Now these are to me very practical things, this applies to me and my attitude toward my neighbor which is all it is, my attitude toward the world is my attitude toward the neighbor and we've got to watch this, that the first thing we'll do when we say we must change the world, generally interprets as I must change my neighbors behavior. Think about it. In all of your passion to change the world it means changing somebody's behavior out there. Think about it. It does. Whereas if we're only responsible to the world there can only be one source of behavioral change available to us and that's always our self. In this, to me an important aspect is never resort to moral ethical levels.
Now that sounds strange. We have a whole group of young people who are damaged. Our government and our people in authority tend to revert continually to moral ethic rhetoric concerning it rather than trying to say, what a minute we're dealing with biological damage, where does the damage come from? How can we address the damage itself before it happens? That's the whole issue. If we say, oh these young people are simply unethical, they kill each other, they do all this, that and the other, they're immoral, whatever that might be, we have lost the game right there. It isn't to set judgment on them, it's to look for the trace of the damage, where does it happen? There is a certain norm of the human being which has sustained the species from the beginning you see and deviations from that, we have to look and say wait a minute, why? The great question why? The great scientific inquiry should be addressed always to where is the damage coming from and that's what we can do, and that's what really I've tried to do today. It wasn't just to set up this scenario of all these awful things happening. But the fact that if we look at them we'll find at their roots some very clear, very clear errors and it generally can be boiled down to what we can call biological.
Now let's get into some really tricky areas. I had a lot of letters, both in response to "Magical Child Matures", and I'm already getting it from "Evolutions End" from irate readers who say but, but, but, you keep talking about the mother, what about the father? You ignore the father. Well I'm not purposely ignoring the father. I'm concentrating on the mother because that's the most critical issue. At the risk of really offending every woman here I think the mother is primary. This is the primal matrix. The word matrix and mother are of the same root as you know. Matrix means the source of the material from which life springs, that's the mother. And, the mother's primary, fathers are by and large secondary. At best they are poor substitutes for the primary. They can be in emergency but it's a poor substitute, it's compensation. Our problem today is the loss of the mother. The species is losing the mother. Now this is no joke. This is what PP, NN, AA and Manat and all the rest of them are about, to recapture motherhood before it leaves. What do we mean by this?
I think of what Plato said and this again would be a great insult to women, and I've been almost lynched from this at times, Plato said, "give me a new set of mothers and I will give you a new world". The power of the mother is that great. The power of the father is not that great. Why? Because it's not primary, it's secondary.
The role the father plays is different. The role he plays in evolution is different. It's for very great things but without the mother the male really can't play that role. You see that's the big thing about it. Lose the mother and that whole male aspect is lost along with it. Whereas the save the male aspect of it does not necessarily work the other way. So we're dealing with the loss of nurturing and the loss of the capacity to nurture. America's children by and large suffer enormously from the lack of nurturing, not from you enlightened parents who already know about this and come here to hear this, but we're talking about 70% of them out there in American society. There is a serious breakdown in the emotional nurturing of a child and that's what all this so called bonding is about. Myth or not, the emotional nurturing of the child is the critical issue.
When I think of how, to my way of thinking, women have bought into the male folly. They've kind of bought into the male cul-de-sac in a certain sense and nurturing is what is being lost. What I find happening, and this again, these are dangerous and certainly not very politically correct statements, but what I find happening is women aping the graces of the very male intellect which is robbing them of their power. Maybe it's a defensive process, but it is though threatened and backed into a corner and being stripped of their power they think well I'll adopt to the tactics of that force robbing me of my power, I'll adopt those tactics and maybe I can regain some power. But they've regained the power of the male intellect which they have anyway, at the cost of the female nurturing intelligence and that is serious to our whole race, our whole species. Rejecting their own strengths as they adopt the strengths of male intellect. Does that make any sense?
That is, the strength of the woman lies in her being the mother of the species and excepting that role and not rejecting that role and that means the nurturer. The source from which nurturing comes, the reason for the enormous male rage which faces America where you have males beating up their females at an all-time high. We've never had anything quite like this in history, particularly in the black society of America, males assaulting females and battering them beyond all levels of reason. Why? Because the male is radically un-nurtured and he can't survive without it.