Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods,
“And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
“Horatius at the Bridge” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay.
While the words are stirring and many fantasize about going out “in a blaze of glory”, life rarely works out like that. Ignominious death tends to be the order of the day. In the poem, the bridge had to be torn down and someone had to buy time for that work to be done. Enter Horatius into the annals of history. Everyone gets that and occasionally someone has to hold off the enemy while the bridge is torn down in order to save the town. But what happens when it becomes obvious that it’s time to burn it all to the ground? While destroying a bridge in order to keep the invading army out of the town is one thing, what happens when the problem is the town itself? As was once allegedly said in Vietnam:
It was necessary to destroy the town in order to save the town.
There Are Always Consequences
Hubris is an amazing thing. We begin with some powerful men who decided their industrial nation needed a suitable workforce that would maintain it’s place in the grand order of things. The goal was a vast multitude of drones who would toil away in their factories doing mind-numbing repetitive work without complaint. Strikes were a major fear of the owners, the idea that their workers would rise up and demand more. Even more of a fear was the great boogie-man of overproduction. It’s not difficult to slow down or even shut down a factory in order to adjust to demand, but how does one shut down millions of people who are producing independently in their own homes?
The idea was if men were intellectually dumbed down and properly “socialized” they would be easier to control and happier as individuals. They would be socialized and standardized as compliant consumers, not independent producers. They could easily be distracted by entertainment and encouraged to conform to the thought leaders. They would follow the party line and even if they couldn’t, they’d find another party and hold to their socialization and conditioning.
John Taylor Gatto, an award-winning teacher in the New York City public schools for almost 30 years, detailed the history of the plan to dumb down the population in his magnum opus, The Underground History Of American Education. The book was available for free on Gatto’s website for years and a PDF copy can be found online in lots of places. In fact, given how freely The Underground History is available, you’re an idiot if you don’t get a copy and read it. Seriously, no review can do justice to that book. Anyone who has grown up in the Western World needs to read it in order to understand what was done to them by the school system.
The grand plan was gradually implemented and the population was dumbed down over a period of some fifty years. In a later collection of essays titled “Weapons Of Mass Instruction” Gatto further hammered home the point that the modern school system was designed not just to manipulate and change behavior, but to harm the intellectual development of children. Especially boys. The primary goal of the system is to produce standardized consumers, not individual producers.
The designers of this system were uniformly men and they created it for the purpose of controlling the population. They admitted as much and they wrote about their goals (repeatedly, at length) in no uncertain terms. It was a long, slow fight to take control, but eventually it was done. But there are always unintended consequences. By the early 1970s the system was finally in place… just in time to instruct all those young women going through college getting degrees in education. Because women were entering the workforce in droves. Naturally, one of the first work-spaces flooded by women was the public school system.
Women At Work
Several hundred years ago a secretary in a business enterprise was invariably male. The question might be posed, why did this traditionally male job become female? The reason is the nature of the information a secretary is exposed to. All too frequently a male secretary, after learning all he could about the business that employed him, went into business on his own to compete with his former employer. That was a problem that had to be solved. Women are far more submissive to authority and far less ambitious. They are willing to work for less pay as well. And, there are other benefits of having female secretaries, as attested to by the presence of a couch in any executive offices.
Schoolteachers, however, are not secretaries. They tend to function as unsupervised or mostly unsupervised managers of their own classroom, responsible for teaching their students. While a secretary is (as a rule) directly supervised and managed, schoolteachers are rather independent in comparison. And while there are innumerable examples in the media of one-room schoolhouses being run by a woman, the truth is it was mostly a job held by a man. Yes, there were many women who were schoolteachers, but they tended to get married and leave teaching to have children. Men tended not to be teachers for long either because their ambitions led them elsewhere, but schoolteachers were traditionally men.
One of the principle aims of the new system was to consolidate the schools and segregate the children first by age, then by class. Standardization was the key and docile workers were needed for the great industrial economy. This began with industrialized schools. At the critical elementary levels, women were preferred over men for the same reason women were preferred as secretaries. Because women are willing to take less pay and principally because many women wanted to only work part-time, the pay scale for teachers stagnated to the point of decline. Male teachers began to seek employment opportunities elsewhere. While the management was uniformly men (Principal and Vice-Principal), the institutional schools became more feminine.
The Tipping Point
Did those men have any idea that this would happen? Through control of the schools, feminist ideology gained control of the next generations and in addition to dumbing down the children, especially the boys, schools became “beta factories” that destroyed masculine dominance and confidence in boys, shaping and “socializing” them into more feminine and docile creatures.
The vast majority of the population has no idea how the school system operates and what its real objectives are. I’ve recommended Gatto’s “Underground History” book for years and I always know when someone actually reads it. Anger is the predictable response. They get angry when they learn what was done to them. Interestingly, the other response is complete rejection. A family member (who was at that time a high-school math teacher) read half of it and stopped. He told me Gatto was “obviously crazy” and the book was “complete nonsense” and he refused to read any more of it. That was over 20 years ago and he’s gradually changing his mind on this, but it was interesting. The facts are irrefutable, but the idea his chosen profession was actually injuring children was too much for him to bear so he rejected the facts in favor of his feelings.
While many point to the “feminized” classrooms and their influence on the development of boys, they don’t understand the nature of what they are seeing. The compulsory school system was focused on the destruction of individuality and intellect; the destruction of masculinity was simply a byproduct of that.
They Got What They Asked For
The primary consequence of putting women in charge of anything is masculine men will flee from a female dominated space. Being creatures of the herd, women are particularly susceptible to group-think in which a few dominant individuals steer them in any given direction. This has been consistently true in terms of politics as well as with respect to feminism.
Men and women are not the same, they are not equal and they never will be because that is how God created mankind. That is objective truth. Yet, the central thesis of feminism is to deny that. Any argument of equalism is an attack on men and it always has been.
It no longer matters. The population was dumbed down and not capable of rationally dissecting the arguments of feminism, or of rhetorically destroying it in the marketplace of ideas. Because women are more than 50% of the electorate, easily swayed by emotions and powerfully influenced by the fear of being shamed, feminist ideals became both law and public policy. This demanded the school system do a better job of “socializing” the boys with the express goal of destroying masculinity that threatened to dominate the “equal” girls.
A war on men developed that has reached the point that masculinity is now officially known as “toxic” and must be stamped out. And yet, while women are attracted to strong, masculine, dominant men, the system they don’t understand is working hard to destroy the boys and prevent any masculine dominance from developing in young men. The end result is women looking around and then asking “Where are all the men?”
Men have been dropping out in droves, sometimes in interesting ways. A recent survey found that over 20% of the young men between the ages of 20 and 29 were not employed and had not held a job in over a year. The survey specifically excluded students. When asked why they were not employed, a common response was “what’s the point?” Over 70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are currently unmarried. Perhaps if asked why, their response might also be “what’s the point?”
Inmates Running The Asylum
An MIT professor, Langdon Winner, makes a disturbing point in his book Autonomous Technology, which echoes Neil Postman’s conclusions in his book Technopoly: We’re screwed because a problem has been created for which there is no solution. In the following citation from Autonomous Technology, Winner states:
Society is composed of persons who cannot design, build, repair, or even operate most of the devices upon which their lives depend … people are confronted with extraordinary events and functions that are literally unintelligible to them. They are unable to give an adequate explanation of manmade phenomena in their immediate experience. They are unable to form a coherent, rational picture of the whole … all persons do, and indeed must, accept a great number of things on faith … their way of understanding is basically religious, rather than scientific … The plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child … [but] Citizens of the modern age in this respect are less fortunate than children. They never escape fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world their senses report …
A question arises… what happens when things break? A better question is what happens when things break and the trained, qualified men are not there to fix things? Can the average man get the job done? No.
Having dumbed down and feminized the men, how does one recover from systemic failure? With a system firmly cemented in place that will continue to inflict damage on each successive crop of children, how does the population escape from this?
The simple but sad answer is that it doesn’t.
Catherine Austin Fitts wrote a fascinating essay called “Narco Dollars For Beginners” that introduces one to the narco-dollar economy. Once one understands the narco-dollar economic model we have today the incredible level of corruption becomes understandable. How do we cure this problem? To end the laundering of narcotics profits through the economy would take down everything.
Consider the question of what really caused the 2008 financial crash… then consider that the real answer is the Mexican drug cartels pulled their money out of the system following the Wachovia Bank money laundering scandal. $378 Billion was laundered through Wachovia between 2004 and 2007, according to the DEA. When they dropped the hammer on their investigation they seized $110 million of “dirty money.” The cartels said “OK, if you want to be like that, you won’t get our money” and they stopped laundering their money through US banks. That dried up the liquidity in the system and caused the financial crash of 2008. Did you hear about this? No.
How many people were prosecuted for money laundering in an institutional operation that laundered $378 Billion dollars between 2004 and 2007? Not a single person. Wachovia bank was given a ridiculously small fine and after that was quickly acquired by Wells Fargo in the midst of the financial crisis of 2008. Remember Jeffery Skilling and Enron? What Enron did was completely insignificant compared to what Wachovia Bank did. Assuming a 5% profit on laundering the drug money, Wachovia made a profit of $4.725 Billion dollars a year for a total of $18.9 Billion dollars for that four year period. What was their fine? A paltry $160 Million dollars.
Did the media explain this? Not really. Not in the United States. This NBC story implies Wachovia Bank only laundered a few hundred million. However, when one looks at the foreign press, a much clearer picture of what happened emerges. And not a single individual was prosecuted. That’s a hell of a war on drugs, isn’t it?
Consider the question of what happened on 9/11. I’ve written about it before and when considered in light of the evidence, certain conclusions are inevitable. So, why did only one person consider the evidence, out of all those with the knowledge and training to ask the right questions? Read Gatto’s books and understand the true purpose of the educational system. Why did everyone ignore the critical evidence, the lack of rubble and debris, that was before their eyes the entire time? The population has been dumbed down.
We have experts like Sir Ken Robinson, who talk about education and reveals that it’s been proven: the school system kills creativity. It kills curiosity. He’s not shooting from the hip, he has studies that prove it. Yet, like every other person who calls for education reform, he seems to have no idea how the schools got the way they are.
The school system we currently have is effectively unchangeable under our current political system. Gatto has demonstrated this conclusively and his only solution is to flee from it and homeschool children. Unfortunately, homeschooling children almost requires an intact family with both mother and father working together in the same home. Yes, there are examples of so-called “single mothers” homeschooling their children and the famous example of Arthur Robinson homeschooling his children, but these are exceptions that practically prove the rule.
The ongoing destruction of families by the divorce industry demands an approved and blessed public school system that will warehouse the children who are invariable given to the mother in the aftermath of the divorce. Homeschooling is out of the question. The fractured economy that has seen real wages stagnant for over 30 years now practically requires both mother and father to work in order for the family to purchase all the things they don’t need and can’t afford.
There are no political solutions, as we understand political solutions… because what everyone forgets (or never learned) is that war is simply an extension of politics by another means. There are a great many theories about how the US empire will end, but very few of them take into account the incredible frustration and anger that is building up among men. Especially men who have been abused by the system.
At this point there are only two ways to change the system. One requires an incredible, brutal, limited war on women for the purpose of terror. It would require a battalion-strength force of highly motivated killers who were trained to operate as independent teams of 5-7 men each. The goal would be simple: terrorize women into voluntarily removing themselves from the rolls of registered voters. Could it be done? Absolutely. If it was done it would completely change the character of the United States.
It’s also true that the likelihood of such a group being recruited and trained by someone with the funding to do it is extremely low. 600 men, all killers? Even if that could be accomplished, the odds of such an operation being mounted without being infiltrated and shut down by the US security apparatus (which is quite formidable) are extremely low. Which means the odds of this happening are approaching zero. Should we believe in rainbow-farting unicorns as well?
The second way is if a platoon-sized group of men decided the system can’t be fixed and the best thing to do is burn it. Burn it all to the ground and start over. Which, of course, sounds preposterous. How could a group of 30 men do that? As it turns out, the infrastructure is rather fragile and it would not be difficult.
It is a fact that a platoon-sized group of motivated men could take down the power grid in the US and when that happens, it’s TEOTWAWKI. Consider the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines that are suspended way up high with steel towers. A little thermite applied in the right spots will drop those towers and cut the power. Done correctly in a coordinated manner, the result is a rolling blackout. Hydroelectric and nuclear power plants can be isolated from the rest of the grid.
With no power the supply chain breaks down quickly because fuel isn’t pumped and trucks stop rolling. Which means the food on the shelves is all that’s available, and most stores are closed due to lack of power. With no power the pumps don’t fill water towers. How long does it take for the municipal water system to lose pressure?
With no food and no water the most well-armed civilian population on earth will go nuts. What always happens in conjunction with looting? Fires. Which will draw down the municipal water supplies right when the pumps are not replacing it. And all those guns? They’ll be getting used. Police will come under fire wherever they go. Will power company crews work in a war zone? Highly unlikely. Will truck drivers take their loads into a cauldron of looting and killing- even if something manages to get the fuel flowing? No. Who will unload the trucks?
With no power and the population going nuts, where do the police get fuel? Who feeds the police and their families? With so many incidents happening all at once the standard swarming tactics will not work. With police coming under fire just for showing their faces, how long will it be before they go home to protect their families?
Thirty men? That can be done. The system has generated more than enough men who have lost everything and are willing to cheerfully burn it all to the ground. Given the fragility of the infrastructure and supply chain along with the ease of making thermite, that’s a death sentence for the US.
Which one will happen? My vote is on #2 of the above scenarios. There will be no spoiling action, there will be no plan to save the US, it will be an action by a few to burn it to the ground.
Is that pessimistic? No, it’s reality. There are always consequences.