Let’s Stop Trying to Fix the Unfixable
Would you buy a car that never worked? If the salesman and mechanic explained that it is the best-designed car on the market, it’s just that a few kinks have to be ironed out, would you buy it? Would you go to a surgeon who had never performed a successful surgery? Would you go to a doctor who had never treated your type of illness? Then why tote a form of government that has never worked?
The defenders of our republic, Constitution, and democracy offer an infinite number of reasons why it doesn’t work. The following were two in response to my last article: “The emasculation of the American male was done through feminist lies, news media lies and incompetence, and judicial activism. A lot of that was both unconstitutional and undemocratic.” “The lawmakers and judges in particular have failed the Constitution. Lawmakers pass laws contrary to the constitution. Judges interpret the constitution any way they please, contrary to the intent of the constitution.” If lawmakers and judges can’t make the Constitution work, who can?
Our conditioning through the educational systems causes us to “believe” that democracy and a representative form of government is the best system, but it has never worked anywhere. The ancient Greeks tried it for a short time and got rid of it. Plato considered it to be the worst form of government before complete tyranny set in. Madison, Jefferson, and Adams all regretted what they had created. De Tocqueville wrote about the failings of democracy in 19th century America, and MND offers an unlimited source of those who make excuses for the failure of democracy.
I offer you Patriarchy. It has worked everywhere! In North American, South America, Africa, Polynesia, and Asia. It has worked for millennia. For the Bible toters, are you not familiar with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? Their society was patriarchal, and polygamous as well.
The make up of the central government becomes inconsequential when patriarchy is firmly entrenched. Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, and the Indian Satraps, all came and went without affecting family life. Patriarchy is an insulator of family life. Patriarchy is the rule of men. The only other choice is the rule of law. I opt for the rule of men any time. The rule of men results in the establishment of family life: the source of our character development, the center of nurturing, and focus of our daily activities.
Those men who are sitting in prison because of unjust accusations of rape or sexual harassment are not interested in some excuse as to why democracy hasn’t worked. They want out. Those men who have lost custody of their children are not interested in tinkering with something that caused their loss. They want their children back. Those men who have seen the destruction of all that they lived and worked for through “no fault divorce” are not interested in a dissertation of representative government. Those men who are on probation, who are facing prison, whose lives are in shambles want the hope of something better than that which caused their problems.
We live under socialism that is rapidly devolving into tyranny. I am looking for men—real men to stand up and make change. To be counted. To say that they have had enough, that they have nothing to lose, and that they have everything to gain to make change. I am looking for men who are tired of being classified as wage earners, industrial donkeys, and jackasses on the treadmill of production. I am looking for men who want to reassert their manhood. I am looking for men who are ready to stand up and shout I AM A MAN, I AM A REAL MAN.
Enough with the naysayers and excuse makers, I am looking for men of action. Let me have your comments or contact me at www.mensaction.net. Now is the time to assert yourself.
Possibly related posts...
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
Roger: “Are we done with this circular firing squad yet?”
Nice line, Roger.
I couldn’t read the whole thread. Wow.
The point I want to make is in response to David Usher’s comment about patriarchy being a close kin to “muslimism.” It’s truly unfortunate that so many would be reformists have bought the feminist’s portrait of patriarchy as some sort of dark ages, ultra-religious, out dated stuff. In fact, it is still the law of the land, and I would beg someone to debate the topic without resorting to half baked assumptions.
Until men and women in this country recognize there is no structural basis for family government, and therefore, no constitutional separation of power without a head of the household, there can be no meaningful reform of so-called family law.
I don’t agree that the constitution is dead. I believe we have allowed ourselves, and our children to be dumbed down with respect to family law (in the generic sense). A more important area of law these days concerns actions relating to prohibition and mandamus. This is important because it is government intervention, unlawfully usurping the power of family government that is a bigger issue now, than it was before topics in volumes of revised statutes became so intermingled that no one can any longer easily determine the subject matter.
It’s true the institution of marriage needs to be revitalized. But, this has to be done by educating the public about their rights and responsibilities under God’s laws, not under some made up right to joint custody or by some other reformation of welfare law. The state has legitimate causes for interfering with natural rights. When they seek to interfere with your natural right to parent, they have the burden of proving it’s necessary.
Even through the 40’s natural guardianship rights were protected by our courts. Over 100 years ago, there was a systematic effort to muddle the statutes and case law to suggest natural guardianship was somehow discarded, in favor of a best interest standard of review for “awarding” custody. In fact, there always was a “best interest” standard of review in proceedings to place wards of the state. The statutes regulating this procedure became the accepted body of law regarding any petition for custody, rather than actions to relieve a father of his natural right.
I have researched the statutes and case law in Minnesota, and I can explain the method if anyone is interested. My main point here is you have to look at family government in terms of a level of government. From the individual, comes the family, and the church, the city or township, the state, and the federal government. The separation of power works vertically, as it does horizontally for the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The powers not entrusted to the federal or state government are retained by the people.
Parens patriae is a doctrine adopted in this country by the state (through undetermined means) that allows the state to interfere in private matters of family government. There is reams of research available on this subject, but the case law very much supports limitations in regard to fitness. While it’s true the state can interfere because of financial reasons instead of just abuse or neglect, there are due process concerns as well.
EG is correct in compelling men to stand up and fight, but pick your fights wisely.
Amfortas (#152). Good post.
America has border problems and problems from terrorists. The terrorist problem will likely be here for decades. If the MRM and feminist supporters went to war against each other, these other enemies could capitalize on the ensuing chaos.
But we are a long way from a war between the MRM and the feminists. In the mean time there are other ways besides arms to make a point. For example, the men could all go on strike for a few days — just to make a point. In Poland they went on strike and that helped bring down Soviet control. So who needs a war?
Are we done with this circular firing squad yet?
The question of Violence seems to have captured the thrust of this thread.
The American Constitution (from a durn furriner viewpoint) can hardly be called a ‘Communist’ document. It is a clear exposition of a nation’s rationale for existence and the primacy of the People over the State. The Declaration of Independance does however ratify a nation’s insistence on existing, its intent to resist incursion and its right to fight for its own supremacy of integrity. It necessarily has to recognise a role for violence. A State will defend itself.
The American documents are the epitome of clear and defensible ‘rights’ and is recognised, envied even, as such by most other countries that have more jumbled declarations or none at all. As with all such Constitutions, written or implicit, the right of a State to use violence to ensure its continuance has never, ever been challenged, anywhere.
Violence is ‘realpolitic’.
This includes internal ‘civil war’ prosecuting. I doubt though that the Founding Fathers had in mind the sort of egregious and arbitrary discrimination against an entire gender as a reason for civil war. Discrimination and criminalisation by the State itself. The very thought, frankly, would never have crossed the minds of people anywhere prior to the second half of the 20th century.
But…. it clearly crosses minds now.
Civil wars start for a variety of reasons, usually political. That is, who is to control and wield the power in a society. Previously it has congeled around People vs Monarchs. It has progressed in recent centuries to particular ideologies where it is one lot of the ‘people’ vs another lot of the ‘people’ with a different set of beliefs or communal vs individual orientation. Never before has the battle line been drawn between men and women.
Is that what we face?
Women are historically and maybe even biologically adept at the game of ‘Let’s you and him fight’. This has usually been done on an individual basis. Our society is falling inexorably toward a fight between the ‘people’ (and institutions of ‘the people’) which do women’s bidding, and men in general, as a gender. There are clearly recognised ‘women’s people’ and so far no ‘men’s people’, a major inhibitor of a civil war. But the clarification and directioneering of the MRM with its diverse strands is changing that.
The more that specific ‘creeds’ or ’stances’ the MRM generates, the more that the role of violence – and its legitimacy – is needed to be tabled for discussion. Simply hiding the need under the table or eschewing it altogether – even demanding repudiation – will simply keep the power and the force of violence in the hands of ‘women’s people’, like the Mike Nifongs of the world, the Judges and the (armed) police forces that arrest and incarcerate and often kill men, simply for those men insisting that they have rights.
A fight is looming.
Every day, the Constitutions of western countries are being violated by those who are supposed to defend them. Violated to visit violence upon men. It would hardly be a new thing in the world for the oppressed to say ‘enough’ and fight back. Fighting against an already armed and legitimised and violent force will take armed and legitimised, violent force.
Denis, that is a clear policy statement, not just an implied threat of violence. It explains when violence is justified and why. That is more along the lines of what I was asking for from George (though I didn’t expect something that detailed).
What I said (#19) before was, “I call on EG … to clarify his position on violence. Does he support it? If so, against whom and under what circumstances?”
It is not clear if those who think the constitution is communist would agree with the declaration of independence.