The following commentary was sent to a fathers rights activist, in response to his assertion that all that is missing for fathers rights organizations is to obtain government funding to gain political power.
George,
All the FR movement lacks is money? I cannot quite agree with that.
Money is the root of all evil, so the saying goes. It would therefore follow that money cannot possibly be the solution to a problem like the lack of inroads made by the FR movement, or can it? First of all, that money quote is wrong. Here is the full context of that quote:
King James Bible
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
As one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, subsidies to Canadian Natives to solve their woes – at roughly $6,800 a year for every native man, woman and child – money has hardly solved any problems the Canadian Natives suffer from. A few success stories can be mentioned. However, as a whole,
- The life expectancies of our Natives are many years below the Canadian average;
- Their suicide rates are probably the highest of all ethnic groups in the world, higher than those in any of the nations in the world, much higher even than those in the Russian Federation, and about five times higher than the Canadian national average;
- The incident rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is about 70 percent in some Native communities;
- Their rates of fatherlessness and infant mortality are higher than the national average;
- The crime and incarceration rates for Natives are ten times higher than the Canadian average; but
- The Department of Native and Indian Affairs is a boon for an army of civil servants and even produced a few prime ministers, most notably Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien.
If I were a Native leader and were to observe those dismal outcomes of centuries of Canadian empathy for Natives, I would tell the federal government to go and fly a kite. However, why in the world would FR activist organizations ask for financial assistance by the government? Financial assistance breeds political and economic dependency.
It was not financial assistance from the government that gave political power to feminists. It was the greed for political power that enticed the government to provide financial assistance to Natives and to feminism.
How did the Natives gain political power? They demonstrated, closed roads, stopped logging operations, etc.. They also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. Political power brought financial and other concessions for Natives, but overall that brought benefits only to band councils and to bureaucrats. The few handovers of large areas of Canada did not perceptibly hurt the average Canadian, and all of the concessions made to the Natives helped build the careers of an enormous number of bureaucrats and lawyers, with just about all of the bureaucrats and the vast majority of the lawyers not being Natives. However, the net-“gains” made by Natives were confined to the First Nations and to Native communities. Canadians paid their taxes, and the Native problems hardly ever intruded into their lives.
How did the feminists gain political power? They raised their children (in their image), and they burned their bras. Just as the natives did, they also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. They went a bit farther, they began lecturing at universities, and they formed law societies that forced feminist laws upon the judiciary and thereby on all of society. In the process of doing that, they obtained ever escalating financial and legal concessions, but overall that brought benefits only to feminists and to bureaucrats. Those concessions do hurt all Canadians, but, just as with the Natives – only on a much larger scale – feminism helped build the careers of legions of bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, psychologists, lecturers, counselors, mediators, etc..
However, the net-“gains” made by feminists, confined to women, did nothing for the Canadian economy as a whole and were extremely expensive. Even though Canadians paid their escalating taxes to pay for it all, given that we live in a closed system, men pay the majority of all taxes (about 70 percent) and at best receive 30 percent of all available social benefits, while women pay a small share of all taxes (about 30 percent) while they receive at least 70 percent of all social benefits.
How do men gain political power? They increasingly don’t get to raise their children, and they can at best burn their jock straps – which latter, moreover, many men don’t ever wear. Besides, compare the public appeal of bras vs. jock straps, of mammary glands vs. prostate glands and rectums.
One thing is certain, men will not gain financial or any other sort of concessions from the government until they have political power and begin to wield it. The question is not so much what the benefits are that men have to offer – and let there be no mistake, the benefits that men can return for financial and other concessions must be irrefutably good (while feminists never had to offer anything other than the promise to set social injustices for women right). The question is whether a sufficiently large critical mass of men can agree on what men have to offer.
The feminists didn’t have a heck of a lot of money to begin to achieve their progress. Why would men need a lot of money to do something comparable?
One thing is for sure, the liberalism, sexual revolution and women’s liberation promoted by the student revolutions that happened simultaneously throughout the world in 1968 did not happen spontaneously.
…the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow – [a suburb of Berlin] the capital of the GDR – happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time – e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then led to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism – largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.
All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it. (See Trends of the politics of sex)
Men’s rights and fathers’ right organizations throughout the world habitually ignore history. They ignore it at their own and at all of mankind’s peril.
See also:
- Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering
- Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?
- Family courts solve divorce applications backlog
- Divorce causes escalating suicide rates
- Men Behaving Badly – Why?
- Men have all the power? Don’t you believe it!
- Harriet Harman criminally hates men
- Men’s movement: Specialization Cooperation Collectivism
Those who don’t learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.
History repeats itself because the current generation refuses to read the minutes of the last meeting.
History tells us from where we came and where we are going. It tells us about actions and consequences. It tells us not only whether we are making progress and how far we have come, it tells us whether we are going into the right direction.
History is therefore a threat to all totalitarian regimes, as it clearly shows all of their flaws and the consequences of every single wrong decision made by a given totalitarian regime. For that reason all totalitarian regimes prohibit the teaching of history or at best permit only the teaching of versions that are constantly tailored and manipulated so that they will show a given totalitarian regime to be on the right path.
History is no longer taught in the elementary and grammar schools of Canada or in those of many other nations in the “free” West.
Any nation that no longer teaches honest and true history forgets from where it came. It will therefore be on a random path to self-destruction and oblivion. That is because it will not be able to determine which change in direction that it takes in reacting to each event in the never-ending succession of unexpected catastrophes it tries to escape from will prove to be the best. The fatal end of that nation will come as a total surprise to the vast majority of its people who will bear the cost of their own destruction.