|The Observer [UK], in an article dated 2003 03 30, stated:|
Brown set for male tax revolt
The Treasury is braced for a 'male backlash' against the Budget over changes which will transfer tax credit money from husbands to their wives.
Sources close to Downing Street have admitted to concerns over working men opening their pay packets in April to find they appear to have 'lost' hundreds of pounds.
The family payment will have shifted to their wives' bank accounts, under
changes reflecting that women are considered more likely to spend the cash
But fears that up to 200,000 working men will resent the loss of control - or confuse it with the national insurance rise due on 6 April - have prompted a national advertising campaign to explain the change. ....
Certainly, an advertising campaign — in this case it should more correctly be called a propaganda campaign — will make many people feel more mellow about it, but that doesn't change the absolute truth of it. Totalitarian regimes throughout history used propaganda to indoctrinate people to accept curtailment of their civil rights, and to motivate them into making enormous sacrifices for the greatness of the State that ruled them. Whether it works out to be that way in the end or not makes little difference. What matters is:
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. ...
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.
Adolf Hitler, in Mein Kampf
The proponents of the legislated change in family relationships appear to be unaware of a few things, such as these:
The vast majority of retail space and most advertising intended to motivate people into making purchases of consumer goods are dedicated to or directed at women.
Women are more likely than men to be gamblers.
Compulsory shopping is a pathology that primarily affects women.
Surely women will feel encouraged to satisfy their urges with money that is theirs according to government fiat and not according to what is good for their children or what they may agree with their husbands is agreeable and reasonable.
Any debates about that are now no longer permissible between couples. Such debates could even, and most likely will, be construed to be domestic violence, never mind that such debates would most likely truly be in the best interest of the children, especially if cooler and more reasonable heads prevail. Besides, two heads are better than one.
The new reality is now that what the government says is better than what two parents may decide.
The article from which the introductory quote on this page was taken mentions that the powers fear a male tax revolt. I have no idea whether the feared male tax revolt took, or is taking, place. I doubt it. It would have been the most quiet revolt that ever did take place, and if it had, the legislated changes would have been undone.
No, it is far more likely that men took in stride another piece of discriminatory legislation that puts them "in their place" in their newly acquired role as second-class citizens, the Jews of the third millennium.
It is another cut in the death by a thousand cuts of the traditional
role of fathers
(off-site) as providers and protectors of their families. In one fell swoop men have been relegated to become indentured servants to the State, and the State usurped the
role of fathers as providers and protectors
and as heads of their families. That's nothing. A real man can take that without a problem.
Why don't men object to having as much as an additional quarter of their pay confiscated and given to their wives, ex-wives and other men's wives in the form of a government subsidy paid exclusively by men? Search me. I don't know, but the men's "movement" is not moving at all on this.
Real men don't whine. Real men just pay, and pay, and pay..., I guess.
A whole year went by since the UK taxman tightened the screws on men, and not a single man cried out in pain or outrage. That proves it, right? Real men don't cry! To do so would make them whiners, right?
It is not that nobody saw any of this coming, got stunned by it in surprise and is now left speechless. The trial balloon had been launched quite some time ago (in 1999 in the UK). Similar legislation was put into place in Canada in 1997 and had been discussed for years in Germany. It may even be already in place in Germany. How would I know? Real men don't cry, and none of the German men cried out or told about it. Mind you, the German government wasn't quite as greedy as its British counterpart. It wanted to give German wives a mere 5 percent of men's incomes as
pocket money for moms.
However, the issue of "Pocket Money for Mom" has been discussed, unfortunately only by redfems clamoring for it, and by women that don't like their sons being run through the wringer one more time to have them squeezed for some more money.
What's behind all of this? It is the implementation of the
international agenda for the planned destruction of the family, the age-old goal of communists going back to Marx and Engels, the two men that laid out the blueprint that the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists, redfems for short) are now following for the planned destruction of the family and for the construction of the super-family, of what Marx and Engels called the community of women.
The community of women is the welfare state, an arrangement in which the State takes on the role of provider and protector of women and women's children, and in which the taxpayers become the breadwinners for the super-family of the community of women. That arrangement proved to be exceedingly effective in the Russian Federation, where women receive two years paid maternity leave with each child they carry to term (they have on average six abortions — and some as many as twenty — before they carry their first child to term).
That is a fine thing and provides great results. Russian women now outlive Russian men by thirteen years, and Russian men don't complain either. Real men don't cry! Russian men live on average to 58.8 years and women to 71.7 years respectively. However, Russian men drown their sorrows in vodka, and the Russian Federation has the highest male suicide rate of all countries in the world, more than three times higher than that in Canada.
Common sense and economics have nothing to do with it. Some people put the correct label to radical feminism. They call it Marxism without economics, communism in which class has been replaced with "gender", in which the male sex is seen as the enemy of "the people", women and women's children. All that is necessary to destroy the status of men is to remove men from their families, and don't forget to make them pay for that privilege. After all, to the new Aryans men are not people. To them, men are second-class, sub-human serfs whose rights can be violated with impunity.
(If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a.
Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand
your knowledge. After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling
faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your
Carey Roberts column
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on
political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.
Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but
this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the
article series appear to keep changing. For that reason the
identified link leads to an Internet search for the series. The
first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to
Ultimately it is not even necessary for men to pay for the children they truly fathered. All that is required is to make all men pay for the upkeep of all women and children. Why not? Adolf Hitler and his secretary, Martin Bormann, saw nothing wrong with that towards the end of the second world war. Why should anyone else? It's perfectly alright, especially if men don't complain about it.
....After this war, the childless marriages and bachelors must be far more sharply taxed than until now.
The present taxation of the bachelors must be child's play in comparison to the tax load with which they will be burdened in the future.
The revenues from these bachelor taxes must serve for the support of mothers with children, that is, for the material support of our ambitions in relation to our offspring.
I ask of you to thoroughly consider this whole problem in your thoughts and then subsequently to transmit your assessment to me.
Martin Bormann, Jan. 29, 1944, explaining the wishes of The F—hrer
(Adolf Hitler had by that time been impotent already for several years)
More complete quote and full citation
Men are being squeezed, but they don't complain, even though they are inexorably being relegated more and more to the role of indentured serfs that get to see less and less of the money they earn in the often dangerous and life-threatening jobs they hold. As long as men don't complain at every turn of the screw, why not?
Obviously men like getting it in the ear, because they turn their heads to the other side without complaining. Real men don't cry. They don't say a thing, and as long as they don't, why not give it to them, shaft them for all they are worth, which is increasingly less as time goes by.
Right now men pay 70 percent of all contributions to social safety nets, and women receive 70 percent of all benefits paid out by social safety nets. Why not make that an even 100 percent for both sides? Would that not be far more "equitable" than what is in place? Why not? Men won't complain, and women deserve it, right? And never mind the children of whom increasingly more grow up fatherless.