Uncovering the Roots of the Prussian Mindset
Before the Beehive – What the Classics Were
In trying to condense the journey from where we were to where we are today, I apologize for moving so quickly through well over several hundred years of undermining our educational system. So let’s start with what came before, for those who could afford it, which was called the Classics:
“The Classics or classical studies are the study of classical antiquity. Classics also includes Greco-Roman philosophy, history, archaeology, anthropology, art, mythology, and society as secondary subjects.”
This was then replaced by the progressive educational system, which merely masked a method for slowly changing the Classics into the Prussian Educational System, under the fashionable cover of agendas we have heard for well over 100 years – summed up as “to modernize.” This Prussian System, as stated in my earlier work titled “Cossacks or Cowboys,” showed that the oligarchies want people who will do as directed with no guff. If you look closely at many of their symbols, found in Masonic forms, you will find many bees and beehives in their artwork. A hive, or ant farm, is made up of 99% female insects that obey blindly, acting on smells (instincts and chemical hormones). For our fellow citizens, this has likely evolved into a slightly more sophisticated form of emotional manipulation.
Prussia was among the first countries in the world to introduce tax-funded, compulsory primary education. In contrast, in France and Great Britain, Prussian compulsory schooling was not successfully implemented until the 1880s.
“The structure of American schooling, 20th-century style, began in 1806 when Napoleon’s amateur soldiers beat the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena. When your business is selling soldiers, losing a battle like that is serious. Almost immediately thereafter, the German philosopher Fichte delivered his famous ‘Address to the German Nation,’ which became one of the most influential documents in modern history. In effect, he told the Prussian people that the party was over, that the nation would have to shape up through a new Utopian institution of forced schooling in which everyone would learn to take orders.
So the world got compulsory schooling at the end of a state bayonet for the first time in human history; modern forced schooling started in Prussia in 1819 with a clear vision of what centralized schools could deliver:
- Obedient soldiers to the army;
- Obedient workers in the mines;
- Well-subordinated civil servants to the government;
- Well-subordinated clerks to industry;
- Citizens who thought alike about major issues.”
- John Taylor Gatto, the New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year whose book “Dumbing Us Down” remains the most widely read critique of compulsory schooling in the English-speaking world.
Now, such an effort to reduce the population to mindless bugs could never be publicly stated in Western countries as the true goal of what was afoot. Let us examine, in isolation, some of the key leaders in the US who drove these changes and see this mess in the guise of reforms for the supposed social good. I will centre this first article on the US education system, with occasional shifts to the anglosphere educational systems.
The Pietistic System – Traditional Christianity Undermined for Future Goals
Pietism, a reformist group within Lutheranism, formed a political alliance with the King of Prussia, based on a mutual interest in breaking the dominance of the Lutheran State Church. The Prussian Kings, Calvinists among Lutherans, feared the influence of the Lutheran State Church and its close connections with the provincial nobility (Junkers), while Pietists and Freemasonry were persecuted by Lutheran orthodoxy for a time.
One key to Calvinism is its allowance of usury, and this played a part in their efforts to appear as more militant Christians in other areas to compensate for their obvious “money lending at interest” trumping the Bible. As with the militant Wahhabis in Islam, we also have the moderate Sufi wing in Islam, and thus, between the two wings, changes can be managed to use the Hegelian Dialectic between the two sects in any religion much faster.
Although the Pietism movement was later aligned exclusively with Lutheranism, it had a tremendous impact on Protestantism worldwide, particularly in North America and Europe. Pietism originated in Germany and emphasised “personal” transformation (self-help) through spiritual rebirth and renewal (like the ever-changing Phoenix-like transformations in occult circles). It also emphasised individual devotion (with no need for liturgy, synods, or historically consistent theological priests), since few people could read and thus followed their feelings, as we see today, with all roads leading to emotional venues and programming by gurus. Has any Protestant church remained true to its original form, or have they constantly shifted to being either Humanist or Zionist supporters to some degree?
Later, nationalism would be done away with as we see today, leaving only the bankers and their monopolies, with all multinational industry under the investment control of Vanguard or BlackRock. For undeniable proof of this, please see the documentary “Monopoly: Who Owns the World” by Tim Gielen, listed in the Further Reading and Watching section below.
Pietism is also used, outside its cult-like religious foundation, to describe “an emphasis on devotional experience and practice,” an “affectation of devotion,” or “pious sentiment, especially of an exaggerated or affected nature,” not necessarily connected with Lutheranism or even Christianity. This is a recipe for all future cults, where the blind following of gurus or “state scientism” is orchestrated to prevail in the very long term.
Pietism had a strong influence on contemporary bohemian artistic culture in Germany at the time, though it is unread today. The Pietist Johann Georg Hamann was influential in his day. Chancellor and General Hindenburg used to call Hitler the “Bohemian Corporal” because of the tag it had in those times for new-age artists over traditional stoicism.
Traditional churches were suspicious of pietist doctrine, often viewing it as a social danger because it “seemed either to generate an excess of evangelical fervor, and so disturb the public tranquility, or to promote a mysticism so nebulous as to obscure the imperatives of morality. A movement which cultivated religious feeling almost as an end in itself.” Françoise-Louise de la Tour stated, “pietist mysticism did less to reinforce the moral law than to take its place… the principle of ‘guidance by inner light’ (illuminati) was often a signal to follow the most intense of her inner sentiments… the supremacy of feeling over reason.” This movement, as we can see, reeks of Gnosticism/Venetian/Jewish efforts to weaken yet another traditional church.
Now, if we try to follow the endless names that are offshoots of this guru-centred method or the socialist, atheistic forms of scientism, we would have to follow fashion trends with a passion and thus lose focus on the key points of the dumbing-down agenda. Let’s instead pass through the waves and waves of spiritualistic movements of so many kinds that have been used to Fabianistically move the population through the educational system and media, making us all not metaphysical giants but emotive bugs for the new hive.
Frederick the Great – Masonry’s Hidden Hand
First, please note the old painted portraits you see in museums, history books, and online, in which the subject’s hand is hidden beneath his clothing. Understand that this was not a fashion statement of the time but a way for Masons to show their colours, like a gang member. The hidden-hand paintings reveal the real backers of Marx, Napoleon, and many others. Today, you see endless methods to cover one eye in fashion magazines, the music industry, and so on.
The Prussian Education System was established under the direction of Frederick the Great (a homosexual and head of the World Free Masonic Order), which explains why England and Prussia were in bed together at this time. Frederick the Gay often had a hissy fit when his soldiers would not do as ordered, including shooting civilians, including women and children, because some of his soldiers at the time had traditional philosophical or classical training, and almost all had the dominant Christian morality learned in traditional churches. Old Gay Fred the Great also ran away like a coward at his first battle, only to later find out his army had won, showing that wanting others to kill is often related to an inability to do so in a fair fight yourself. Roman historical records show that wives in Rome poisoned their husbands and/or got a lover or slave to kill them, and this relates to the ways of submissive-aggressive types in our world today. So are the ways of the fox or weasel-type personalities, who cannot be upfront, prefer the shadows, lie, and distance themselves from actions for plausible deniability, found in these types? “They hide and lie when no one pursues them.” Such leaders have no mandate of heaven – or honour of men – to rule! So is the Kleptocracy of today.
Hitler idolised Old Gay Fred the Great, and Herr Hitler was up to his neck in what also came out of Germany and the English upper-class schools at the time, so named “the Prussian Disease” for gay soldiers of a less effeminate “Butch” kind. In France, it was also called the English Disease, and it was used as the first modern form of mind control for spies, dating back to the Egyptian priests and their all-seeing eye (anus). This also shows the oligarchical familiarity with some classical Greek armies and how some armies then used homosexuality in training, as they are using Wokism and homosexuals today. This centres on the understanding that a boy’s first pleasurable sexual encounter will lead to an addiction to it, like with porn on the Internet. They become unthinking slaves to their lusts. Love of God and true Christianity can save such lost souls, but subjectivism cannot.
Educational Destruction in Stages
Stage 1 – The New Mann
Horace Mann, in 1843, likely with funding from New England bankers, travelled to Germany to study how the educational process worked. When he returned to the United States, he incorporated his experiences into his advocacy for the common school movement in Massachusetts. Mann persuaded his fellow modernisers, especially those in his Whig Party, to enact state-funded public elementary education. Most northern states adopted some version of the system he established in Massachusetts, where the program for “normal schools” to train “professional” teachers – or, as critics would say, programmed teachers – used qualifications to narrow the education of teachers and, in turn, the students.
It was not until he was appointed Secretary of the newly created Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837 that he began the work that would make him one of America’s most influential educators, through his advocacy for the “disuse” of corporal punishment in school discipline, thus allowing many wild boys and some girls to run amok at the time. While in British elite schools, the cane, dorms (isolation), and fagging were used to train their future imperialists and, later, future secret service personnel. Most U.S. states adopted a version of the system Mann established in Massachusetts.
As Secretary of Education, Mann held teachers’ conventions, delivered numerous lectures and addresses, maintained extensive correspondence, and introduced numerous Prussian and later British reforms. Mann persuaded his fellow modernisers, especially those in the bankrolling Whig Party, to legislate tax-supported elementary public education in their states and to feminise (beehive) the teaching force. Most northern states adopted one version or another, establishing “normal schools” to train professional teachers. Please note that all the titles for reform packages, etc., were misnamed early on to hide the agenda.
By instilling obedience to authority and prompt attendance, which later led to bell ringing by future reformers, all under the false claim of helping students prepare for future employment, the questioning of authority – grounded in classical critical thinking – was marginalised and, over time, effectively banned as everyone increasingly became a teacher’s pet of some shade. This submissiveness to teachers went hand in hand with teachers’ submissiveness to those at the top. I have heard in my lifetime from kin and friends the phrase, “Just shut up and get the diploma.” There is no understanding of the cost of such pragmatism, as people who spend their lives receiving their status, wealth, and other benefits are unlikely to be honest with anyone about how deeply flawed their system is. They ask for less respect for themselves and for their ranks and invite questioning in ways they have never really dealt with. For the vast majority of these bureaucrats, “playing along with things as they are” is the default pragmatic position.
Deeper reflection shows that working with your family on your farm or in a family business during the early years of the Republic meant failing subjects because of poor attendance at the time, and Pavlovian responses to bells prepared you for factory work after you could no longer work on the farm. There was no flexibility in this system, as it was regimented as the Prussians had designed it. Co-op curricula, to earn credits outside of schools, could have been implemented through family farms and family businesses, as could religious credits earned by working with local churches to teach morality. None of this was used, as the goals were beehives; as with daycare, it was intended from its inception to separate children from their families.
As in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the clearances of family farms and clans created an oversupply of labour that manufacturers have sought to this day, and brought in Indian workers on visas and via overnight telephone lines to create the Indian software industry. Too many workers mean lower wages, and that is why borders are wide open in the West. Farms were the first main small business, and so, in the name of modernisation, they started to curb self-employment of all kinds. Recently, with Covid, you have the outright attack on small farms and small businesses of all kinds, with the Dutch and French farmers facing environmental totalitarianism that shuts them down so the multinationals can only produce GMO food.
The Mann faced resistance from parents in his time, who did not want to give up moral education to teachers and bureaucrats. The normal (public) schools trained mostly women, giving them new career opportunities as teachers, and keeping them away from marriage longer, likely causing stress from large groups of children who were not their own, and likely motivating many to have fewer children or none at all (win-win for depopulation). The Mann believed that women were better suited to teaching regurgitation and to connecting with feelings, regardless of their status as mothers, and used his position to advocate for a “feminisation” of the profession as early as the 1830s. The “Protestant work ethic” is associated with prioritising work over family, as time is a reflection of concern. In Japan, the population has declined significantly, as salarymen have little time for family and for producing and raising children. Educated women who work have fewer children, on average, because they conform to groupthink and fashion trends set by the popular/pop.
The practical result of Mann’s work was a quiet revolution in the approach used in Massachusetts’s common school system, which in turn influenced the eventual direction of all other states’ public-school systems to this day. In carrying out his work, Mann met with bitter opposition from some Boston schoolmasters, who strongly disapproved of his innovative pedagogical ideas, and from various religious sectarians, who resisted the exclusion of all sectarian instruction from the schools.
Direct Example – The 4 Ds: The Deliberate Dumbing Down Destruction of Phonics
Like many nineteenth-century reformers, Horace Mann believed that “children would find it far more interesting and pleasurable to memorise words and read short sentences and stories without having to bother to learn the names of the letters.” Instead of students being able to sound out words for themselves and thereby learn new words and read independently, they would need to be like students who study Chinese characters, learning each one as a whole. Thus, one of the greatest aspects of the English language – self-teaching – would be lost, and Western students would learn only the words they were told how to pronounce, thus be trapped in what they were taught, and not go out on their own. Here we present their agenda for direct action; other administrative changes may be harder to observe directly. Like Twitter/X now, in its only allowing enough letters (and emojis) for some words to be used, it is intentionally limiting vocabulary, for the serfs or slaves cannot rebel if they cannot articulate what is wrong. Whatever happens with Twitter/X, you lose, and they win for this fact alone.
According to a female useful idiot or oligarchic wannabe, Diane Ravitch – an American education historian and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education who has oscillated between supporting and opposing standardised reform throughout her career – condemned the alphabet method, calling it “repulsive and soul-deadening to children.” While Ravitch supported using both methods, a perfect female compromise on an issue that should not be compromised, the slow change has persisted to the present day, when people as high as university students are unable to read and write. Mann described the letters of the alphabet as “a skeleton-shaped, bloodless, ghostly apparitions.” Mann believed that “children’s earliest books should teach whole words, skipping the alphabet and the sounds of the letters.”
Your unhumble author, as a retired English teacher, says from experience that all the students I have taught using phonics have excelled, like a snowball rolling downhill, turning into an avalanche of learning and leaving the whole-word students in their dust. The oligarch’s motivation is clear. They encountered Chinese characters in Asia and observed how this limited independent scholarship and enabled an authoritative structure to overlay the less educated middle and lower classes.
Stage 2 – John Dewey, the Rockefeller Lackey
Dewey’s educational theories were presented in a series of works including “My Pedagogic Creed” (1897), “The School and Society” (1900), “The Child and the Curriculum” (1902), “Democracy and Education” (1916), and “Experience and Education” (1938).
Dewey sought to distance himself from reforms that provoked backlash, a theme that persists in education to this day. His “child-centered education” and the use of education to bring political and social change have continued throughout this period as well. Dewey was a committed Anglophile, a wannabe British neo-Hegelian. Of course, psychological pragmatism was used to push the political child-centred agenda, as the phrase “child-centred” was designed to make people opposed to centring on the child be… anti-child?? Dewey acknowledged that education and schooling were instrumental in creating social change and reform, yet the stated targets and the “real targets” were completely different. Dewey covered for the oligarchs by linking the ensuing economic depression to a “lack of sufficient production of intelligence, skill, and character” among the nation’s workforce, rather than blaming the fat cats. “Let no crisis go to waste” was not invented in the 21st century by Rahm Emanuel. Dewey argued that teacher-education programs must shift away from a focus on producing proficient practitioners, because such practical skills in instruction and discipline can be learned over time through everyday schoolwork with students. This was, in effect, saying that teachers would learn like animals and therefore had to re-invent the wheel, rather than being taught how to avoid problems from the outset. At this stage, they were later taught political agendas, as the door was opened to top-down control over how teachers taught and disciplined. Dewey, to his masters, advocated U.S. participation in the First World War on behalf of England. Anglophile till the end.
Randolph Bourne – an American radical journalist and cultural critic who broke publicly with Dewey over the First World War, arguing that Dewey’s pragmatism had no moral compass when it mattered most – rightly argued that instrumentalism’s preoccupation with moral ends and proper means forgot about values. Pragmatists like Dewey and his big-bankster backers, who uncritically focused on process and efficiency, did not care about quality of life. The youth, Bourne wrote, “were trained to execute on events but not to contemplate the intellectual worth of their outcomes.” Bourne said of his former mentor, John Dewey, and other socialists of his generation, including Samuel Gompers, Algie Martin Simons, and John Spargo, that he “excoriated his generation’s intellectuals as lacking a philosophy of life aside from connecting pragmatic means to ends: They are vague as to what kind of society they want, or what kind of society America needs, but they are equipped with all the administrative attitudes and talents necessary to attain it.” They were, of course, creating pencil-necks who would follow orders and show their diplomas as a pass to higher status and ranks in the new bureaucracy.
As an atheist and secular humanist, Dewey participated in a variety of activities throughout the late 1920s and 30s, including serving on the advisory board of Charles Francis Potter’s First Humanist Society of New York (1929), being one of the original 34 signatories of the first Humanist Manifesto (1933), and being elected an honorary member of the Humanist Press Association (1936). As the media was next on the list to be controlled.
Stage 3 – Destruction of the Last Vestiges of Masculine Education: The Frankfurt School of Socialists and Zionists
Most educated conservatives are all too aware of the Frankfurt School and its destruction of education, the family, and the social order by deracinating all concerned, so I will not go into much detail here. I must point out that at this point in the process of using the original Prussian Educational Mindset, there was a distinct turn from making people who followed orders, and even died for their country, into a new set of instructions that glorified effeminate behaviour in all its forms, with the rationalising subjectivism through the lens of, say, a Woody Allen-like kind of cowardice, consumerism, and selfishness.
Although it was presented as the next stage, it was framed as a rejection of the previous Dewey Stage in the US, when the Frankfurt School’s next stage was introduced. Instead of being admitted as a pre-arranged, prepared replacement within the same social programmers’ progression (Hegelian Dialectic/false opposition), it was again said to be in opposition to the earlier one. Dewey was said to be a utilitarian and instrumentalist, thus contributing to the “administered world” that the Frankfurt educators and their Frankist masters supposedly abhorred. More irony is added to the mix, as both Dewey and Horkheimer (1986) claimed that Dewey was responsible for the German idealist and individualist tradition that brought on the Third Reich. So am I to understand that… “Ideals and individualism” lead to totalitarianism, not the Mann and Dewey regimentation and emotional encouragement of the education system, or that the Jewish-filled authors of the top-down Frankfurt School’s System, which further removes critical thinking and brings even more emotive students, were not to blame at all? The saying “the devil is in the details” supports this assertion.
This was simply the next step toward a Hegelian unruly wing in student education, opposed to a secretly emotive, regimented education on the other wing. Between the two, you get what we have today in Anglophile public schools and in more and more private schools, except for the true elite ones.
Instead of the communists and fascists being shown to have been financed by powerful economic forces in the West to destroy the German and Russian states in WWI, the blame rested with the Frankfurt School and Frankists “on families headed by strong patriarchs.” This, along with the communists and socialists targeting the bourgeoisie (the middle class) instead of those at the top, helped break resistance to their growing bankster control of the media, political institutions, and educational system of the USA.
At each step in this long process, the wilful young males often gave up on the system, especially when fewer fathers were present in their families. That is why sports became so strong in school systems: to keep boys in school and better program them. We must never forget that “bravery” is suppressed within these institutions (the beehive). Traditional cultures worldwide have rituals that mark the transition to manhood, involving acts of bravery demonstrated to the tribe and family. In the beehive, drones try to mate with the queen (genes are used) and are then discarded. The real progress of the hive is stagnated for the sake of a passive workforce. Our restless males of the past would go to war for the same system that was trying to dumb them down, or join crime groups that were slowly controlled from the time of the Opium Wars, or gotten rid of in the long term. As in the movie “The Godfather,” “So Michael, you are going to die for strangers instead of your family in the army… You putz.” During the 60s, this new Hegelian step was introduced to enable critical thinking to challenge traditional ideas, a task that could not be achieved within the bureaucracy alone. Hippie students were used to changing the curriculum from both below and above. Critiquing communism was discouraged to facilitate the more rapid elimination of traditions. Soldiers in the army would lose another tie to the civilians, as they would now fight for their fellow soldiers and, unknowingly, for deep state oligarchs. The divide-and-conquer methods involved hippies spitting on soldiers returning from a psychological war at airports, which involved the Phoenix Program and the control of the hippie music industry. Evilness at its core.
Rationalised Cowardice
The Prussian-Frankist Education System was gradually introduced in the West, but its purpose was to instil in learners an instinctive, emotive, regurgitative, and, above all, passive attitude toward authority figures. Women, on average, have better verbal skills and enjoy retelling emotive gossip, so they are bound to excel at repeating verbatim what they are taught and are less adept at deductive answers that the teacher does not tell the student outright. This is why jobs are being filled in the new reset system by women and Woke types, as they make better bees and will work for less as long as their sexual preferences are accepted as normal.
When women gossip, they do not question the source of information, as doing so would undermine goodwill and risk receiving gossip directed at them. This is why women do not question ideas from authority figures and/or peer groups of other women, and it is why educators are coming down with feminism and woke ideas “top-down” – not the other way around. Feminism did not succeed originally because women did not want to work in factories. Most of the women in that original generation, exposed to it, had female kin who had recently escaped the drudgery of such labour in industrialised urban regions of the UK and the US, or had worked in backbreaking farming. Most of the women voted against giving women the right to vote when the establishment tried to test it in voting, as they saw through the feminist propaganda. Ultimately, this led to the granting of the vote to women without their full input or majority support, as men refused to allow women to vote. This, of course, has been deep-sixed in the history books, but you can find these facts in the book written by anti-feminist and Orthodox Christian Rachel Wilson, under the title “Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women’s Liberation.”
It was the world wars that disturbed strong men, brought women into the workforce and into a male-like lifestyle, and left them less happy at home later with a man who was distant mentally due to shellshock. Such vets often relived the gruesome deaths of fellow military buddies during the day or in their dreams, and knew their wives would be unable to deal with such fears, as wives were merely terrified of being the brunt of local gossip. Please remember that during the war, women who worked in factories were mostly surrounded by other women, so they had not really experienced the much harder shoulder-to-shoulder working conditions with men. At every stage of women being brought into male roles, like in war or police duties, the system sheltered them with lower levels of stress, as it did by giving single mothers huge levels of revenue from budgets. This had to be demanded by the Kleptocracy because any wise politician would prefer revenue, and single mothers have been a huge drain, and the simple solution was not to encourage divorce. Again, this issue was Astroturfed.
I once tried out to be a police officer and experienced this firsthand. They had a machine that resembled an unusual weightlifting apparatus, set at the average inmate strength (male and female inmates combined), and it was very easy for the men. When the women tried the machine, a few failed, and others struggled, but they were allowed to continue on to be cops regardless of not meeting the mere average strength of both male and female inmates. Ultimately, their male counterparts, the police, will bear the burden and endure the dangers of a partner who cannot handle her half of the responsibilities.
There is one plain elephant in the room with all this Prussian-based education we are receiving, as it is regurgitative and thus dooms those who adhere to it most. What is the one thing that can regurgitate better than any human, take any job that centres on holding information in a non-critical manner, and spew it out upon request from those who edited it, and at any given time? You are likely looking at it right now. Your future rests on doing things that a computer cannot. AI can never become human, as it will always be programmed. It is your job to be your own programmer, and it is best to start with God, the one thing those who are trying to program you hate most. False religions are the opium of the masses, not the real one in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Women Cannot Teach Boys to Be Boys, Let Alone Men to Be Men
An example of female instincts and how they follow their peer-group instinctively is as follows:
Women still use the washroom with other women due to safety concerns that persisted in earlier periods. In tests, when human urine was placed around a campsite, female urine attracted predators from miles away. By contrast, the same predators would not cross male urine tracks and generally kept their distance from the markings, depending on the level of testosterone. This is why healthy, robust male animals urinate on high points of trees to be detected from farther away. This also explains why weaker individuals are generally uncomfortable around strong men, even when the strong men are not aggressive and behave normally. Women become attracted to strong males only for a small portion of their menstrual cycle; otherwise, they follow media and peer-group influences.
Women go to the washroom together because, in the wild, many women look out for each other (many eyes), while others squat, which is obviously advantageous, but it also often mixes urine, so predators have a harder time determining whose urine is the weakest. In addition, it is hard to gauge which female is on a menstrual cycle (as in blood) and, most importantly, who has just given birth, as there would be many female urine points in the same area. It has been this way for a long time, but women still go as a group today because they feel safer, even though the washrooms have been for females only until recently.
Aside from rats and spiders in the toilets, restroom threats have been limited. Instincts have thus trumped thinking, as fear and comfort are more powerful than common sense, and washroom activities are not naturally conducive to companionship. Males in the washroom always prefer spacing between them, but will tolerate closer spacing. Women go to the restrooms to talk gossip, too, but why should they? Are they not forthright in their expressions at the table with others outside the bathroom, or are there still more fears in this world not to speak up about directly, or is it simply that indirect is the preferred form of communication?
Like zebras’ stripes, in a mass herd, they confuse predators about which one to bring down. We observe a trait among most women: a tendency to conform to the group at all costs. It would be important to understand that in nature, the vast majority of fellow females do not help each other when being chased or taken down by predators, as they are selfish when it counts. Some women are more noble in protecting children, but with abortion and careers, children are becoming less important to many. Running away to get someone else (a cop) to risk death for you hardly changes the facts for your friend, who will be suffering between the time you run to get a cop and the time the cop arrives.
The addition of Wokist Washrooms (unisex) to the mix, therefore, has the clear target of making women, girls, and young boys instinctively fear the washrooms even more, as I suspect “porned-out” males will enter, using an alphabet soup of pronouns to make politically correct women and non-politically correct women even more hysterical about the issue. Women who feel secure think more logically; therefore, making them feel insecure makes them think less and feel more.
There are many examples showing that women follow their peer group more, and so our weaker males will follow the herd with them to make themselves, and/or their partners, feel comfortable in the short term. The Calhoun Experiments – behavioural experiments conducted by American ethologist John B. Calhoun in the 1960s and 70s, in which overcrowded mouse and rat colonies collapsed into passivity, social withdrawal, and reproductive failure, providing a much-cited model for the effects of social engineering on populations – show that oligarchies know how to pull our strings, as they have implemented many of those results by spoiling youth, and we have our own generation of mice that groomed themselves endlessly, avoided all disputes, and have no need for families.
Long-term protection of the family is for males who recognise what is occurring, and can take the brave unpopular actions needed to prevent it. With both a 50% decline in sperm counts and testosterone levels, and estrogen-mimicking chemicals in everything, it seems someone wants to turn males into “Yowa Mushi” – Japanese for cowardly scattering bug(s). For details on the chemicals affecting males, please see the video referenced in the Further Reading and Watching section below. Wokism and feminism were designed as a crutch for the effects of these chemicals in males, and to misdirect any anger from those affected by the oligarchies, to instead blame other males. If someone notices their low testosterone, they may think, “Good, because it is toxic anyway!” Taking on other men at lower levels of life, rather than those at the top, is, in itself, a pragmatic approach for women. I have always wondered why feminists never target the most powerful patriarchy at the top of the Kleptocracy? Is it because many of them hope to marry one?
If we are to see the new beehive for what it is, we must understand why 304 women have been useful idiots in turning normal males into more effete males. The oligarchies have used the arrogance many women have for their own emotive ways to turn males and boys into effeminates, making themselves feel more comfortable, gaining more control over their family’s males, or simply because they do not bother to understand themselves or men, really. Men cannot resist what is happening, with a wife seeking to placate a system bent on culling them. Women need to wise up fast and see the state media’s endless flattery for what it is! The state has become the biggest pimp of all.
First-stage feminism declared that women wanted to be respected for their minds, and any strong male would be attracted to this, as a wife who can be logical is a plus to any family, as long as she accepts that it takes much study and action to test bravery and really be a person who uses logic properly in a brave way. Otherwise, women will use logic to pursue and argue for emotions, which is an inversion of a Philosophical Soul.
What the later stages of feminism brought is just another form of a weak male in a female’s body. In the male world of the past, weak males with big mouths got hammered until they wised up or died, as non-stop barking out challenges met with takers. As in the Calhoun Experiment, male rats exhibited 3 types: some never fought (consistent with the female form in humans), some always fought (insecure boys with excessive new testosterone), and some were selective about when to fight (mature, strong males). People who think they are undefeated in our world, where you can say anything and be arrested if you choose to fight physically about it, are dysfunctional and are teachers’ pets and/or class clowns run amok. Shooting someone with a gun teaches nothing to the dead, for in the past, fistfights were seen by many onlookers and reported to everyone of concern, and often led to changes of many kinds in individual people’s behaviour. It led to dealing with bullies outside the authority figure system, which meant much more, as you had to be truly vulnerable and therefore truly brave. Now, tattle-tails become snitches and later Karens. It is no surprise to me that Karens have come from our educational system, as they think they have authority figures’ ears to back them up. Female teachers tolerate snitches more than male ones do. Busybodies of the past were mostly spinsters, and so were thought of poorly by the town, and were connected historically to witches, as told in the book “Witches, Feminism and the Fall of the West” by Edward Dutton – a British evolutionary anthropologist whose work traces the correlation between the decline of Darwinian selection pressures and the rise of dysfunctional social behaviours. There were social punishments for words that led to ills that were tracked back to women, and many such verbal aggressors had to wear what was really like a muzzle, that held their tongues, that brought heaps of social shame when they had to walk around with it on, that was a warning to others not to cause disruption of the social order by using lies to cause riots, murders and traitorous actions.
In such a world, with no logical debate, women and weak men can be undefeated in their ideas, as few know how to debate logically and how not to follow their emotions. There is no one to set them straight, and, in fact, the state promotes false theories in education to tell them they are superior and to suggest occupations they can pursue based on how hard they pursue the programming. Any man of my generation, and those prior to ours, can remember such a loud, stupid male who would never stop with his BS and who was often punished for it until he learned to smarten up. Guys who fought each other sometimes became best friends as they hammered out respect. The vast majority of modern feminist women simply remind me of weak men, and most certainly turn me off of them fast, as the weakest men have always done to strong men. Young boys need to be taught to be men so as not to deter strong men. No man wants to take under his wing a loudmouthed fool who does not want to learn anything from a strong man, but prefers only women because he can get sex from them. The claim that men are afraid of a strong woman is silly. “Faking it till you make it” is not from the male world; it came from Hollywood.
A humble, self-effacing woman is like those philosophers who were self-effacing, and it is admirable. If she admits her fears to those she trusts, she is still better than the young boy or weak man who says he is not afraid of anything to cover his insecurity. So it is with feminists, but much worse. Feminists today are delusional about their fears and their logical fallacies. The first act of philosophy is to “Know Thyself,” and you cannot hide these flaws from strong men, whom women should want as mates. Such strong men do not want to be ruled by a pretty fool, let alone an ugly one who does not even know that trying to falsely act stronger and smarter than you are to a stronger man will never work. We see through the paper tiger.
Most women have simply tried to take the best of the old-fashioned ways of women and the best of the new, fashionable feminist ways, at individual levels that vary from woman to woman and often from mood to mood. In addition, you are expected to know this without them even saying so. Ridiculous. Thus, it becomes impossible to read the tea leaves, as weaker males spend their waking hours trying to guess how their girlfriend or wife feels that day, just as these flawed males learned from their single moms to cater to mommy. Obviously, this is a full-time job for the weakest males, but it keeps most out of what is going on in other areas, and therefore, they become as pragmatic as their women are. Such weak males and women are no threat to the powers that shouldn’t be, and, as said, fake it till they hope they make it.
In the end, there is a dumbing down, but also a cowering up! How can anyone take a logical course of action if one is afraid to do so? Intelligence is negated this way.
If the estrogen mimickers found in our environment were an unnatural mistake, coming from many products and their leakage, would we not see correspondingly unnaturally high levels of some testosterone mimickers as well, leading to truly more masculine women and men in some percentage? Testosterone is found in steroids for sports and in the contraceptive pill to prevent women from getting pregnant. So in this testosterone case, we have low levels of targeted exposure that cause depopulation, as males who use roids suffer from even higher rates of impotency, but not found like estrogen in the environment in any shape or form.
If women and girls were exposed to testosterone, would they be less eager to get a boy-toy band pop star look-alike? Would they put up with the state taking their children in any way, shape, or form, or would they go to war with it and demand that any weaker male man up. Instead of seeking men with dark-triad traits for wealth, status, looks, and clothing, they would seek men who matched their more direct, fearless approach to life. They would prefer more lion males and fewer foxes. So if you feel that such male hormones could never have leaked out, as the estrogen ones have, you will be in violation of the rule of contradiction. You are not following the normie path out of logic and science, but because of fear and emotions. The system is Satanic, as it is trying to play god, and anyone playing god will then see themselves as god, and the results will not be very pretty, even for those women who wish to see more estrogen as a good thing, as more female-like traits can only be a good thing for a society bent out of shape to be a hive.