The West should resist becoming a matriarchy because human society was a primitive matriarchy before it became a patriarchy. It is already a matriarchy, but it could even drag itself out of the matriarchal swamp once beta males find themselves an alpha male leader with sufficient leadership qualities, moral courage and charisma. What is feared that not even ten such men exist in the West and this therefore means the extinction of Western civilisation, bearing in mind the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa
I believe the Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage and were superseded by Homo Sapiens who did and became more successful through this superior form of human organisation ie patriarchy.
It was only later that a unique, supreme, omnipotent and perfectly moral Abrahamic God was created in order to perpetuate the practice marriage, even if periodic backsliding has been notoriously hard to prevent.
All advanced civilisations practise marriage and are therefore patriarchal. Conversely, all matriarchies are primitive and declining societies are either extinct or about to become extinct.
A patriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried mothers. A society practising patriarchy would easily triumph over a matriarchy if there were a war between them because a patriarchy would have superior ways of social organisation in order to facilitate maximum efficiency through male solidarity enabling co-operation to deal effectively with its internal and enemies, while a matriarchy with its fake egalitarianism is obviously inefficient and divided with no one really in charge for long and therefore devoid of effective moral leadership, as we in the West are now. (The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are of course sluts and socialists.)
This buck-passing lack of accountability demoralises and demotivates men from striving, making them risk averse and turns them into women earning the ridicule, hatred and contempt of men of other nations and races.
This phenomenon can be seen in Western democratic politicians who are now so devoid of ambition that they are lying low trying not to say anything that would get them into trouble thereby earning the hearty contempt of the people they are supposed to represent. They are clearly so cowed by the matriarchy that they live in daily fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence or some former porn actress violating her non-disclosure agreement without suffering the legal consequences of so doing. So much, then, for the much-vaunted rule of law in the West.
What is so disgusting and contemptible is that even with the excess of superfluity of lawyers in the West, not one of them seems capable of noticing when the rule of law is being daily flouted in front of them.
In a matriarchy, the sexiest person would be the most powerful but youth passes quickly.
This is clearly demonstrated by the failure of John Major to be perceived to be sexier than Tony Blair in the General Election of 1997 and the inability of Ed Milliband to be perceived as sexier than David Cameron by the female voters in the General Election of 2015.
The rot started when the British Conservative Party suffered a bachelor Ted Heath to lead the country forgetting the rule that a male leader must at least be seen to have passed the test of being a marriageable man and therefore a husband and father in charge of his family before he is allowed to lead the country.
The fall of Keith Joseph, Jew and Prime Minister-in-waiting, after being critical of the reproductive decisions of never married mothers happened in 1974. Disgracefully, no senior male politician, Jew or gentile, supported him for warning the political establishment of the clear and present danger of welfare degeneracy and the replacement of the patriarchy by a dysgenic matriarchy. When Keith Joseph had to stand aside in the leadership contest for Margaret Thatcher for his lèse-majesté, the writing on the wall that the matriarchy was here to say was unconsciously read and internalised by the cowardly feminised and yielding male politicians of the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
Youth is often guilty of foolish and reckless behaviour as well as arrogance and abuse of power. Youth and beauty are therefore not indicators of wisdom, however seductive they may seem and however much lust they may arouse. (Lust is of course one of the Seven Deadly Sins, if you remember.) Wisdom is generally found in persons of maturity with the humility to learn from experience
In a patriarchy, the male exhibiting the most wisdom, strength and charisma would become the alpha male chosen by beta males to protect their interests.
In a matriarchy, even a male leader is chosen by the women most of whom will instinctively choose the man they find most attractive and be oblivious to rational or moral arguments.
In a matriarchy, all males are lower in status than the unmarried mother.
In a patriarchy, beta males would be able to choose a leader to protect their interests and this would include their right to have legitimate children with females who will not have the right to divorce their husbands under the rules of no fault divorce and then take half their property and deprive them of their children or vote for political parties that impose ever higher taxes and impose ever more restrictive laws on men to protect immoral women who become unmarried single mothers from the consequences of their bad reproductive decisions.
It is the failure of parenting and to have enough children who create the demand for more willing and cheaper immigrant labour as well as underachievement in their often illegitimate children who become a statistic in the rising crime figures.
The working mother normalised the divorced mother, the normalisation of the divorced mother normalised the never married mother, the normalisation of the never married mother normalised bastardy and the normalisation of bastardy will mean an increase in the crime rate and the number of NEETs.
David Starkey claims 'the whites have become black' Historian provokes storm of criticism after remarks during a televised discussion about the riots on BBC2's Newsnight
Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85 per cent of youth in prison having an absent father.
Marriage is eugenic, simply because it is about creating the environment suitable for the proper parenting of the next generation. Children are obviously better off being brought up by their married parents living together in a loving relationship. Societies that support marriage (eg Jews, Muslims, Asians) will have a better quality next generation than one that does not ie the Post-Christian West who now feels exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and the immigrants they so often complain about.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa
I believe the Neanderthals were matriarchal in the sense that they did not practise marriage and were superseded by Homo Sapiens who did and became more successful through this superior form of human organisation ie patriarchy.
It was only later that a unique, supreme, omnipotent and perfectly moral Abrahamic God was created in order to perpetuate the practice marriage, even if periodic backsliding has been notoriously hard to prevent.
All advanced civilisations practise marriage and are therefore patriarchal. Conversely, all matriarchies are primitive and declining societies are either extinct or about to become extinct.
A patriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried mothers. A society practising patriarchy would easily triumph over a matriarchy if there were a war between them because a patriarchy would have superior ways of social organisation in order to facilitate maximum efficiency through male solidarity enabling co-operation to deal effectively with its internal and enemies, while a matriarchy with its fake egalitarianism is obviously inefficient and divided with no one really in charge for long and therefore devoid of effective moral leadership, as we in the West are now. (The eternal enemies of society and civilisation are of course sluts and socialists.)
This buck-passing lack of accountability demoralises and demotivates men from striving, making them risk averse and turns them into women earning the ridicule, hatred and contempt of men of other nations and races.
This phenomenon can be seen in Western democratic politicians who are now so devoid of ambition that they are lying low trying not to say anything that would get them into trouble thereby earning the hearty contempt of the people they are supposed to represent. They are clearly so cowed by the matriarchy that they live in daily fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence or some former porn actress violating her non-disclosure agreement without suffering the legal consequences of so doing. So much, then, for the much-vaunted rule of law in the West.
What is so disgusting and contemptible is that even with the excess of superfluity of lawyers in the West, not one of them seems capable of noticing when the rule of law is being daily flouted in front of them.
In a matriarchy, the sexiest person would be the most powerful but youth passes quickly.
This is clearly demonstrated by the failure of John Major to be perceived to be sexier than Tony Blair in the General Election of 1997 and the inability of Ed Milliband to be perceived as sexier than David Cameron by the female voters in the General Election of 2015.
The rot started when the British Conservative Party suffered a bachelor Ted Heath to lead the country forgetting the rule that a male leader must at least be seen to have passed the test of being a marriageable man and therefore a husband and father in charge of his family before he is allowed to lead the country.
The fall of Keith Joseph, Jew and Prime Minister-in-waiting, after being critical of the reproductive decisions of never married mothers happened in 1974. Disgracefully, no senior male politician, Jew or gentile, supported him for warning the political establishment of the clear and present danger of welfare degeneracy and the replacement of the patriarchy by a dysgenic matriarchy. When Keith Joseph had to stand aside in the leadership contest for Margaret Thatcher for his lèse-majesté, the writing on the wall that the matriarchy was here to say was unconsciously read and internalised by the cowardly feminised and yielding male politicians of the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron
Youth is often guilty of foolish and reckless behaviour as well as arrogance and abuse of power. Youth and beauty are therefore not indicators of wisdom, however seductive they may seem and however much lust they may arouse. (Lust is of course one of the Seven Deadly Sins, if you remember.) Wisdom is generally found in persons of maturity with the humility to learn from experience
In a patriarchy, the male exhibiting the most wisdom, strength and charisma would become the alpha male chosen by beta males to protect their interests.
In a matriarchy, even a male leader is chosen by the women most of whom will instinctively choose the man they find most attractive and be oblivious to rational or moral arguments.
In a matriarchy, all males are lower in status than the unmarried mother.
In a patriarchy, beta males would be able to choose a leader to protect their interests and this would include their right to have legitimate children with females who will not have the right to divorce their husbands under the rules of no fault divorce and then take half their property and deprive them of their children or vote for political parties that impose ever higher taxes and impose ever more restrictive laws on men to protect immoral women who become unmarried single mothers from the consequences of their bad reproductive decisions.
It is the failure of parenting and to have enough children who create the demand for more willing and cheaper immigrant labour as well as underachievement in their often illegitimate children who become a statistic in the rising crime figures.
The working mother normalised the divorced mother, the normalisation of the divorced mother normalised the never married mother, the normalisation of the never married mother normalised bastardy and the normalisation of bastardy will mean an increase in the crime rate and the number of NEETs.
David Starkey claims 'the whites have become black' Historian provokes storm of criticism after remarks during a televised discussion about the riots on BBC2's Newsnight
Fatherlessness is a driver for delinquency and youth crime, including violent crime, Kruk notes, with 85 per cent of youth in prison having an absent father.
Marriage is eugenic, simply because it is about creating the environment suitable for the proper parenting of the next generation. Children are obviously better off being brought up by their married parents living together in a loving relationship. Societies that support marriage (eg Jews, Muslims, Asians) will have a better quality next generation than one that does not ie the Post-Christian West who now feels exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims and the immigrants they so often complain about.
