Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













January 5, 1995


Daniel Amneus

Here is Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 celebrated assessment of the matriarchal family:

From the wild Irish slums of the nineteenth century eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future- -that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder- -most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure- -that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.[1

To which he adds the following in his 1986 book ]Family and Nation:

Clearly, single-parent households can be a better, more healthful more stable environment for children than the frequently violent, tortured alternative that leads to family breakdown in the first place. And yet as an ecological proposition the passage is defensible.

This last statement is weakened and obscured by the jargonic phrase "as an ecological proposition." What Moynihan must mean is that the first passage describes the general case and the second the hardship case, which notoriously makes bad law but which is always appealed to when it helps the cause to be served- -here the cause of undermining patriarchy.

Moynihan believes in the patriarchal family, but dig this from page 180 of the same book, where he discusses how to finance the matriarchal family:

According to an April 1984 Census Bureau survey, nationwide there were 8.7 million mothers with children whose fathers were absent, up from 8.4 million in 1981. About 58 percent of such mothers were awarded or had agreements to receive child support. Total support payments due amounted to 10.1 billion, of which $3 billion was not received[2 because of default or underpayments. If all payments had been made, the Census Bureau estimated that about 80,000 fewer families would have been in poverty.

This is a matter to be pressed ]to the point of punitiveness. If the informal sanctions of society will not enforce the principle of legitimacy, let the state do so. Hunt, hound, harass: the absent father is rarely really absent, especially the teenage father, but merely unwilling or not required to acknowledge his children's presence. The Child Support Enforcement program has the great virtue of paying for itself as well as having the inestimable advantage of linking the issue of welfare dependency to the more general issue of women's entitlements. The federal government should have the fullest authority to withhold payments from wages and other income (there is limited but useful authority already).

"The Principle of Legitimacy" is what the feminist/sexual revolution is destroying with the assistance of the divorce courts. The principle of legitimacy says that children must have fathers and Moynihan wants to use coercion to force fathers out of the family and compel them to subsidize the matrilineal alternative to the family.

He believes in the patriarchal family but wants to subsidize the matriarchal family, which is the most efficient way to destroy the patriarchal one. It's enough to make one despair.

Moynihan aptly quotes E. Franklin Frazier:

As a result of family disorganization a large proportion of Negro children and youth have not undergone the socialization which only the family can provide. The disorganized families have failed to provide for their emotional needs and have not provided the discipline and habits which are necessary for personality development. Because the disorganized family has failed in its function as a socializing agency, it has handicapped the children in their relations to the institutions in the community. Moreover, family disorganization has been practically responsible for a large amount of juvenile delinquency and adult crime among Negroes. Since the widespread family disorganization among Negroes has resulted from the failure of the father to play the role in family life required by American society, the mitigation of this problem must await those changes in the Negro and American society which will enable the Negro father to play the role required of him.[3

Moynihan knows that the plight of the Negro is due to matriarchy, not racism, and quotes the Bureau of the Census to this effect:

There was no apparent difference in 1970 between the incomes of white and Negro husband-wife families outside the South where the head was under 35 years.4

And Gordon Green and Edward Welniack of the Census Bureau:

These data suggest that, in the absence of changes in family composition, the average income of Black families would have increased more rapidly than the average income of White families.5

And Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP:

We can talk all we want about school integration; we can file suits to have more black role models in the classrooms and in administrative positions to have a cross-fertilization of ethnic cultures and background. But if the child returns home to a family devoid of the basic tenets necessary for his discipline, growth and development, the integrated school environment must fail.6

And the report of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, ]The Most Significant Minority: One-Parent Children in the Schools:

One-parent children, on the whole, show lower achievement in school than their two-parent peers....Among all two-parent children, 30 percent were ranked as high achievers, compared to only 1 percent of one-parent children. At the other end of the scale, the situation is reversed. Only 2 percent of the two-parent children were low achievers- -while fully 40 percent of the one-parent children fell in that category.

There are more clinic visits among one-parent students. And their absence rate runs far higher than for students with two parents, with one-parent students losing about eight days more over the course of the year.

One-parent students are consistently more likely to be late, truant, and subject to disciplinary action by every criterion we examined, and at both the elementary and secondary children are more than twice as likely as two-parent children to give up on school altogether.[7

On which Moynihan makes the following observation:

If the number of single-parent families is rising, the proportion of students least likely to succeed, least likely to respond to efforts to help them succeed, must be rising also.8

Of course. But how does this lead to the conclusion that the males who ought to be heads of families should instead be coerced into subsidizing matriarchal families? It doesn't, but Moynihan, who understands the problem perfectly wants to hound and harass men into exacerbating it. He quotes William Julius Wilson and Katherine M. Neckerman of the University of Chicago:

The turn of the century will see 70 percent of all black families headed by single women.

Emanuel Tobier of New York University is quoted as saying that in 1984 "more than 40 percent" of New York City's children were poor. The city's poor population, he observed, "is increasingly dominated by women and children."

In a 1985 study done for the Chicago Urban League, Pierre DeVise reported that "nowhere in the nation, and nowhere in the world where birth statistics are kept, is the evidence of rapid family disintegration more glaring than in Chicago's ghettos." DeVise found that 66 percent of the city's black children lived in female-headed households, up from one-third in 1970.9

He cites a review by John Caplan of James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein's ]Crime and Human Nature:

It appears that if, in the first three and a half years, a child lacks what psychologists call "a secure adult attachment to a primary caretaker," that child will grow up simply not caring for anyone's approval and lacking any sense of guilt....The illegitimate birth rate in the United States- -like our crime rate- -is far greater than that of any other Western nation. Though our data are not very good it does make sense to believe that these unprepared mothers are the ones most likely to be overwhelmed by the difficulties of bringing up the children who, 10 years later, are the ones most likely to begin careers in crime.[10

He quotes a headline from Paris's newspaper ]Le Monde:

Eight Out of Ten Minors Who Are Drug Addicts Come from Broken Homes.[11

He makes this scary prediction:

[I]n the period 1980-2000 the number of female-headed families will increase at more than five times the rate of husband-wife families.12

Moynihan writes in this connection about "women's entitlements." They entitle themselves to men's paychecks (ex-husbands' or taxpayers') by being female, promiscuous and by foisting bastards on society: "Hunt, hound, harass: the absent father is rarely really absent." His program will promote the Promiscuity Principle and increase AFDC by persuading women and girls that sexual promiscuity entitles them to a free ride. Men must support "the principle of legitimacy"; but what Moynihan supports is the reverse of this: the Promiscuity Principle, which he proposes to provide with "the informal sanctions of society" backed up by coercion. Moynihan makes no distinction between the "entitlements" of chaste and unchaste women: being female is enough to "entitle" them. Does Moynihan really imagine the state can rummage through ghetto alleys, find the teenage fathers and make them take economic responsibility for families of which they are no part? Go to! Get real.

The Legitimacy Principle is what is being destroyed by male subsidization of female promiscuity and sexual disloyalty. "For the too-much-pitied unemployed teenage male there would be nothing wrong with a federal work program," says Moynihan. This means a police state creating make-work for males in order that females may enjoy the Promiscuity Principle. The only realistic way of getting males to support women and children is to give them a meaningful role within families, which must be created for this purpose, rather than being destroyed for the purpose of emancipating women from patriarchal law-and-order. So Moynihan's pitch for the family and what ]he calls the Legitimacy Principle amounts to capitulation to the anti-social program of the feminist/sexual revolution. "There would be nothing wrong with a federal work program"? There would be nothing wrong with marriage, if it were a binding contract; but weak lawmakers and weak judges will not permit it to be binding and therefore is it entered into superficially and with shallow commitment and it breaks down in fifty percent of marriages.

The more successful Moynihan's program is in "hunting, hounding, and harassing" fathers, the less men will want to be fathers, and if a society wishes to be stable and productive it must encourage men to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood, which most men wish to do, or formerly did, because the rewards of family life are very great. Moynihan proposes to allow wives and the courts to deprive husbands of the rewards while riveting the responsibilities more firmly than ever upon them. We have seen a wealthy and generous divorced father [tk- -Our Paychecks file] attacked with a lawsuit designed to deprive him of the right to spend his own money, to exercise generosity or prudence as he saw fit, by either giving or withholding half a million dollars for a daughter's education- -a third of which would, of course, end up in the pockets of a lawyer. If the daughter were living with him rather than with the mother such a monstrous suit would be impossible- -or, alternatively, if courts would administer justice or enforce the marriage contract- -it would be impossible. A society in which daughters (and their lawyers) can commit such spoliations upon men is a society whose sons will know the marriage contract is a license to rob a man who is affluent- -and also a man who is less than affluent. Sons cannot be expected to undertake the responsibilities of family living when they are accompanied by such treatment from a legal system which has betrayed its responsibility to stabilize and strengthen marriage. This is one of a number of reasons why fathers rather than mothers must demand custody of the children of divorce. All discretion must be taken from judges who are so weak in character that they will automatically discriminate against men because of sex. If this reversal leads to cases of injustice against women, this is the consequence of the lack of integrity of judges: they will not keep their oath of office and administer equal justice under law. These men (and women) are not only weaklings, they are lacking in the needed cognitive skill- -as Moynihan himself is for his inability to see the corollaries of something this obvious, which wrecks the system of male motivation upon which patriarchal civilization is based.

In consequence of this judicial indifference to simple justice, both men and women have come to perceive marriage as a non-binding contract, as a license for women to plunder men- -this being concealed only by the fact that women and children are also commonly impoverished by the procedure which deprives men.

Try to imagine what goes on in the mind of a boy growing up in a home where there is no father, where the boy knows there is somewhere in the background an absentee father who has lost everything he loved and worked for and who is as likely as not pilloried for not providing yet more--a home surrounded by other homes half of whose fathers have been similarly wiped out, a home where there is no male authority, no meaningful male role. How will such a boy see his future? What will motivate him to be a stable, productive member of society or to support a family of his own? Such a boy hearing from his feminist-inspired teachers and from the media about a women's right not to be dependent upon a man, to control her own body, her own sexuality, to make her own reproductive choices (including her right to deprive him of his father and to drag him into the Custody Trap to be used as a hostage and a Mutilated Beggar to extort money from this father)- -the whole purpose being to enable Mom to enjoy the untrammeled lifestyle coveted by feminists.

What is here described is the reverse of what William Graham Sumner called the greatest change in the history of civilization, that from the female kinship system to the male kinship system- -the switchover from the male kinship system to the female kinship system, a change which has taken place with a speed properly describable as breathtaking. Thirty years ago a fifty percent divorce rate and a forty percent illegitimacy rate would have been unthinkable. Today the media and the legal system thunder with complaints that men are reluctant to subsidize the further destruction of families. Surely a spectacular triumph for feminism. The "enormous potential counterforce" described by Adrienne Rich as churning within the souls of women under patriarchy has taken charge of social change--no longer "potential" but in full entelechy and realization.

In 1981 [says Moynihan], with the help of a range of institutions, I was able to show that half the children then being born were likely to live in a female-headed household at some point prior to their eighteenth birthday. This extended to 40 percent of majority children, 75 percent of minority. Before their eighteenth birthday, one-third (32 percent) of all children then being born were likely to live in a female-headed household receiving AFDC payments. In just four years the situation worsened. When Arthur Norton and Paul Glick estimated these proportions for 1984 they forecast that sixty percent of children born in 1984 can expect to live in a one-parent family before reaching age eighteen. Nine out of ten such children will be living in a female-headed household. Working in parallel, as you might say, Mary Jo Bane and David Ellwood estimated that one-third (thirty-three percent) of white youth and three-quarters (seventy-three percent) of black youth then aged 17 had spent some time during their childhood in a broken family. They projected that in ten years these proportions will likely rise to 46 percent for white youth and 87 percent for black youth.[13

Appalling. But more appalling still is the fact that Moynihan himself, who understands and is properly dismayed, supposes that men, specifically ex-husbands, must do more to finance this switchover to matriarchy, and government must provide more coercion to get them to do so.

What explains this is the clear fact that ]women hate the patriarchal system. Yet they must have its benefits, including (and, feminists would insist including only) the wealth it generates by motivating men to earn it. But this male motivation requires female chastity and sexual loyalty to their families, without which the men cannot be motivated.

George Gilder's view that women seek to impose patriarchal sexual regulation on men rather then the reverse is so commonly held that it will be useful to establish the contrary, viz. that civilization requires the regulation of female sexuality by patriarchal arrangements which require women to share their reproductive lives with men. This is the famous "Legitimacy Principle," thus stated by Malinowski:

The most important moral and legal rule concerning the physiological side of kinship is that no child should be brought into the world without a man- -and one man at that- -assuming the role of sociological father, that is, guardian and protector, the male link between the child and the rest of the community.

I think that this generalization amounts to a universal sociological law and as such I have called it in some of my previous writings the principle of legitimacy. The form which the principle of legitimacy assumes varies according to the laxity or stringency which obtains regarding prenuptial intercourse; according to the value set upon virginity or the contempt for it; according to the ideas held by the natives as to the mechanism of procreation; above all, according as to whether the child is a burden or an asset to its parents. Which means according as to whether the unmarried mother is more attractive because of her offspring or else degraded and ostracized on that account.

Yet through all these variations there runs the rule that the father is indispensable for the full sociological status of the child as well as of its mother, that the group consisting of a woman and her offspring is sociologically incomplete and illegitimate. The father, in other words, is necessary for the full legal status of the family.[14

It's obviously a male-created arrangement. Women may submit to it because of conservatism or because they see its advantages, but they don't like it. Feminists call it oppression and repression. "Wherever repression of female sexuality, and of the female sex, exists," say feminists Sjoo and Mor,

--and, at the present writing, this is everywhere on earth- -we find the same underlying assumptions. These are ontological assumptions- -assumptions made at the very root of things, about the nature of life itself. They are (1) that the world was created by a male deity figure, or God; (2) that existing world orders, or cultures, were made by and for men, with God's sanction; (3) that females are an auxiliary sex, who exist to serve and populate these male world orders; (4) that autonomous female sexuality poses a wild and lethal threat to these world orders, and therefore must be controlled and repressed; and finally (5) that God's existence as a male sanctions this repression. The perfect circularity, or tautology, of these assumptions only helps to bind them more securely around the human psyche. That they are as erroneous as they are universal seems to pose no problem to their upholders. After all, wherever we go on earth, every intact institution- -religious, legal, governmental, economic, military, communications, and custody- -is built on the solid slab of these assumptions. And that's a pretty entrenched error.15

The female sex, they say, "has functioned as a colony of organized patriarchal power for several thousand years now."16 Before those thousands of years, they argue, women were the great creators of culture. It may have been so; but the large claims they make for women's priority in the creation of Stone Age culture amount to saying that Stone Age men were loafers. What, then, caused men to stop being loafers and become what they have been ever since, the principal creators and producers? It must have been something very important and feminists themselves tell us what it was: the patriarchal revolution, which made men heads of families and imposed sexual law-and-order on women in order that the male role in the family might be secure. "In the great majority of uncultured societies," says Arthur Evans, "women enjoy a position of independence and of equality with the men and exercise an influence which would appear startling in the most feministic modern civilized society."17

That is why they are "uncultured." Evans notes the way in which patriarchy lowers the status of women:

Most significant of all, there had been a stunning decline since archaic times in the status of women. The old lesbian circles were completely gone, and so repressed were women in classical Athens that we have almost no information on lesbianism from this period.18

Robert Briffault agrees:

It used to be a commonplace that the position of women in uncivilized societies is one of outrageous oppression, and few of the older writers could touch on the subject without laying down the principle that the position of women in a given society is the truest index of its degree of civilization. "It may, perhaps, be laid down as an invariable maxim," so ran the stereotyped remark, "that the condition of the female part of society in any nation will furnish a tolerably just criterion of the degree of civilisation to which that nation has arrived." Like most dogmatic pronouncements on social history the assertion, in accordance with which the Redskins and the Papuan cannibals would have to be accounted more civilised that the Chinese and the ancient Greeks, is the exact reverse of the truth. In the great majority of uncultured societies women enjoy a position of independence and of equality with the men and exercise an influence which would appear startling in the most feminist modern civilised society.19

So does Jacquetta Hawkes:

There is every reason to suppose that under the life conditions of the primary Neolithic way of life, mother-right and the clan system were still dominant [as they had been in the paleolithic period], and land would generally have descended through the female line. Indeed, it is tempting to be convinced that the earliest Neolithic societies through their range in time and space gave woman the highest status she has ever known. The way of life and its values, the skills demanded, were ideally suited to her.20

And Helen Diner:

Based on a justifiable consciousness of his great culture, the European used to reason that woman, who as not entirely the equal of man according to his own law, must be far worse off in societies of a lower level, especially in "primitive" nations. But nothing could be further from the truth. With only the exception of parts of Melanesia and of the Australian aborigines, where she is suppressed, woman in aboriginal civilizations is freer, more powerful, and above all, economically far more secure....Primitive man has little in common with his spouse. He only visits her. She also controls the children, who usually have little consideration for their father. The male accords first place in his affections to his mother and second place to his uterine sisters, even if he lives separately from them....The company of the wedded husband is sought out only at times, while his meddling is frowned upon.21

This is the way women like things- -except for the poverty which accompanies this centrality of Mom. Women's preference for such matriarchy is why it lasted for a million years. "Some powerful economic motives," writes Will Durant, "must have favored the evolution of marriage. In all probability (for again we must remind ourselves how little we really know of origins) these motives were connected with the rising institution of property."22 Surely this is suggested by feminist propaganda itself, dominated as it is by the twin clamors for sexual independence from men and for men's money. Surely also these twin demands point to the solution to the existing breakdown of the family and the corollary breakdown (a generation later) of civilization itself--men must regain control over their paychecks and use that control to regulate women's sexuality according to the same patriarchal principles which made civilization possible in the first place. At present the "powerful economic motives" which created marriage several thousands of years ago have been weakened to the point where marriage has broken down: the fifty percent divorce rate speaks for itself. The present "liberation of women" and the resulting social breakdown would not be taking place if men did not submit to it by consenting to subsidize ex-wives and ex-girlfriends outside of marriage. When men stop submitting to slavery (as Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus) the present foolishness will come to a stop.


John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, is an enthusiastic supporter of the feminist/sexual revolution. "At the heart of these swirling tides of change," he tells us,

there is a primary shift in the understanding of the proper balance of power between men and women. The organizing rule of life in the past has been the patriarchal mind-set. Patriarchal principles, accepted as "the way things are," formed patriarchal prejudices that then reinforced the principles. That mind-set gave us kings, male deities, and the sexual stereotypes of dominant man and submissive woman. That patriarchal world, unchallenged for thousands of years, is colliding with the new understanding of life emerging on every side.[23

Spong naively accepts the whole feminist propaganda package. He makes the common confusion between ]power, authority and dominance, explained on page [tk][24. He is oblivious to the central problem posed by the feminist/sexual revolution, the destruction of the male role and the necessity of regulating female sexuality if there is to be such a role. He cannot see that much of women's power depends on the patriarchal arrangements which allow women to offer men something almost all men want, a family, an offer which would be made worthless by the feminists' (and Spong's) proposal to get rid of the double standard. The double standard is the great protection of family integrity and therefore of the male motivation which creates the wealth which women and everybody else wants (Will Durant's "powerful economic motives"), which is the basis of civilization, which brought the human race out of the Stone Age and created patriarchal civilization.

The shift in the balance of power Spong writes of is making millions of males roleless, since the principal thing they have to offer prospective wives is their paychecks and when women are no longer interested in this offer men have lost their bargaining power and realize that the woman's counter-offer to share her reproductive life with him is undependable (as the fifty percent divorce rate sufficiently proves25). Patriarchy's imposition of sexual law-and-order deprives "good" women of "power" to be promiscuous (on pain of being de-classed as "bad"), but it bestows far more than it takes away, high status and economic security in the patriarchal system.

What does it mean, asks Spong,

in the midst of a sexual revolution, when people call on the church and world to return to the sexual morality of the Bible? Both the religious and ethical directives of the Bible were formulated out of a patriarchal understanding of life, with the interests of men being primary. Are we willing to return to these destructive definitions of both men and women? Do we desire to hold up the biblical image of dominance and submission as the Christian model for male-female relationships in our time?26

Emphatically yes. Without this prop for the biologically marginal male role, society relapses into matriarchy as ours is doing. ("[S]ixty percent of children born in 1984 can expect to live in a one-parent family"- -Moynihan, above p. tk)

The "destructive" definitions Bishop Spong speaks of are not destructive of anything worth keeping. Bishop Spong points out, correctly, that the Old Testament is filled with reflections of the ancient war between the fertility religion of the Great Goddess and the new patriarchal/Jahwist religion and he, also correctly, indicates that these consequences followed the success of the latter system:

1. Shift from deification of the land to assigning man responsibility for it. (Spong, p. 121: "[T]he land itself as the giver of life was deified." Compare Genesis 1: 28: "Fill the earth and subdue it.")

2. Separation from co-consciousness. (Spong, p. 121: "There was little or no distinction made between human life and the rest of the world. The original human saw itself (]sic) only as part of the world of nature....")

3. The understanding that deity was not exclusively female. (Spong, p. 121: "Anthropologists seem certain that the first deity worshiped by human beings was a goddess, not a god....Because the woman was the essential source of life, God was conceived in primarily female images." Compare Genesis 1: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.")

4. The emergence of the ego. (Spong, p. 122: "Herbert W. Richardson in his book Nun, Witch and Playmate writes that this maternal understanding of both God and human life prevailed until the dawning of self-consciousness, when a division appeared in human life between the natural instinct and the emerging ego that dared to stand against that instinct....The moment we separated ourselves from the soil was also the moment at which reflective thought and therefore human history, began.")

5. Freedom from identification with nature. (Spong, p. 123: "At some point some creature freed himself or herself form total immersion in nature....A new level of humanity had begun.")

6. The creation of most of the world's religions. (Spong, p. 123: "Anthropological studies indicate that this volitional level of self-consciousness was not part of the human experience prior to 7000 B.C.E., but it had become the almost universal human experience by the year 1000 B.C.E. It is not coincidental that most of the major human religious systems were also born in that period of human history. They were the direct by-products of this process of redefinition.")

7. The abolition of human sacrifice. (Spong, p. 123: "One symbol of this shift was that human sacrifice, a ritual activity prominent in fertility religions and designed to appease Mother Nature, was largely abandoned. Human life no longer had to feed the appetite of a fertility goddess.")

8. The regulation of female sexuality. (Genesis 3:16: "He shall rule over thee." Spong, p. 125: "Indeed, the woman was thought of as a possession of the man." P. 126: "In the period of Israel's royal history, the king's temple in Jerusalem was the true church and the center of Yahwism. The rivalry between the royal temple and the popular local shrines was nothing less that a rivalry between the enthronement rituals designed to extol kingly and therefore masculine power and the rituals of the fertility cults designed to enable the common people to lapse back into their nature identities that emphasized male and female sexuality. Beyond the king's control, popular worship continually lapsed into the rituals of fertility. Evelyn Reed: "New sexual mores rigidly curtailed the former freedom of women. Whether these are called sexual 'morality,' or 'chastity,' they are imposed by men upon women, not by women upon men."[27)

Spong calls these things "destructive." They destroyed the female kinship system, the matriarchy, the orgiastic worship of the Great Mother on the High Places, which William Robertson Smith called "horrible orgies of unrestrained sensuality of which we no longer dare to speak in unveiled language."28 They destroyed sacred prostitution and human sacrifice and social organization based on the mindless "hypnocracy"29 of the Stone Age. In place of what they destroyed they created the family, the regulation of sexuality, the great religions and patriarchal civilization.

"There is no doubt," says Spong, about the fact that the Bible is biased against women."30 He thinks that the Bible is sexist because it represents God as a male. It does no such thing. Nowhere does the Bible represent God as a sexual being. Sex, however, was central in the ancient worship of the Great Mother. "The old religion was an expression of human life when it was still centered on agriculture, foraging, and hunting, and before warfare (and hence male domination) became the mainstay of economic development and political expansion. The leading priests of this religion in its earliest period were women, and the rituals were often sexual in nature, including homosexual activity. With the subsequent rise of male power, the influence of the ]potnia meter, the great-mother goddess, was eclipsed.



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party