blog*spot
get rid of this ad | advertise here

MATERNALISM = EMOTIONALISM = IRRATIONALISM = FEMINISM = LIBERALISM = MARXISM

Friday, December 05, 2003

-------
-------





-----
©1995

- CIVIL SOCIETY DECLINES WHEN 'MOTHER' RULES -



MATERNALISM = EMOTIONALISM = IRRATIONALISM =

FEMINISM = LIBERALISM = MARXISM



Communism is liberals' ultimate response for meeting the
needs of the few, but at the expense of the many; an
enslavement of the productive to the needs of the
unproductive; a plan for making everyone equally happy
or, as is mostly the case with Marxism, miserable. Such
is the power of empathy in "Mother" for her "children."
She would rather see her offspring corrupted and depen-
dent on her, rather than have one of them suffer alone.

Mother despises the ruling class because it reminds her
of Father, and she fears he'll liberate her children from
her clutches--he might let them grow up to become
independent of her (s)mothering emotionalism.

Mother especially disdains the middle-class since that
large pool of citizens can protect the ruling class from
any revolt coming from the poor, and from which pool the
ruling class can draw good, future leaders. Mother would
destroy the upper and middle classes in order to reduce
the pain she feels for her downtrodden poor.

Mother's warring is far more brutal and extensive than
Father's because her violence is hysterical, irrational
and frenzied while Father's is calculated and controlled.

The political Right's killings worldwide these past sixty
years are small compared to the savage carnage wrought by
the Left. Mao's cultural revolution in China and the
Khmer Rouge's Killing Fields are the latest examples of
Mother losing control and slaughtering her children out of
an emotional rage (read my essays, "Trucfemism" and
"Liberals' Love-Crimes: Why Left-wing 'love' begets Right-
wing 'hate'").

When Mother rules in a society it signals
that maternalism (emotionalism) has ascended
to supplant paternalism (rationalism)--and
civil society declines, accordingly.

Paternalism builds civil society; maternalism
destroys it. American civilization is in rapid
decline because Mother has meddled by direct or
indirect means for over a century. Father has
been in retreat, appearing impotent to counter
her irrationalism.

President Clinton and his liberal Democrat supporters
"think" like hysterical, emotion-dependent women; they
are too emotional and maternal in their relationship with
the citizenry, and fickle in their decision-making and
controlling in their concern for the citizenry. And
because they're more likely to accommodate the exceptional
case at the expense of the well-being of the many -- more
likely to adjust society to meet the needs of exceptional
cases, but only because the exceptional case is more
immediate, pressing and emotion-packed for them than are
the long-term needs and well-being of the many -- liberals'
liberalism has become a grave danger to the requisite
underpinnings for maintaining civil society in America,
for keeping savagery at bay (read my essay, "The Donahue
Syndrome").

President Clinton's "I can feel your pain" waffling on
issues results not from any deep analysis of the facts,
or even from any political opportunism, but from an innate
inability to reason. He is incapable of applying induc-
tive and deductive analyses to issues. He can't discover
correct solutions because he, as with most liberals, is
unable to think beyond the emotionality he currently feels;
his emotions change from day to day, depending on whichever
emotional trigger is strongest--gays, feminists, the poor,
Fidel Castro, his reelection, sexual conquests, etc.

Mother can't think as well as Father
because Mother's emotional bent suppres-
ses her reasoning faculty, especially
when the emotion is very strong. Women
are more emotional than men because
empathy is an evolutionary trait that
benefits their offspring, since an
emotional woman is more likely to bond
with her children and, ergo, is less
likely to abandon them. Men's greater
lack of emotional response makes them
more daring and adventurous, and much
less tied to familial duties; a strategy
necessary for freeing men up, at times,
for inventing or exploring or building
or fighting to evolve higher levels of
civilization (read my essay, "Two Legs
Of The Same Whore").

President Clinton can't reason well because he's
PSYCHOLOGICALLY FEMININE, which nature in him helps
to explain the large number of women who voted for him,
and who hold greater affinity for liberal Democrats'
social agenda than for conservative Republicans' "Contract
with America" (read my essay, "Emoting Women Vote and
American Civilization Crumbles").

Rational men have built and ruled societies throughout
the ages, with few exceptions, while women eventually
destroy them with their emotionalism. Greece and Rome are
good examples. It has been the battle waged between
maternalism and paternalism -- between emotion and reason
-- that drives political affiliation (Note: There are
rational women who are men's equal; they're rational and
conservative in their politics but more weak for the
emotional argument than are conservative men).

Most people don't understand the battle
or the nature of the combatants, more
often than not confusing maternalism for
paternalism. Pundits incorrectly call
what has damaged America these past 130
years "paternalism." For example,
Richmond Times-Dispatch editor Ross
Mackenzie writes in his inspiring
commentary on America's Independence
Day that "We are now in the process of
reversing years of paternalism"
["Rejoicing In This Sweet Land of
Liberty," Richmond Times-Dispatch,
July 2], as if Governor and then presi-
dential candidate Franklin Delano
Roosevelt didn't sound more like a woman
than a man when he planted his socialist
seeds in 1932: "I assert that modern
society, acting through its Government,
owes the definite obligation to prevent
the starvation or the dire want of any of
its fellow men and women who try to
maintain themselves but cannot." It
sounds good but masks the seeds for a
society's collapse through its government.

A rational man would have beseeched the citizenry to work
harder and pull together to struggle against adversity,
not whine about starvation and (s)mother the citizenry
with false relief, false hope and numerous heavy-handed
bureaucracies for dispensing them. Hunger during the
Great Depression was being handled quite well by churches,
private charities and by ordinary citizens coming together
in their communities to reduce suffering among the
destitute. Would that Roosevelt had simply called on
Americans' kind heart and ingenious mind to make a
recovery . . .

But after promising to cut the deficit and taxes and
reduce federal spending, Roosevelt moved in the opposite
direction upon taking office, creating a massive federal
bureaucracy of commissions and agencies (many of them
created as payoffs to his cronies and friends who were
assigned to run them), which expenditures helped to prevent
any real economic recovery. After ten years of feel-good
talk and no improvement -- with billions of dollars in
deficit spending, with little change in unemployment and
with a growing welfare class -- Roosevelt's diversion of
capital from business and industry into massive make-work
programs had suddenly been shunted back to industry to
help fight a war, and the real recovery began.

Roosevelt had prolonged the Great Depression for ten long,
grueling years until WWII gave a tremendous boost to an
employment and production rate that barely changed while
he fiddled, giving him undeserved credit for what was
really a war-based recovery instead of scorn for his
decade-long mismanagement of the economy. But the full
cost of Roosevelt's socialism wouldn't be felt or
understood for fifty more years when, in 1994, Americans
awakened from liberal Democrats' Great Society slumber,
only to discover a nation full of whiners and wimps
lacking any moral virtue, work ethic, or sense of self-
reliance.

President Roosevelt's maternalism spawned
this ever-growing dependency class with
its plethora of social welfare programs
that feed it. And President Johnson,
another maternalistic "man," redoubled
Roosevelt's social-welfare efforts with
his Great Society agenda in the Sixties.

Roosevelt began the Social Security System, unemployment
compensation, workmen's compensation, and agricultural
subsidies. But more critically, Hoover's defeat instal-
led a majority of maternalistic Democrats in both houses
of Congress, thus silencing the rational masculine mind
-- paternalistic mind -- of Republicans, in order to
construct every conceivable kind of social welfare
program for weakening the citizenry and the nation. Such
a history of emotional seduction could come only from the
mind of an intrusive, (s)mothering woman--only from what
I've termed "emoting feminine mind" (read my essay,
"Restoration Revolution or Futile Posturing").

Roosevelt and his Democrat Congress were emoting
socialists. They appealed to emotional weakness in the
citizenry; especially in women who not long before had
acquired the vote to forever change -- and for the worse
-- the face of politics in America. The emoting feminine
mind of Roosevelt's leftists FELT rather than THOUGHT
about the long-term consequences of their "solutions"--
their socialism; they could only feel the immediate pain
in the citizenry and sought immediate "solutions." That
their sixty years of government-can-fix-everything
maternalism gave us this economic and cultural house of
cards can't be logically refuted; that those "men" turned
a once-independent citizenry and nation into an effeminate
class of selfish dolts is becoming more apparent with each
passing year.

Maternalism caused all this social wreckage not paternal-
ism, which masculine nature is characterized more by
aloofness and self-sufficiency than with intrusive and
doting "helpfulness." Mother gets her pleasure from
emotional stimulation, so she craves social chaos.
Mother intrudes and dotes to cause social conflict; ergo,
she likes open borders, gay rights, forced integration,
or any cancer on civil society.

Where did the confusion about the terms
"maternalism" and "paternalism" origi-
nate? I believe people have confused
physicality for psychology. Because a
person appears to be a man doesn't
guarantee that he has the psychological
make-up of a man, about which common
stereotypes and historical traditions
correctly identify as strong, silent,
and resolute in fixing things -- get-
ting things done -- rather than as
incessantly talking and emoting about
them in hope of avoiding tough decision-
making, as liberal women and President
Clinton generally are wont to do (read
my essay, "The Progressive Jew in
'Weimar' America").

Another source of confusion is Christianity, which
history and influence on the Western mind have been
mistakenly termed "paternalistic" because "men" conceived,
built and rule that religion. The psychology of Chris-
tian authority is feminine not masculine. One would be
hard-pressed to show that Christianity is a masculine
religion, although the Old-Testament Christian Church is
far more masculine as compared with the New-Testament
Christian Church (read my essays, "The Jesus Connection"
and "Jesus: Liberal and Communist and Social Worker").

Liberals have a stake in using the term
"paternalism" to describe liberal
Democrats' social wreckage. If men
caused this social chaos, then women
surely ought to be given a chance to run
things for a time--right? Wrong!
That's only a ploy to keep intact their
mostly hidden power and influence. And
conservatives who use "paternalism" to
describe liberals' mothering only harm
their cause by confusing the public.
Mother has been running and ruining
America for a long time while disguised
as "men" in liberal Democrats' political
party.

Women have had a heavy influence on American social
thought beginning in the nineteenth century; especial-
ly from the time maternal and henpecked Abraham Lincoln
began the slaughter of 600,000 white men to placate the
liberal and effeminate New-Testament congregations in
the North; congregations greatly invigorated against the
South by feminist Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book,
"Uncle Tom's Cabin," prompted Lincoln to say this upon
first meeting her - "So you're the little woman who wrote
the book that started this great war!" (read my essays,
"Novelists Tell Lies" and "Lincoln's Folly").

Yes, the emotion in maternalism -- not the reason in
paternalism -- plunged America into civil war. And
maternalism's influence crept forward from Lincoln's day
to create this confused and debased generation through
ever-expanding feminism (Note: As with President Bush,
President Lincoln's political facade masked his emotion-
alism--helped hide his feminist, irrational, and maternal
character).

Maternalism has so badly damaged this
republic's social and economic infrastruc-
ture that recovery is very unlikely without
massive suffering. From the Bible's
account of Eve's seduction of Adam to
present-day seduction of Americans by
liberal Democrats, maternalism's emotion-
based promise to provide for citizens' every
need has been the bane of rational men who
have conceived and built grand civilizations
throughout the ages. And the seduction runs
deep and wide in today's America, with
emotion slaying reason at every turn -- with
women playing fireman and policeman and doctor
and soldier and fighter pilot and statesman
and engineer and scientist and priest, and
with nobody at home to raise the children -- and
with all those occupations being debased
because women can't match the skills of the
men who might otherwise have filled those
positions. To those caught up in the insanity
-- in the emotionality of this age -- all of
that sounds extremely "sexist." But to
rational minds it strikes a strong chord,
when considering all that history teaches
humanity about what does and doesn't work in
keeping good civil society.

History teaches that when men become
emasculated and accommodate the wishes of
feminists, then civil society declines. In
the case of American civilization, it portends
the death of the noblest experiment in
democracy ever conceived--and portends another
round of Dark Ages.

What do we know of fathers?:

They are explorers, inventors, builders and
reluctant to be too tied to familial duties.
Regarding the rearing of children, they allow
more risk-taking while mothers are more
guarded about a child's testing his/her limits
and environment. Fathers exercise less control
than mothers, and are anxious to see their
offspring strongly independent while mothers
may intrude in their children's affairs for
decades (read my essay, "Crazy Women: Crazy
Society").

From Roosevelt to date, Mother has created over 80 major
welfare programs, wasted $5.4 trillion in her war against
poverty (since 1964), and created this massive and ever-
growing dependent class of citizens and immigrants.

Miss Taylor Caldwell wrote this in "Dear and Glorious
Physician," to describe the bad consequences of Mother's
rule:

"Rome has decayed into a confused democracy and has
acquired feminine traits . . . A feminine nation
has an insensate desire to control and dominate."

That describes liberal Democrats and their social
engineering schemes; that describes NOT PATERNALISM but
MATERNALISM!

Get it right, folks!


-Founders' America






This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?