Why Governments Love Feminism
This is rather a long piece, but reading it will give you a really
good insight into why feminism has become so dominant in the west, and why
your whole life will be negatively affected by it; particularly if you are
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
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?
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
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.
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!
These government workers want bigger empires with
bigger salaries and bigger pensions.
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
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.
divorce and separation provide a whole plethora of
benefits for governments and their workers.
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
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
"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
In other words, encouraging divorce and separation is a winning strategy for
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I have not yet even mentioned all those lawyers, judges
and bureaucrats who are part of the divorce system itself
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.)
Breaking apart the relationships between men and
women creates an absolute gold mine for government.
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.
governments continue to offer to women numerous
incentives - financial and otherwise - to make false allegations.
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.
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 corrupted the justice system to such an
extent ... that it is now extremely unwise for men to have anything to do
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
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 unfairly 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.")
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
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
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.
the ultimate aim is to force people to treat each
other as if they were complete strangers
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
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.
many academics who rely on government funding are going
to drum up evidence to support the government's point of view
(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
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.
who can oppose this enormous beast of government?
But who can oppose this enormous beast of government? - this self-serving
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
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.
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.
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
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.
government workers have around 20% of the vote
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
Just one billion dollars will do!
But the Joe Bidens of this world nowadays distribute 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 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.
we have seen western governments of all
persuasions lying, fudging, deceiving, ignoring, blocking and cheating in
so many areas
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.
excessive immigration is also win-win all the way for
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.
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.
every rule, regulation, policy or law - that encourages
people's relationships to break down always brings them extra benefits;
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
not just through the resulting higher carbon emissions.
the more do people live securely together, the less
will they want government.
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.
millions of government workers would be horrified
if people started getting along too well with each other.
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.
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.
It is inconceivable that these government workers
will not use their enormous influence to serve themselves.
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.