiat dollar given to a welfare mother and her illegitimate children who are in a cycle of dependency just robs a working family by making their money less powerful. The elite couldn't care less as they get the money fresh off Fed presses when they want it, right at the highest multiplier-levels of circulation before its cheapened everyone else's dollars.

It took me a few years to wrap my head around what Fed critics were talking about when they constantly complained about "money-printing" and "creating money out of thin air and charging interest on it", but once I did.............I could hardly comprehend how the elite ever pulled off such a damned scam. No wonder they seek to divide every society against itself through war, feminism, intentional demographic change, supporting factionalism of every kind. If I were scamming everybody like they were.......I'd want their eye off the ball too.

Keoni Galt said...

It took me a few years to wrap my head around what Fed critics were talking about when they constantly complained about "money-printing" and "creating money out of thin air and charging interest on it", but once I did.............I could hardly comprehend how the elite ever pulled off such a damned scam.

Oh yes. This is what I've been trying to do with this blog for some time now...trying to explain these things in as clear and non-confusing manner as possible. It took me a long time, and repeated readings of a wide variety of sources to finally "get it" and to clearly see the big picture and make the connections.

Our entire fiat currency system empowers bankers to act as counterfeiters to purchase our serfdom so that we can mindlessly toil for their profit while we strive to achieve the chimera of happiness through consumerist materialism.