Citizens seem to blindly assume that officials are knowledgeable, competent, and endeavoring to properly resolve all problems besetting us. Those who don't suffer from this delusion consider the wrongs as more of the worldly disillusionment to which we must resign ourselves in oriental-like fatalism, and endure uncomplainingly (C' est la vie). The electorate has demonstrated itself to be so gullible in other areas, it's not surprising that they accept this.
Ideally, authority should be entrusted to those most responsible and competent. Unfortunately, such individuals are not often found in government. Plato’s Democracy may not produce the finest elected officials. Einstein said, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” Consequently, we have many ninth-rate men in first rate vestments making important judgments. The primary concerns of any bureaucracy are to justify its existence and expand its operation. Many functionaries are content to shuffle papers or fiddle while the country burns. Don’t be surprised to see a “Bureau of Bureaucracy.” Noted columnist, Jack Anderson, back in 1975 said “Officialdom, left to itself, will tend to do wrong, not right.”
In addition to judges, lawyers and legislators, our government includes a horde of other knights errant all sharing a near-identical genetic code. Existing in all areas of government, these grey mice constitute a square dance of assorted sycophants. Consider the two-bit politicians and officials who trod underfoot the great moral and intellectual martyrs of the world; Socrates comes to mind. Throughout history, real intellectuals (as opposed to academics) have had sadly little influence on or authority over the affairs of man. Philosophers have been elbowed out by popinjays.
The US criminal justice system largely serves the ambitions of prosecutors. Prosecutors need high conviction rates to justify their budgets and to build their careers. Add to this a big industry of psychologists, custody evaluators, and domestic-violence agitators who make their living pursuing anti-male agendas.
The entire ‘divorce industry’ is a profitable interdependent cabal of those mentioned above and below, working to keep the profits rolling in. Cabal members aren’t by definition any more honest or dishonest than anyone else, but are in a position to capitalize on dishonesty; and the weak ones do. Hear Stephen Baskerville on the subject, “Writing in National Review Online, “Wade Horn" describes the huge social costs of family breakdown and the benefits to children and society of marriage. He also points out that his agency spends $46 billion each year on programs “the need for [which] is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages.”
Welfare and the mentality of its recipients were addressed in Part I; the motivations of administrators will be addressed here.
Welfare “do-gooders” likewise have a stake in divorce-created poverty. The Florence Nightingale/Santa Claus image of welfare “civil servants” is not accurate. Looking after and rehabilitating ‘helpless’ mothers is the biggest excuse for this bureaucracy’s existence. Without the empire built on these gals, most of them would be out of work, and male employees would have to pay for the sex some get free from ‘clients.’
These ‘public servants’ have become surrogate husbands and fathers, a self-appointed clerisy. It is their aspiration to replace the man in the family, assume responsibility for the needs of fatherless families they helped create, and control their lives. To maintain their jobs and perquisites, they usurp the male function, they encourage wives to kick husbands out and eagerly provide courts with supporting rationale for awarding maternal custody, to build case loads and ultimately their bureaucracy.
Welfare’s greatest beneficiaries may be the administrators; they lobby for ever harsher anti-male legislation, which only creates more need for them. Bureaucrats fear and sabotage a society of morally and financially healthy families because they have so much to lose from it. They invariably oppose realistic reforms, such as tightening welfare eligibility and father custody, because their careers depend on existence of the support problem. Their interests lie in creating and perpetuating situations to “work with.” Actually curing sociological problems is against their vested interests. This is nothing less than state-sponsored family abuse.
Surely many social “workers” began with high, altruistic ideals, but they soon lose them in the crunch between the managers above and a multitude of often good-for-nothing clients below. Occasionally one reads about social workers cooperating in the removal of kids from single mothers, but only in cases where they had no choice, where mothers were caught doing something like prostituting their daughters – and that might not be sufficient cause.
To give the illusion of concern about fraud, welfare departments have periodic or continuing programs of investigating themselves. To no one’s surprise, they always come up clean. It is amusing to see officials being questioned by the news media in an attempt to determine what is wrong with the system. This is like asking lawyers what is wrong with divorce. Neither will expose the causes of problems nor advocate an effective clean-up beyond the usual platitudes. Years ago one California welfare worker, Mrs. Belva Deltof, was threatened with dismissal for “conduct unbecoming a county employee” because she exposed hundreds of cases of welfare fraud.
It is universally customary for welfare officials and prosecutors to transfer their own guilt for the welfare/fatherless mess to ex-father scapegoats by conjuring up an image of helpless children left to starve (Amneus’ “Mutilated Beggar” example). Regrettably, people are suckers for this dodge. Early in his career, before his more recent arguments against big government vindicated him, even former California Governor Ronald Reagan was taken in by it.
The thought of high – or even low – placed government officials, conditioned (some by living on welfare themselves) to the idea that we have an unlimited supply of money owed to slackers, is frightening. Even many clients consider welfare a racket.
Then there are the child protective agencies.
“Truth or Fiction?” By Doug Henson, from The Liberator
Preview of a fictional CPS Television Commercial
The following is a Public Service Announcement from Child Protective Services (CPS).
The scene: A middle class home in suburbia, a Father and Mother are having a heart to heart talk with their 12 year old son, who got sent home from school for taking lunch money from the younger kids.
Dad (with raised voice): Billy, I don’t know what we’re going to do with you. We’ve tried talking, we’ve tried time outs, we’ve even tried grounding you, and it just doesn’t seem to work. Your Mother and I have discussed this and we’ve decided that you are going to be grounded indefinitely until you pay back every dime you took from those kids. You will come home from school every day and perform a list of chores your Mother and I will draw up. Is that understood?
Billy: You can’t do that to me, I’ll call CPS and tell them you’re abusing me. I know my rights and you can’t do anything to me.
Dad to Mom: I told you we should have spanked him when he was younger. My Dad spanked me and I came out all right.
Mom to Dad: Now Bill, we discussed this before the kids were born, we swore we’d never spank them.
Dad to Billy: That’s it, go to your room right now, No supper for you tonight! And don’t think you can scare me with this CPS talk. I’m your Father and I can most definitely punish you and there’s nothing CPS can do.
Billy runs out of the room.
Three days later: There’s a knock on the door.
Dad (Opens door, to see a young woman; and three police officers standing on his front porch, with hands on their guns): Can I help you?
Young Woman: Mr. Johnson? I’m Liz Feminazi from Child Protective Services. We’ve had a complaint that you’re abusing your child.
Dad: What? That’s ridiculous, I’ve never laid a hand on my son! Who told you such a lie?
Liz Feminazi: That’s none of your business, now step aside and let us in, we’re here to interview your abused son, Billy.
Dad: No! I will not allow you into my home to interview my son about this. I have my Rights!
Policeman 1 (still with hand on gun): Sir, Step out of the way, immediately, or you’ll be placed under arrest for interfering with a government agent, in the performance of her job.
Dad: This is absurd, I’m calling my lawyer.
Dad starts to turn and close the door when the policeman pulls his weapon and yells:
Policeman 1: FREEZE! Raise your hands and step out of the house, NOW! Turn around and lace your fingers behind your neck!
Liz Feminazi: You’re obviously a violent man Mr. Johnson. You have no business raising a child. We’re taking you in and we’re taking your children, Billy and Suzy, into protective custody. I’ll make sure you never see them again. We’ve got a lot of foster families looking for more income, who would just love to have another child to take care of.
ANOTHER ABUSIVE FATHER TAKEN OFF THE STREETS!
CPS, WE’RE HERE TO HELP YOU! CALL: 1-800-NORIGHTS
This could very easily happen to you. It happens more often then you think, and it could happen to you!
While on the subject of officials, we mustn’t overlook the police. Some are pigs, salivating for the opportunity to rescue damsels in distress and to impress the gals; they’d remind you of the night shift at Abu Ghraib. But, it is a sadistic, crooked minority that defames a respectable majority of these front-line troops in the war against crime. It’s not their fault if they must enforce bad laws or stupid interpretations of them. They have to hold their nose and do their duty. Jailers are seldom interested in rehabilitation or education of prisoners. Perpetuation of their jobs is a greater concern.
Other charlatans and quacks can also be nuisances. So-called “expert” witnesses will usually testify any way they are paid to in courts, be it civil or criminal. Regarding custody matters, psychologist Sanford Braver calls their advice “little more than guesswork.” For example, San Francisco Federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton chose abortion providers over abortion opponents as ‘expert’ witnesses in deciding whether partial birth abortion can be a necessary procedure. An investigator for Canada’s National Post reports “Assessors are not required by law to have any specialized training, pass any exams, or follow any particular rules.”
Anti-male instinct is the cement of this entire cabal. Whether sex prejudice is inspired by the public or by officialdom is unimportant; public opinion is a consensus of the uninformed, and because the masses are made up of neither philosophers nor saints, the majority argument is not always valid. Majorities permitted such things as racial slavery, Hitler’s atrocities, and Christ’s crucifixion.
Besides money and empire, what else motivates
them? As with judges, reasons range from indiscriminate chivalry – the Galahad
fantasy – to self-aggrandizement to fad. Eduard Bakalar Ph.D. a scholar from
the Czech Republic, attributes anti-male behavior in men, especially government
officials, to an underlying subconscious mechanism desirous of women’s sexual
favors. While many pander to women in order that they may receive pats on the
head from Feminists, others quake in fear of Feminist power, genuflect before it
and shine the shoes of their female-pandering superiors.