[Editor’s Note (08JUL2019): A few days ago, we received sad news. A good friend and colleague of many years had died.
     Born at the end of the Great Depression, he lived through World War Two followed by the rise of a patriarchal United States of America to its peak during the 1950s. In 1950, however, the nation entered the first of a series of essentially losing military adventures, the original ending in a nuclear-armed North Korea today. The 1960s marked the beginning of a national fall from grace with 1) the transition from the largest creditor-nation to the largest debtor-nation in order to finance a losing military adventure based upon a lie and 2) the passage of the Hart-Cellar Act, the consequence of which has been multi-culturalism with its dispossession of the Euro-Caucasoid majority, the loss of the Anglo-Protestant ethos, and the transformation of the nation from patriarchal to matriarchal.
     Judge change by its consequences. Our friend had witnessed those consequences. Perhaps not so sadly, he did not survive to witness, What next?
     Fortunately, there remains an alternative — a scientific alternative — to debt, defeat, and depravity. This site is devoted to that alternative leading to the resurrection of traditional American ideals and values characterized by moderation, prudence, and charity. Unfortunately, few likely will care.]

[Note (24JUN2019): At a recent convention of a prestigious, non-profit organization the members of which represent a broad spectrum of learned occupations, the persons representing commercial sponsors of the various events all were women. Symbolically, recall in the distant past, Ronald Reagan representing a powerful General Electric versus Betty Furness representing a vigorous Westinghouse. Ah, but that was yesterday before General Electric almost went broke and a much diminished remnant of Westinghouse became Japanese.]

“Women are like elephants. I like to look at ’em, but I wouldn’t want to own one.” -W. C. Fields (1880-1946)

Without entering the political quicksand about “ownership”, apparently many women agree with Mr. Fields about being “owned”, at least in terms of marriage. Fewer are marrying. Many even prefer to bear illegitimate offspring. What once were “sluts”, now have become never-married “single moms”. Instead of becoming “stay at home” wives and mothers, increasingly women are competing with men to gain power — economically, politically, and socially. They are succeeding. At what cost? Conceptually, traditional American ideals and values. Operationally, the traditional, American, familial structure.

Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever:

     Women who had been giving birth to bastards, an epithet also used but seldom, had been re-branded “single moms” — an accurate and cozy but imprecise term grouping fallen women with upright widows, for example. Freed from ostracism, these fallen women were accepted, if not touted, as some sort of vulnerable heroines facing a cold, cruel world alone with their illegitimate offspring. More telling, the government rewarded their licentious behavior with so-called entitlements.
     Illegitimacy had become legitimate. In fact, those who dared to criticize it risked attack for being mean-spirited and hard-hearted; if not mentally ill from a concocted, neurotic phobia of bastardy.
     The ugly truth, however, had been that mothers who never married suffered substantially greater hardships financially, physically, and mentally than did mothers who married or even mothers who married but divorced. These hardships elicited severe negative strains. These negative strains unfavorably shifted the epigenetics of their offspring both pre-natally and post-natally.

Consequence? For better or worse, and few publicly dare say worse, these United States of America are evolving or devolving into a matriarchal society. Given that throughout human civilization there never has been a truly successful, matriarchal society, is it not an issue worth addressing — one to which the powers-that-be, however, never will utter even an indirect reference? Yet, it’s an issue that already is revealing its conclusion in the form of objective events over time.

Forget personal opinions. Forget abstract ideologies. Let’s put it into the perspective of History and Science — Biobehavioral Science.


Excerpts from the novel, Retribution Fever:

     Whence came the origins of life? No one knows. Whatever the case, the Age of Invertebrates dawned.

     Initial creatures were simple, soft-bodied, and uni-cellular. They remained so for another 3.7-billion years. In order to reproduce, each divided itself into two; thereby, creating exact copies of themselves generation after generation after generation. Normal organisms never died from ageing. Some species were to survive relatively unchanged until the present.

     550-million years ago. A seemingly inescapable, cosmic pressure towards more complex organization, a kind of anti-entropy, eventually created the first multi-cellular organisms.

     For the new, more complex organisms with their new, more complex, sexual differentiation into female and male, the process for the life-cycle became birthing, maturing, mating, reproducing, dying. Heterosexual reproduction allows for rapid differentiation of species — one from another.

     Findings from recent studies of comparative pelvic anatomy indicate that sometime between 13-million and 7-million years ago, human lineage diverged from that of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).

     Precisely, when did Anatomically Modern Man actually appear? The answer remains controversial. Perhaps, as remotely as 80,000 years ago; perhaps, as recently as 40,000. Whatever the case, Homo sapiens was to remain until the present.

Sexual Differentiation
Human females cannot reproduce without males. Males cannot reproduce without females.

Sexual differentiation in the womb occurs at approximately six weeks of gestation with a burst of testosterone in XY-babies then rapid development of male sexual organs between weeks seven to fourteen. In XX-babies, no such burst occurs, so the embryonic, male sexual organs wither and disappear. Despite some abnormal variations in sexual chromosomes (e.g., XYY), only two sexes* exist — male and female.

*The recent use of “gender” for sex is a misnomer, leading to imprecision. Gender is a grammatical term; sex is a biological one.

All life is predicated on two fundamentals — survival and reproduction, which, in turn, depend upon territory and resources. Ninety-nine percent of all species have failed to survive.

Human sexual differentiation, physical and mental, must have had survival-advantage (e.g., division of labor), or it wouldn’t have progressed to its current state. Given greater male strength and aggressiveness, males became dominant. The question arises, however, Is male dominance adaptive today in modern civilization? The Radical Feminists and their male supporters say, “No!”


“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” -Camille Paglia (b. 1947)

To what extent is Miss Paglia, a self-proclaimed, “first generational” feminist, correct? Research into the matter is forbidden. In 2006, Harvard University fired its President, Lawrence Summers — not for being Jewish but for even addressing the question with regard to Engineering and Science.

Amendment XIX
In 1920, American men ratified Amendment XIX entitling all American women to vote. What was the controlling factor for their ratifying behavior? Suffragettes’ promotion of an abstract, ideological notion functioning as an antecedent; namely, the notion that in a democracy every adult should have the right to vote. Ah, but should they?

Theologically, the answer would seem to be no. From the Old Testament, consider the following warning that Lemuel’s mother gave to him:

“What, my son? And what O son of my womb?
And what, O son of my vows?
Give not thy strength unto women,
Nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.” -Proverbs 31:2

Politically, that the proposition is based upon the nation being founded as a democracy undermines its argument. The nation was not founded as a democracy nor even as a republican democracy. The nation was founded as a democratic republic in which certain citizens are entitled to vote. To the Founding Fathers, the word, democracy, represented an obscenity.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -John Adams (1725-1826)

Scientifically, behavior has its consequences. Set your subjective emotions aside for a moment. Use your cognitive capabilities to consider the objective consequences of men’s ratifying Amendment XIX — consequences for the nation? For you? Favorable or unfavorable?

What did the supposed wisdom of the ages embrace that the very much more recent personal opinions and abstract ideologies now fail to acknowledge? Conversely, what did the sages of yesteryear fail to understand that contemporary pundits now have discovered?

The answers to these questions are of no slight import. They will determine the future of these United States of America and the rest of Western civilization.


The Pill That Changed The World
In 1957, a Jewish, male biologist, Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive for females. The irony is that his Talmud prohibits contraception unless to protect the life or health of the woman. Dr. Pincus’s pill became available in 1960. Enovid. It changed the world!

We humans are the most hyper-sexual animals on Earth. Only the human female, for example, sports not merely teats composed of mammary gland but breasts — organs of fatty tissue that attract the male. Only the non-pregnant, human female has menses monthly not estrous yearly; thereby, always being sexually in-season. Only the human female remains sexually receptive during pregnancy. Moreover, the human female is the most odoriferous animal on Earth; the human male the second. Human sexual behavior requires no facilitation.

So, what have been the consequences of Dr. Pincus’s unleashing his pill onto such a species? Disease? Yes. Divorce? Yes. Depravity? Yes. What else?

“Frailty, thy name is woman.” -from Hamlet by William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

Shakespeare may have characterized women as frail, but, given the opportunity, they can be vicious in their aggression, as we witness today. One consequence of “the pill” has been a political, economic, and sociological Declaration of War Against Men paradoxically supported by some of their targets.

Initially, Feminist’s weapon of choice was propaganda designed to elicit male guilt over male dominance. It was launched in the name of equality and fairness. The never-stated assumption was that, according to some unstated standard of reference, such inequality was unfair even though biologically based.

“To accuse is to smear.” -Traditional Saying

Today, Feminist’s weapon of choice is to elicit fear via accusations of so-called sexual harassment. Unlike sexual assault, “sexual harassment” — an ill-defined term at best — is not a crime.* Like sexual assault — which is a crime — harassment is alleged with ease but proven with difficulty.

*{Note: The legal basis for claims of “sexual harassment” especially in the workplace rests upon Title VII of the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1964. The so-called Civil Rights Act of 1991 allowing for compensatory and punitive damages created another financial windfall by lawyers for lawyers. In Meritor v Vinson (1986), for example, the complainant over several years engaged in consensual sex fifty times; yet, she won. The primary issue is subjective; namely, “unwelcome” sexually-oriented behavior; i.e., how the plaintiff feels compared to not just how a “reasonable person” would feel but a “reasonable woman” [Harris v Forklift Systems (1993)]. Cases are civil not criminal. Despite the hoopla in Big Media, less than 1% of filed charges go to court, and half of those lose. In cases involving coercion, laws against assault and extortion long have been extant; in the current context, they are considered insufficient.}

“Gone is grace among women in their righteous and proud pursuit of honor in favor of disgrace in a lustful pursuit of dishonor and an impossible pursuit of manhood.” -from the semi-fictional novel, Retribution Fever

While claiming equality with men in all respects even to the point of wearing pants with flies albeit without the biological equipment to justify their use, women blatantly advertise their female, sexual charms by, for example, exhibiting the cleavage between their breasts and parading their bare legs almost to their crotches (e.g., the “mini-skirt”) despite most bodies, female and male, best honored by being covered. Compare female dress of 1900 with that of today. If women raised their necklines and lowered their hemlines, might they appear less inviting for “sexual harassment”? Yet, Western women, on the whole, now seem to equate liberty with semi-nudity to the point of even cavorting bare-breasted on some beaches, especially in Western Europe.

To diminish male dominance in future generations, Western societies have taken to castrating little boys — figuratively, even literally. Literally? Yes! Current trends among human males demonstrate sperm-counts having decreased by fifty-percent and dropping.

Sociologically, normal biologically-based activation, let alone aggression, among young boys actively is being suppressed in schools. Similarly, normal, male risk-taking behavior has become forbidden in the female-dominated, primary educational system.


Demographics & Voting
Destiny? Determined by demographics.

American women outnumber American men. Females survive more frequently at birth by a slight margin. Females live longer until death by a larger margin.

Inevitably over time in the political context of a form of “mob rule” named democracy, the consequence of ratification of Amendment XIX was to be women progressively controlling the four, secular cornerstones of society — government, law, education, and medical delivery — via the ballot-box. In the most recent election, estimates indicate female voters outnumbered male voters by 100,000. In general, female voters, especially college educated, tend to vote for The Left (60:40); whereas, men tend to vote for The Right (51:47). Consequences?

The 2018 midterm vote: Divisions by race, gender, education

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” -Alexander Tyler (1747-1813)

While mistakenly touting the nation as a democracy, which it is not, Americans of The Left are destroying its economic foundations via redistribution of the financial rewards of creativity and productivity even as the gap between the wealthy and the poor widens and the middle-class dwindles. Hard-wired, maternal sympathy represents a primary, controlling factor.

“Nowhere in the Constitution does the word “entitle” appear other than applied to the rights of citizens’ representation in Congress and to the legal and political but not economic privileges and immunities contained therein. The primary function of the federal government had been transformed from protecting the natural rights of all Americans to redistribution of wealth — a redistribution freed from the constraints of truly constitutional authority.” -from the novel, Retribution Fever

Yes, there are citizens unable to care for themselves. Yes, bestowing charity renamed “entitlements” seems humane. Yet, poor management of those “entitlements” is unjust to those who create and produce them. Besides, poor management begets anti-social idleness among the undeserving; and, as stated in Proverbs, idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.

Mercy vs. Justice
“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Which sex is more likely to levy justice? Which sex is more likely to bestow mercy? Which sex is more likely to reward indolence whether voluntary or involuntary via “entitlements”? Judge charity by its consequences for the individual and for society.

So, what to do? How to balance female mercy against male justice? Which has priority?

You might answer, “Neither! We need not a balance but a blend of masculine justice and feminine mercy.”

Ah, but how little the justice and how much the mercy in the blend? Justice invokes negative control — economically and sociologically unpopular, especially at the polls. Mercy invokes positive control — economically and sociologically popular, especially at the polls. Which are politicians more likely to favor? Given the national debt as a consequence of “entitlements”, how soon shall we destroy the whole while catering to the claimed and often feigned needs of a part — an often undeserving part?

Without bankrupting the nation via the vote, is there an effective, efficient method to allow female sympathy and its penchant to protect ? Yes; however, doing so must be consistent with the laws of Nature, or failing will continue.


Life & Nature
In Nature, the most fundamental characteristic of life is survival and reproduction powered by the free energy released from metabolism; which, in turn, depends upon available territory and resources. Nature is neither cruel nor kind. Nature is neutral.

Nature cares not one whit about your personal opinions nor the abstract ideologies to which you subscribe. In fact, Nature cares little about you as an individual and more about the biological class to which you belong.

In the battle for survival and reproduction, almost all species ultimately lose. We humans are hastening that trend among our current fellow creatures. Ironically, by pitting our own biological, economic, political, sociological, and theological classes one against the other, soon we humans, too, shall lose — either by nuclear war or pandemic.

Nature designed us humans such that generally women feel more averse than men to physically adversarial relationships. Women talk. Men fight. Given that fact, politically, economically, and sociologically consider the adversarial relationship between China and these United States.

Patriarchal men against matriarchal women. Potential mutual destruction notwithstanding, which will prevail? Consider President Xi against the almost-President Hillary Clinton. Remember Benghazi?

Given current trends, China will prevail. Why? Most fundamentally, because China continues to promote the family as the basic unit of societal order. Meanwhile, these United States progressively demotes the family via divorce, bastardy, and depravity.

National Suicide
“An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” -Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975)

In fact, current trends suggest to many observers that these United States are committing national suicide. Last century, Britain did. Before Britain, France. Before France, Spain. Even ancient Rome did.

“Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” -Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

“And I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings saith the Lord.” -Jeremiah 21:14

To what extent are American women, especially of women of The Left and their male supporters, agents of this American self-destruction? Among those who are, many harbor intentions that might be regarded as admirable. Judge these women, however, not by their intentions but by their behavior and, more importantly, by its consequences.

What are the factors controlling women’s intentions societally? In answering, consider that, perhaps, the most influential woman in the country is an obese Negress* with hair “processed” to resemble that of a Caucasian — a woman who gained her fame as an anti-Biblical “sob-sister” on television. Although her personal success deserves acknowledgment, she herself hardly represents the model of stoic Anglo-Protestantism that guided the building of the nation in earlier days.

* Excerpt from Retribution Fever:
[Optional Note: During the 1960s, a Negro from Barbados named Keith Baird (1923-2017) then residing in these United States of America began a campaign to erase the word “Negro” from applying to Negroes; thereby, substituting abstract sociological ideology for operational biological reality. He proposed the term, “African-American”, as a replacement, ignoring the fact that Caucasoid Americans originally from South Africa also would be “African-American” and that Arabs from Northern Africa are Caucasians.]

Given the current context of the progressive prominence of personal opinions reflecting arrogant ignorance (e.g., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and abstract ideologies divorced from reality (e.g., trans-sexuals), can we Americans still reverse course? Can we depart the perfidious Path to Perdition to travel the righteous Road to Resurrection while allowing women to become all that they can be without disallowing men to do the same? If so, how? Via Science? Via Religion? Neither?


Neither is how we arrived in our current predicament. Accordingly, we are left with Science, or Religion — or, perhaps, both.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Retribution Fever provides a scientifically-based roadmap compatible with Judeo-Christian teachings towards a nation promoting traditional American ideals and values characterized by moderation, prudence, and charity. How will that nation accommodate both male and female attributes and aspirations?

The answer lies less with those implementing a system and more with the system itself. Far better to design a system that is self-correcting than a system requiring human correction, which inevitably tends towards human corruption.

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.”-Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Fortunately, the original Constitution of the United States of America with the added Bill of Rights allows for such a self-correcting system, pending some modification consistent with the guidelines of the Scientific Method. Retribution Fever offers such a self-correcting system that satisfies the demands and wishes of both sexes.

Most in Big Government will ignore it; politicians and bureaucrats resist relinquishing power. Most in Big Media will ignore it; “talking heads” thrive on destructive controversy.

Will you do the bidding of these miscreants by ignoring it, too, without even a glance? Before deciding, consider current trends. Consider their consequences. Ignore them at your peril.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x