Why Governments Love Feminism?

Feminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also
has very little to do with the rights of women.
First and foremost, feminism is about various groups seeking to acquire power
and money, and to build huge self-serving empires in which millions - literally
millions - of people nowadays have a vested interest - a vested interest that
is, in fact, highly detrimental to those societies in which these people
operate.
To see how their game is played, I just want you to imagine a society - a
somewhat idealised society - wherein the women are happy to spend their days
being closely associated with their homes and their children, while the young
men and the fathers are reasonably happy to troop off to the workplace -
wherever this might be.
And, further, I want you to imagine that most of the people in this society are
mostly quite content with their situation.
In other words, it is a reasonably happy place.
And now the question that I want you to contemplate very deeply is this one.
What's in it for government?
How can government - and government workers - benefit from having to exist
within a society of people who seem to be quite happy and at peace with each
other?
On what grounds can the government say to the people, "You need more government.
Give us more tax money."
Well, clearly, in such an idyllic society, it would be very difficult indeed to
persuade the people to part with more of their own resources - acquired through
their own labours - in order to fund 'more government'.
However, if this reasonably happy society can be disrupted by some force or
other - some force that induces 'disharmony' within the population - an increase
in crime, say - then the government will find it much easier to extract a bigger
piece of the society's pie. For example, if there is an increase in crime, the
people will far more readily agree to fund a bigger police force. If the men and
women start fighting against each other, and begin to split apart, with married
couples getting divorced, then the government can justify extracting further
resources from the people in order to create a larger social services workforce
to look after the women and children who are now on their own.
And the point that I am trying to get across here is this.
Governments benefit not by the people being at peace with each other, but by
them being at war with each other in some way.
Of course, governments can benefit from many other things too, but the point
here is this. Governments clearly benefit from what I shall henceforth simply
call 'disharmony' - societal disharmony; such as crime.
And because governments have massive power in comparison to ordinary
individuals, they will tend to use this power to create more and more societal
disharmony - with much success. Of course they will do this. Why? Well, because
governments, and millions of government workers, benefit from disharmony, and
they are not going to use their huge collective force to undermine themselves -
which reducing 'disharmony' would do.
At the very least, government workers do not want to lose their funding, their
jobs, their security, their pensions etc etc etc. And so they need to be
perceived to be needed.
Better still for them, are bigger empires with bigger salaries, and much more
status and power.
After all, in this respect, they are no different from anyone else!
And, collectively, by hook or by crook, these government workers can, and will,
create the most monumental force in order to get these various benefits for
themselves; a force that the people simply cannot counter.
Indeed, it would be bordering on the preposterous to believe that such an
enormous body of government workers would not exert a force in a direction from
which they, themselves, would benefit.
After all, these people are not gods. They are human beings!
In a nutshell: These government workers want bigger empires with bigger salaries
and bigger pensions. They want more status and more power. And, collectively,
they will exert such a huge force that no-one can actually stop them from
getting these things; as the monumental growth in government over the past 120
years or so in the west has clearly shown. (Central governments have grown more
than one hundred-fold over the past 120 years.)
Now, because the main aim of feminists is to create as much disharmony as
possible between men and women in order to fund their own empires, governments
just love them; because, remember; for governments, the more disharmony, the
better.
So let us return to our rather over-simplified society, and see what happens
when married couples with children within this reasonably-happy place start more
often to divorce and to separate.
Well, typically, the men will go off and live on their own somewhere, but they
will continue working. The women, however, will have to choose some combination
of going out to work and staying at home with the children.
If the women decide to stay at home, then they must be given a source of income
by the government. This means that the government must take away money from
others in order to fund them. And, already, this means creating a whole system
of laws involving lawyers, judges, administrators, social assessors, financial
offices and various allied bureaucratic systems.
In other words, divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of benefits for
governments and their workers.
Furthermore, of course, no-one in the population wants to see women and children
left destitute, and so government now gets the benefit of some further popular
support for its endeavours. Thus, the government also wins on this score.
And, of course, the women who are put into this position with their children are
now at the mercy of the government.
In other words, they become dependent on the government; which is also great for
government.
"If you women do not vote for us, then you will get a smaller income from the
government!"
Now, of course, women who have divorced - whether or not they have children -
might instead decide to go out to work; in which case the government wins yet
again - because it now has more workers from whom it can take money through the
tax system.
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for
government.
Indeed, it is win-win all the way.
And, most importantly, this remains true whether or not the women have children,
and whether or not they go out to work. It is the growing division between men
and women that is the key to the government's winning strategy.
In summary, therefore, government has an enormous amount to gain by increasing
the divide between men and women, because this enables government workers to
justify the creation and the controlling of many large empires, they can more
easily extract higher taxes, they can tax more people, they can make more people
dependent upon them, and they can gain themselves some extra popular support.
But this is just the beginning.
Many, many further benefits accrue to the government when the close
relationships between men and women are broken apart. For example, the negative
social consequences of not having strong fathers around their children are
positively huge. These tend to impact most directly on boys, but the
repercussions reverberate across the whole of society - for decades. For
example, youngsters - both girls and boys - without fathers in the home are far
more likely to ...
... live in poverty and deprivation, ... be troublesome in school, ... have more
difficulty getting along with others, ... have more health problems, ... suffer
from physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse, ... run away from home, ... get
sexual diseases, ... become teenage parents, ... offend against the law, ...
smoke, drink alcohol and take drugs, ... play truant from school, ... be
excluded from school, ... behave violently, ... give up on education at an early
age, ... make poor adjustments to adulthood, ... attain little in the way of
qualifications, ... experience unemployment, ... have low incomes, ... be on
welfare, ... experience homelessness, ... go to jail, ... suffer from long term
emotional and psychological problems, ... engage only in casual relationships,
... have children outside marriage or, indeed, outside any partnership.
Indeed, a whole cascade of social problems - i.e. a great deal of 'disharmony' -
is generated by the effects of youngsters not having fathers around.
But, clearly, governments benefit fantastically from this; because governments
can use these enormous problems to justify even further increases in both taxes
and power.
After all, the people want to be protected from all the negative social
consequences of fatherlessness - and, of course, the victims themselves could
clearly do with a bit of extra help.
And so governments can justify (and, hence, finagle and extract) much more money
from the people in order to acquire more police officers, more prison officers,
more probation officers, more welfare officers, more lawyers, judges and other
courtroom staff, more psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, doctors, nurses,
social workers, remedial educationalists and, indeed, even more street cleaners!
- and, of course, many, many more bureaucrats to monitor and to exert control in
all of these areas.
And the increases in taxes and power that governments can suck up to themselves
as a result these negative social consequences really are huge.
And, if you can believe it, I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers,
judges and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself; together with
all those professionals who have to get involved in matters to do with alimony,
child custody and child support. Indeed, even if we forget about all the
numerous social and personal problems mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the
divorce industry itself is, nowadays, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Furthermore, of course, as far as life in the later years is concerned, breaking
down the relationships between men and women ensures that old people and sick
people are less likely to receive help from those who are close to them,
because, quite simply, fewer people end up being close to them. And this often
means that these vulnerable people are either abandoned to waste away on their
own, or they are put into care homes and hospitals - often run by government -
where the staff tend to treat them with, at best, clinical disinterest. (Indeed,
a recent report in the UK stated that the most common problems for old people
stem from loneliness and from living alone.)
Thus, one can summarise the situation as follows. Breaking apart the
relationships between men and women creates an absolute gold mine for
government. From childhood to old age, relationship breakdowns cause numerous
problems for the whole of society, but they give rise to numerous benefits for
government.
Now, all this is not to say that everything that the government does is bad -
particularly at the micro level.
Not at all.
For example, it is clearly the case that some men and women do need to be kept
away from each other. We do need our governments to help women and children who
are on their own. We do need care homes and hospitals for old and sick people.
We do need police officers and prisons. And so on.
But none of this alters the fact that the more do the relationships between men
and women break down, the more does the government benefit. And it benefits
hugely - as per above.
And you really would have to stretch your credulity to ridiculous levels to
believe that the millions of workers who are employed by government are
beavering away to destroy the huge 'social/personal/legal/financial industries'
from which they, themselves, have so much to gain.
Furthermore, we have clearly seen western governments - particularly left-wing
governments - using their enormous power over the years to encourage people's
relationships to break down.
Indeed, these governments have left almost no stone unturned in their quest to
damage people's relationships.
They have spent billions of dollars flooding the population with false
statistics concerning 'relationship abuse' of various kinds, with the legal
language being purposely distorted to make out that women are perpetually being
violated by men in some way. For example, they have fudged the definitions of
various types of 'abuse' to such a ludicrous extent that, for example,
criticising a woman's mother can nowadays be seen as an act of violence -
'domestic violence' - calling someone 'dear' as an act of sexual harassment, and
engaging in consensual sex which is later regretted as an act of rape. (The idea
behind all these things is to stir up both hatred towards men and a fear of men,
and it is also designed to encourage as many women as possible to make false
allegations of 'abuse'.) They have spent billions of dollars funding numerous
victim groups that seem to spend more time dispensing anti-male propaganda than
helping any alleged victims. They have
engaged in and/or funded numerous media campaigns designed to portray all men
as being likely to be abusive towards women and children in some way. And
governments continue to offer to women numerous incentives - financial and
otherwise - to make false allegations.
They have spent even more billions on 'welfare' to make men as redundant as
possible when it comes to women and the family. They have purposely debased and
feminised the educational system so that our young men achieve much less
educationally than do our young women - something that stymies future
relationships on a massive scale given that women tend to prefer partners who
are more educated than them. They have been discriminating against men in the
workplace at all levels (to reduce the value of men) under the spurious grounds
that women themselves were being discriminated against by men. They have reduced
the pay of men in numerous jobs controlled by government simply on the grounds
that men tend to be drawn to those jobs more so than are women, and they have
done the reverse for those jobs to which women tend more to be drawn. (The
ridiculous argument currently being tested out on the population is that,
"productivity, hard work and profit are
'old-fashioned' ways of assessing what someone should be paid.") They have
corrupted the law to such an extent that all men are now at the mercy of their
partners when it comes to false allegations of 'abuse', child custody issues and
ridiculously high alimony payouts - the idea being to tempt women into breaking
their relationships because they have little to lose and often very much to gain
by doing so - and, of course, to make men fearful of even embarking on any
long-term relationships. They have corrupted the justice system to such an
extent when it comes to the relationships between men and children that it is
now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do with children.
And, in our schools, children even as young as eight are being indoctrinated
with the feminist-inspired nonsense that men have oppressed women for thousands
of years.
Indeed, it is also now being argued - with much success - that intimates should
treat each other as if they were complete strangers. For example, Stranger Rape
is now said to be just as bad as Relationship Rape. Photographing your own child
being breastfed is said to be producing child pornography. On and on it goes.
And it seems quite clear to me that the ultimate aim is to force people to treat
each other as if they were complete strangers by putting them at some kind of
significant legal risk if they do not do so. Even a music teacher who places a
child's hands correctly on the instrument now risks job suspension and abuse
allegations.
The whole idea is to cut out, or to tarnish with suspicion, any closeness - no
matter how slight - that might exist between people.
Indeed, I cannot think of any law enacted over the past three decades that
impacts upon people's close relationships - either directly or indirectly - that
has not been designed to encourage those relationships to break down.
And, essentially, governments have been breaking down the relationships between
people so that they can elbow their way deeper and deeper into the connections -
social, personal and financial - that once bonded people together.
Furthermore, if one stands back to look at the overall picture that has been
emerging over the past few decades, two things become very clear.
Firstly, the motives of government workers in this area have precious little to
do with increasing the welfare of the people. On the contrary, these motives are
often malicious, and they are mostly to do with government workers seeking to
serve themselves in some way by causing 'disharmony'; with the phrase "divide
and rule" encapsulating much of what has been going on. (Indeed, one only has to
look at how western governments have been at the forefront of encouraging
fatherlessness - and, hence, the numerous consequent social problems mentioned
above - over the past four decades to see just how malicious they have been.)
Secondly, western governments are now so large (employing directly or indirectly
some 20% of the entire population) that government workers, themselves, now
represent the most enormous political force for 'big government'; which,
essentially, means left-wing government. As such, we really no longer live in
'democracies'.
For example, when left-wing US politicians like Joe Biden pump billions of
dollars into groups associated with VAWA, he is not just handing enormous
amounts of our money over to services that provide aid to victims of domestic
violence. He is, in fact, handing out this money to numerous groups of
government workers across America who rely on this money for their jobs and
their pensions, and who will, unsurprisingly, give their political support to
Joe Biden.
And, of course, there are millions of other government workers (school teachers,
social workers, academics etc etc) who are also going to support left-wing
government for precisely the same self-serving reasons.
(As just one example of this,many academics who rely on government funding are
going to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view, or their
funding is going to disappear.)
And, just as importantly, these millions of workers will also provide and
promote political propaganda that is designed to serve themselves; with these
government workers now so entrenched in almost every area of life that their
propaganda nowadays pours into the minds of the population from almost every
information source imaginable - even at school.
(Furthermore, of course, many billions of these dollars go directly into
providing social welfare of some kind; thus ensuring that the millions of people
who benefit from this will vote for left-wing government.)
The upshot is that the population is mostly nowadays very heavily infected with
the view that policies that promote bigger and more powerful government are the
best policies for the people; and so, of course, the people tend to vote for
them.
But the people are being hoodwinked, because they are not being told the truth.
They are being deluged with self-serving propaganda from many self-serving
sources, and the evidence that these sources are deceiving them on numerous
fronts, and in very many ways, is just irrefutable.
Indeed, I am writing this during a time in which the entire world is facing an
enormous economic crisis, and the world's leaders have just decided to bail out
various banking and financial systems with two trillion dollars of taxpayer's
money. Now, apart from the huge burden that this will place on the taxpayers,
and on future taxpayers, the economic downturn is going to result in the loss of
thousands of jobs, the pensions of those who work in the private sector are
going to be slashed - for many years to come - and many businesses are going to
flounder and fail.
But if you look at what most of the politicians on both sides of the political
spectrum are doing in order to help alleviate this situation, there is one
feature that stands out rather starkly. And it can be encapsulated in a phrase
that has been used recently by politicians time and time again across the
western world: "We must not cut public services in these most difficult times."
Well, this is just another way of saying that, no matter how bad are the
economic circumstances for everyone else, government services (i.e. government,
and government workers) must not be allowed to be affected by them. In other
words, government and government workers must be insulated from all the economic
problems. It is those who work outside of government who must bear most of the
costs.
In other words, government workers now clearly form a new protected and
privileged aristocracy - an aristocracy that is to be protected even from the
most devastating of economic circumstances.
No matter how big the crisis - and the current one is huge - their jobs and
their salaries must not be cut, and their pensions must be guaranteed through
thick and thin - regardless of the cost to everyone else, and regardless of how
much everyone else is struggling to make ends meet for themselves, for their
families, and for their futures.
But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving
organism?
After all, the government has hundreds of billions of dollars at its disposal -
every year - vast bureaucratic empires that invade every corner of our lives,
and millions of organised people working for it. Furthermore, it is the
government that makes the laws.
So, who can compete with it?
And who can compete with the vast resources of government when it comes to
'debating the issues' and putting across a particular point of view?
Well, there is no other organism that comes even close to being able to compete
with this governmental beast.
A hundred years ago, western governments were very small indeed when compared to
today. And, loosely speaking, the right represented the wealthy and the
ever-growing number of powerful industrialists and businessmen, and the left
represented the ordinary working people and the impoverished.
Those on the right reckoned that the people would be better served by allowing
them to get on with the job of creating wealth and power, while those on the
left reckoned that government should intervene more directly, and more often, to
help those who were the most in need.
Translated into today's world, this could be loosely described as the big,
powerful businesses being represented by those on the right, and the ordinary
people themselves being represented by those on the left.
But times have changed quite dramatically since those far-off days; and there is
now a new kid on the block.
Government itself.
And this new kid is now far more powerful than 'the businesses' or 'the people'
- by a very long way.
Indeed, not only does this new kid have the muscle power, the organisational
power, the financial power and the legal power to get what he wants, he also has
the propaganda power to persuade the people of his point of view.
And it is absolutely clear that this new kid has been using this enormous power
to serve himself.
Just take a look at how western governments have grown over the past 100 years -
or even over the past 10 years. Look at the ever-increasing tax take. Look at
the ever-increasing numbers of people employed by government. Look at the
thousands upon thousands of laws, regulations, restrictions and directives that
are annually being imposed by western governments on their own peoples.
These governments just grow and grow and grow - not only in terms of size, but
also in terms of power and wealth. And they are infiltrating themselves into
every aspect of people's lives; controlling, monitoring, regulating, directing,
stipulating, coercing - always to an ever-greater extent.
But who can stop them?
For example, who can compete with the billions of dollars that the left-wing Joe
Bidens of this world pour into left-wing causes, left-wing jobs, left-wing
benefits and, hence, into left-wing propaganda and left-wing votes for even
bigger government?
Who has the money to compete with this?
No-one, and no organisation, has a hope of competing with such a force.
Indeed, and for example, despite the fact that Americans are renowned the world
over for their almost manic belief in small government and individual liberty,
this has not stopped their federal government from growing and growing and,
indeed, from walking all over them.
And the reason for this is because western governments have grown far too
powerful.
But who can be surprised by this given that millions of government workers with
huge resources and millions of benefit recipients will tend to promote their own
interests rather than those of 'business' or 'the people'?
A hundred years ago it was all different.
The government tax take was miniscule, the rules and regulations were few, and
the numbers of government workers and benefit recipients were both small, and
so, for example, when the government handed out money to its own workers in
order to pursue some agenda or other, the efforts of these workers, their
ability to influence people, and the number of votes that the government
workers, themselves, were able to cast in elections were all relatively small in
comparison to what 'the people' could do in such areas.
But now, these government workers have around 20% of the vote, and they also
have resources that are absolutely unassailable.
Indeed, in order to drum this point home, just imagine if you had one billion
dollars annually to distribute to whomsoever you wished. And, further, imagine
that, every year, you distributed this one billion dollars to people whose work
supported some activist group. You can surely imagine just how large would be
the impact that this activist group would then be able to make, right across the
country.
Just one billion dollars will do!
But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute hundreds of billions of
dollars every year to government workers and to benefit recipients who are bound
to support 'the government' in order to benefit themselves.
(And, of course, there is no other group that can possibly compete with a
left-wing government's power to, quite frankly, 'bribe' a few million voters
with benefits.)
And the upshot has been that western governments have been able, very
successfully, to bamboozle the public into believing in - and 'voting' for -
those ideas and notions that, in fact, are mostly of benefit to government,
rather than of benefit to the people; the purposeful breaking down of
relationships being just one example of this.
Indeed, when it comes to men's issues, we have seen western governments of all
persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in so
many areas - always in a direction of causing more problems for men, women and
children when it comes to their relationships - that it is simply impossible to
escape the conclusion that damaging people's relationships is a major aim of
western governments.
And the reason for this is very clear.
As I mentioned earlier in connection with our fictional idyllic society,
damaging the relationships between people creates an absolute goldmine for
western governments. It is a perpetual lottery jackpot win.
And, of course, there are many other ways through which governments can
encourage relationships to break down - ways that go beyond those to do with
close personal relationships. For example, encouraging excessive immigration
causes relationships within communities to become far more tenuous and
uncertain. And, of course, the government will benefit from this as a result of
the increasing disharmony and uncertainty that this brings about. Furthermore,
the government will benefit whether the immigrants are productive or disruptive.
If they are productive, the government gets more tax dollars. If they are
disruptive, then the government can justify more taxes and more power to deal
with the ensuing problems.
Thus, excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for government.
And then there are the various laws to do with hate speech and with 'offending'
people. These tend to distance people from each other because these laws
encourage certain types of people to use the law in even the most trivial of
circumstances.
The whole idea is, clearly, to break apart as much as possible any strong sense
of cohesion and/or security that people might have with each other.
Indeed, the ways in which this perpetual lottery jackpot win can be collected is
becoming increasingly recognised and appreciated by governments all over the
world - which is why feminism, and feminist policies, are now being taken up so
avidly by them - and so quickly.
Time and time again, you can hear one politician promoting some new
feminist-inspired notion in the USA on Monday, and by Wednesday the same notion
is being proposed by another politician somewhere in Europe or Asia.
And this is because seasoned politicians and activists know very well indeed
from where their power comes. And millions of them now know that every notion -
every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages people's relationships
to break down always brings them extra benefits; whereas anything that will
encourage people to stay close to each other is likely to push government - and,
hence, government jobs - out of the window.
A good example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Feminists Destroy the
Planet wherein it is noted that the UK's prime minister, Gordon Brown, has
introduced a whole raft of policies to help reduce carbon emissions in order to
combat global warming - allegedly, "the most important issue of our times" -
but not even once does he address the fact that the increasing tendency for
people to live alone is having a large negative impact on the environment - in
many ways, not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.
And the reason that Gordon Brown will not do anything to encourage people to
live together - either through his rhetoric or through his policies - is because
he knows full well that the more do people live securely together, the less will
they want government.
And, quite clearly, this want for government is far more important to him than
what he, himself, has alleged to be the "the most important issue of our times".
It surely could not be clearer. Maintaining the increasing tendency for people
to live apart is actually more important to Gordon Brown than reducing carbon
emissions - despite all his rhetoric about the latter being an issue of
planetary-wide importance.
And this must surely give you some idea of just how important to western
governments really is the breaking down of people's relationships.
Indeed, western politicians and millions of government workers would be
horrified if people started getting along too well with each other.
And this is the real reason why western governments love feminism.
It is the perfect hammer for smashing up people's relationships.
In summary:
1. Relationship breakdowns are a goldmine for government and for government
workers. Feminism is, therefore, an ideology that serves the interests of
western governments and their workers very well indeed.
2. Governments are now hugely powerful, with politicians able to give billions
of dollars every year to millions of government workers who will be very keen to
promote their own services - which they will be able to do with much success -
particularly if they adopt the feminists' main aim of breaking apart people's
relationships.
3. It is inconceivable that these government workers will not use their enormous
influence to serve themselves.
4. It is absolutely undeniable that western governments and government workers
have, over the years, poured an enormous amount of their energy, and expended
billions of dollars worth of our resources, on creating and promoting laws,
policies and propaganda that are specifically designed to make close personal
relationships difficult to create and difficult to maintain.
Indeed, the UK's current deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, has
openly stated that marriage is 'irrelevant' to public policy, and she has
actually described high rates of relationship breakdowns as a 'positive
development'. (Like most feminists, she believes that stable inter-gender
relationships oppress women.)
And the only realistic conclusion that one can make is that, when it comes to
people's relationships, western governments and government workers are purposely
seeking to damage these relationships as much as possible.
END NOTES:
1. People often find it difficult to believe that government workers could be so
malicious toward their own people by supporting policies and notions that will
harm them.
And there are two things to be said about this.
Firstly, there is no question in my own mind that many of the people at the top
of government and at the top of government departments are malicious - coldly,
callously malicious. And they often know full well that what they are doing is
harming their own people. But this is of no real significance to them. In other
words, they do not care. Their only concern is to serve themselves in some way.
A good example of this is the way in which so many politicians and government
workers - who should know better - have avoided discussing the issue of
fatherlessness for so long despite the heavy toll that it has clearly been
taking on so many people and on society as a whole.
This heavy toll clearly does not matter to these people.
And why should it? After all, it gives them jobs, money, pensions etc etc etc
Another example would be the way in which educationalists have chosen over the
years to teach children to read using one of the most inefficient methods
imaginable - a method that was known to disadvantage both our boys and our girls
when it came to reading, but which was also known to disadvantage the boys much
more. It is inconceivable to me that educationalists in the higher echelons were
unaware of the degradation in reading skills that was taking place over the
years as a result of using inefficient teaching methods (i.e. the ongoing
degradation was being covered up) and it is also inconceivable to me that they
were unaware that their teaching methods were, in fact, inefficient;
particularly for the boys.
In my view, the method of teaching reading - together with a host of other
educational initiatives that have taken place over the years to the detriment of
boys - was actually designed to undermine the educational progress of the boys
relative to the girls.
And if this is hard to believe, then please bear in mind that these same
educationalists, who were for decades so concerned about the lack of female role
models in the workplace, are now saying that role models for boys in the
educational setting (e.g. having more male teachers in schools) are of no
importance at all.
Furthermore, here in the UK, we have had both left-wing politicians and
left-wing teachers recently saying that nothing should be done to help our boys
catch up with the girls. Even the so-called Equal Opportunities Commission is
saying this; e.g. see this from the Times, Stop Helping Boys, says Equality
Watchdog.
And the question that I keep asking myself is how much more evidence will it
take before people wake up to the fact that western governments - particularly
left-wing governments - are doing all that they can to undermine their own
societies - particularly their own men - and that they are doing this to benefit
themselves.
Now, I could give you many more examples which - to my mind at least - provide
incontrovertible evidence that many of those people who work for government are
malicious and self-serving, but I think I will stop here, and just point out
that the lack of concern of western governments over fatherlessness and over the
poor education of boys cannot be described as anything other than 'malicious'
when it comes to assessing their true attitudes toward 'the people'.
Furthermore, the cost to us all of failing to do anything to solve these two
particular problems amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars every year across
the western world, and it amounts to a huge amount of unhappiness for millions
of people.
Governments, however, benefit hugely from these things. And those at the top
know very well that this is the case.
(For further evidence that government workers are very often deceitful and
malicious, see my piece entitled Do Not Respect Them.)
Secondly, it is also almost certainly true that the vast majority of 'government
workers' will have no idea what harm they might be causing to people by
supporting and promoting 'government' - particularly corrupt government; which
is what we mostly seem to have nowadays Their views tend to be very restricted,
and they tend only to know what they need to know in order to do their own
particular jobs.
However, there will also exist hundreds of thousands of workers in the higher
ranks who will just push a little bit here and a little bit there in order to
gain some advantage for themselves.
For example, senior police officers will wish to impress their political
overlords by gaining as many rape convictions as possible. They will want to
earn more brownie points by proclaiming hither and thither that more must be
done to catch more rapists. And they will forever argue for more and more
resources.
And these police officers are not going to admit openly to the public the fact
that, in practice, the vast majority of rape allegations made to them are
actually false; because to do so would undermine their own positions.
And so across the western world, with thousands of senior police officers
wanting to impress their masters, and with thousands wanting more resources for
their departments, the effect of them pushing a little bit here and a little bit
there (e.g. exaggerating, misrepresenting the facts etc etc) always in the
direction of wanting a little bit more for themselves, amounts to a very large
force indeed.
And this large force can be so detrimental to society as a whole, or to a
particular group within it, that its nature can be very 'malicious' even though
the individuals who are creating this force (in this case, senior police
officers) are not necessarily intending to be malicious. They might simply be
serving themselves by, let us say, putting a certain spin on various issues.
But this is what happens in all government departments.
The people who run them want more money, more power, more influence, more
security, more status, more respect and more prospects. And so, of course, they
will tend to do as much as they can to achieve these things.
And so, quite clearly, the malicious forces that can arise from government can
be fantastically huge in their impact, even though most of the individuals who
created these forces were not intending to be malicious. They were just trying,
let us say, to further their own personal ambitions - which is something that we
all do.
In summary; there will be those at the very top who are well aware of the harm
that they are causing to people by, for example, knowingly encouraging
fatherlessness (i.e. they are malicious) but there will also be hundreds of
thousands of people, slightly lower down the chain, who will be pushing a little
bit here and there in the same direction (encouraging fatherlessness) simply in
order to maintain their empires - the empires that the malicious people above
are promoting and funding.
And the result is a really huge force that is very decidedly malicious.
2. My own view is that if we take a look at the power currently being wielded by
government, by business and by 'the people' at this moment in time, we will see
that 'the people' have a very small voice indeed - with 'men' having almost no
voice at all. And the following graphic probably represents much better than
does the graphic above how the forces from these three groups are currently
matched.
Government now has the biggest voice, and the people have the smallest. (For the
sake of simplicity, I have not mentioned the mainstream media but, by and large,
the output from the mainstream media is still very heavily coloured and
restricted by government and by business.)
Now, given that government mostly serves itself, and given that government has
virtually unassailable resources with which to do so, and given that there is,
quite clearly, so very much that government can gain (and hold on to) by
continually breaking down people's relationships, and given that we now have so
much irrefutable evidence demonstrating quite clearly that western governments
are, indeed, doing their very best on many fronts to break down people's
relationships (a 'positive development', according to Harriet Harman) it seems
to me that people must do their very best to undermine the power of government.
And the simplest way to do this is to support only those politicians who promise
unreservedly to reduce the tax take, and to oppose most vehemently those
politicians who are likely to increase it.
This typically means supporting the right rather than the left, but,
unfortunately, matters are not so simple, because times have really changed. And
there are nowadays very few politicians indeed who have much concern for 'the
people'. Those on the left are, in my view, mostly corrupt through and through -
always seeking to empower themselves and their cronies through the further
expansion and empowerment of government regardless of the cost to the people -
and those on the right are very often pandering to the wishes of big
corporations and powerful businesses. And so there is no longer any strong voice
within government circles that represents real, ordinary people.
And perhaps the most worrying part about all of this is that any politician -
left or right - who dares to stand up for 'the people' in any meaningful way
will be pushed quite quickly into relative obscurity by the other politicians
who will be receiving massive support from very powerful brokers whose only
concern is to promote the interests of big business or big government.
And so, all in all, it seems to me that there is no real representation of 'the
people' within government (and there is certainly no representation of 'men'
within it) and, further, that any representation of 'the people' that occurs
outside of government is nowadays mostly swamped by the huge amount of
self-serving propaganda (particularly from government workers) that pours out in
favour of 'big government'. And, unfortunately for us, this deluge of
self-serving propaganda is coming from people who benefit very handsomely indeed
from breaking apart and undermining people's relationships - and, indeed, by
setting them against each other.
Their overall strategy is, quite clearly, to 'divide and rule' ...
... which is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tricks to be found
in the handbook of those who wish to empower themselves at the expense of
others.