by Miles Mathis
First published November 6, 2015
My title is taken from Christina Hoff Sommers' 1994 book, in which she questioned mainstream research that girls were at risk and being shortchanged in American culture. She is perhaps most famous for analyzing rape statistics, showing they were manufactured. I read the book when it came out and it struck a chord. It confirmed what I was experiencing, both with young women and with the statistics I was being fed. She became a minor hero for me in the mid-90's and I quoted her to friends, recommending her book. After a long pause (of about 20 years), I mentioned her research in a recent paper, which caused me to return and read her books again. This time I bought and read her follow-up book from 2000, The War Against Boys. While her research and arguments again start out looking good, this time I began to notice something lacking. My suspicion was raised by the back cover, where the book is praised by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. I asked myself why these spook mouthpieces would be praising arguments that were undercutting one of their main projects. It didn't make sense.
To say it a different way, Sommers was sold as counter-mainstream back then, so why would mainstream sources be selling her? You will tell me the US market is open to all opinion, this being a free country, but in most ways that simply isn't true. If the Washington Post is promoting Sommers, you can be sure they aren't doing it as a matter of equal time, fairness, or to prove the freedom of the press. The Post has been called the CIA's own newspaper, and the CIA does not promote its own opposition—except in the case that it has manufactured that opposition.
Once I got further into the book, I could see the answer to my question: like Noam Chomsky and Tom Wolfe and many others I have recently exposed, Sommers appeared to be controlling the opposition. I left open the possibility that in 1994 and 2000 Sommers just didn't see who really stole feminism, but that possibility became more remote the more I analyzed her text and her bio.
To see what I mean, I take you back to my late analysis of Chomsky. It took me over two decades to see that his book Manufacturing Consent utterly fails to tell who is manufacturing this consent. In fact, he consistently misdirects us into thinking the one doing the manufacturing is the media. And while it is true the media is manufacturing, Chomsky never asks the question begged: who is controlling the media, and thereby ordering the manufacturing of consent? In fact, Chomsky takes great pains to lead you away from the obvious answer. Since the media is just tool, someone must using that tool. We know the CIA is using the tool, since they have admitted it in Congressional testimony and declassified documents. But even that doesn't take us to the source, since the CIA is also a tool. In cases like this, the CIA is a tool of the Plutocracy that runs this country. It is a tool of the trillionaire families controlling public policy.
In the same way, Sommers consistently misdirects us. She asks “Who Stole Feminism?” but utterly fails to tell us. She makes those such as Carol Gilligan and David Sadker the bad guys, without ever once admitting that university researchers like this aren't the top of any food chain. While I despise the obviously bought research of people like Gilligan and Sadker, I remind myself they are bought. Therefore, I should despise those buying them even more. And when it comes time to point the finger, we should point it at those paying for fake research, not those getting paid.
What I soon realized is that I had uncovered yet another instance of misdirection, one where we were being offered two paths that were both manufactured and false. We had one set of writers being paid to push one idea, and another set paid to push the opposite idea, when once again the truth was on neither path. Both ideas were being promoted to subtly force you off out into the bushes, while the truth was hiding behind door number three.
Sommers is promoting the idea that girls aren't in a crisis: they are doing just fine. She tells us they are doing better than boys in almost every way. While they probably are doing better than boys in the ways Sommers describes, her statistics also appear to me to be pushed. Her conclusions don't fit the obvious experience of anyone with eyes. That experience confirms on a daily basis that neither boys nor girls are doing fine. Everyone in this culture is traumatized, and from my research over the past decade it appears they are being traumatized on purpose. This includes boys and girls, men and women, of all ages and all races.
Sommers is correct that girls in the US are now more privileged than boys in many ways, and usually have an even greater sense of entitlement, but this doesn't mean they are doing fine. It doesn't mean they aren't traumatized. In fact, it is this false sense of entitlement and privilege that keeps them from seeing exactly how they are being traumatized, and by whom. Because they are so coddled, they miss seeing that their cage is growing smaller every year.
In her first chapter Sommers provides proof of this, without admitting she is doing so. Only a careful reader will see the clues. Here is one:
Surveys of fourth, eighth and twelfth grades show girls consistently reporting that they do more homework than boys. By twelfth grade, males are four times as likely as females not to do homework. Here we have a genuinely worrisome gender gap, with boys well behind girls. [p.29]
But Sommers is pushing her interpretation just as much as Gilligan or Sadker. As you see, she reads this statistic as a worrisome gender gap, and implies we need to get boys doing more homework. Is that the correct interpretation? No. Why not? Because most homework is busywork and much of it is now propaganda. My interpretation of that statistic is that girls are more easy to control, are more likely to believe lies, and are more likely to buckle to government propaganda. In which case, the boys refusing to do homework begin to look like little revolutionaries. I see the statistic as a sign of hope. If we are going to intervene, it would be to help the girls see through the propaganda, realizing that homework is often a complete waste of time. No, it is even worse than that: homework is now being used to massage the throat and make the blue pill go down nicely. That is worse than a waste of time: it is death in slow motion.
Another thing I draw your attention to is the word “reporting” in that last quote. The homework statistic is based on self-reporting, which means it is basically meaningless. That girls are reporting doing more homework is no indication of how much homework is actually getting done. Maybe girls are just better at convincing these statisticians they are doing homework. Maybe boys are more honest. Maybe boys don't think it worth their while to lie about such a thing, while girls do. Unless we know how honest each and every one of these self-reporting children are, we know nothing about how much homework is getting done. Given the levels of honesty in current US culture, statistics based on self- reporting mean nothing to me. I would put as much trust in the self-reporting of Monsanto or British Petroleum as would put in the claims of these children. Which is to say: ZERO. Do you believe your child when he or she says the homework is done, or do you ask to see it? Then why do you put any trust in these statistics?
Upon further study, I also began to see that Sommers argument is just a subtler variation of the “boys are inferior” argument that we have gotten from many female authors over the years, including Anna Mulrine in her 2001 USNews article “Boys, the Weaker Sex?” Although Sommers appears to be defending boys and masculinity in general, her statistics all confirm the inferiority of boys. For instance, Sommers repeats the statistic that girls outperform boys in tests of artistic and musical ability [p. 25]. Her footnote for this is a 1997 NAEP statistic. But like all statistics, this one is easy to misinterpret, and Sommers is misinterpreting it. She uses it as another indication boys need help. However, we all need reminding that this statistic—even if true—is based on an average. It means the average girl outperforms the average boy at this level of schooling. It includes the whole set of performers, not just the best. But, especially in art and music, that isn't the way to read a statistic. The average musician at age twelve (say) is awful, and it simply doesn't matter if the average girl is marginally better than the average boy. The only ones that matter are the top performers, since they are the only ones likely to make careers of art or music, or to keep playing or creating later in life. And if you limit the statistic like that, you find it reverses. At the top, boys are ahead of girls in both music and art. Sommers and Mulrine and the rest even admit this. Like lefthanders, boys skew to the high and low end of statistics like this, while girls skew toward the middle. Boys and lefthanders tend to occupy the lowest and highest percentiles. Being both a male and a lefthander, I have kept up with the statistics on this, since they naturally interest me. And, being a male in the top one percent, I naturally feel an obligation to defend myself and my comrades. Nobody else is lobbying for us, so I have nominated myself. I had long thought those such as Sommers and Camille Paglia were defending us, but I have finally woken up from that dream.
Many reading this won't understand what I mean, and I know that. They will think to themselves, “Who needs to lobby for the top one percent? Don't you people have it made, male or female? It would be like claiming we need to lobby or intervene on behalf of the top one percenters in income. It is ridiculous.” But I didn't say I was in the top one percent in income did I? Please keep up. I am actually in the bottom ten percent in income. The truth is, someone in the top one percent “has it made” if and only if he does what he is told. That is true of us all. And the one percenters who don't do what they are told are targeted like no others.
For more indication Sommers is misdirecting, we can return to her bio, where we find a nest of red flags. Sommers is a resident scholar for the American Enterprise Institute, which couldn't be a redder flag. AEI was started back in the late 1930's by top financiers.
AEI’s founders included executives from Eli Lilly, General Mills, Bristol-Myers, Chemical Bank, Chrysler, and Paine Webber. To this day, AEA’s board is composed of top leaders from major business and financial firms. [Wiki]
It is a top fascist think-tank in other words, promoting their various policies of middle-class ruination and financial depredation. Beyond that, Sommers has appeared on Oprah, 60 Minutes, Nightline, and the Daily Show, and has written for TIME, the New York Times, Slate, Huffington Post, and the Atlantic. These are all propaganda bullhorns, fully owned by the same financiers who own everything else.
But back to AEI. There are some things you need to know about it. One, a first founder of AEI was Lewis H. Brown, who was at the time president of Johns-Manville Co. The company was the top producer of asbestos in the US, and as its head Brown was responsible for the massive 40-year coverup of the dangers of asbestos. To keep its disabled employees from talking, the company's attorney offered them compensation packages worth $600. This at a time the Fait Act required at least $12,000 in damages for such workplace injuries. When the coverup finally became public in the 1970s, the company crashed, filing the largest ever bankruptcy in 1982. It is now owned by Berkshire Hathaway.
You should also know that AEI has been heavily funded by the Pew Trusts. We have seen the name Pew come up several times in my recent papers, since many of the people I have outed have been funded by their fellowships. The Pew money came from Sun Oil, and the name has been linked to far- right or fascist causes since the beginning, including the John Birch Society and the Brookings Institution. Joseph Pew despised Roosevelt and the New Deal and spent a lot of money to unseat him. In this capacity, he may have been involved in the coup against him. He is known to have been involved in the Smedley Butler plot against Roosevelt in 1933-4 (as you can see by hitting that last link to Counterpunch), since that plot actually made the papers. But he may also have been involved in the 1944 plot I have uncovered evidence for in my Kennedy paper. Either way, it is known he and other Plutocrats (DuPont, Rockefeller, Mellon, Morgan, Heinz, Remington, Litchfield, and Bush) wished to replace Roosevelt with a new government modeled on Hitler or Mussolini. So you see I am not using the word “fascist” in my papers lightly. Hitler and Mussolini were fascists.
AEI is also linked to the Koch brothers, top current billionaires and fascists. You have also seen them in recent papers, since I discovered that Penn Jillette was a Fellow of the Cato Institute—which is a front for the Kochs. AEI has been secretly funded by the Kochs through DonorsTrust, and this was revealed by research by the Center for Public Integrity.
AEI has been against raising the minimum wage. It is against financial regulation, claiming the 2007 meltdown wasn't caused by deregulation but by “government housing policies”. It was one of the leading architects of the Iraq War under Bush, denying that the war had anything to do with oil. AEI has also been a top defender of Big Tobacco. AEI is linked to the Carlyle Group, Dick Cheney, Merck pharmaceuticals, American Express, and Coors.
So that is who has promoted Sommers as a resident scholar. With that new information in mind, we should look at Sommers in an entirely different light. Sommers tells us she is defending her son with her books, but it looks to me like she is defending and promoting her bosses.
This doesn't mean I am switching sides. I am not going back to Carol Gilligan and gender feminism, I am just getting off Sommers' side. I am looking for the truth on the third side, as usual.
It now looks to me like Sommers' assignment was to make her readers think boys needed encouragement and support from society, bringing them back into the fold. Instead of denigrating them in favor of girls, boys needed to find the same sort of nurturing given to girls. That argument seems so natural and intuitive, no one would dare contradict it. But contradict it I will. I am not going to argue that boys should be denigrated, of course. I am not going to argue that war should be waged by feminists against boys. But I am going to argue that Sommers' solutions are all blue-pill solutions. She wants boys to be “beneficiaries” of the same sorts of government programs as girls, and thereby the same sort of “encouragement”. That is the last thing I would wish on boys. And the reason is, it is the last thing I would wish on girls. There is a war being waged against both boys and girls, the only difference being the sort of war being waged. The masters of the MATRIX understand that one battle plan works best for boys and one works best for girls. So moving the boys over into the battle plan for girls isn't the solution.
Encouraging boys to do more homework isn't the solution. Encouraging them to read more books written by spooks isn't the solution. Getting more of them into colleges isn't the solution, since the colleges are now run by the spooks as well. In other words, socializing boys more in any way isn't the solution, because “socialization” has been replaced in the past century by ever greater levels of brainwashing. To my eye, all of Sommers' statistics in favor of girls are only indication girls are brainwashed in greater numbers and to a greater extent than boys—which is nothing for women or girls to crow about.
The best thing we could do regarding both boys and girls is to get everyone off their backs. The government and media need to be taken out of their lives completely and they need to be re-integrated back into a functioning home. But those behind the big think tanks like AEI don't want you to see that, because that would take a huge market away from the financiers. Notice that Sommers never pushes you in that direction, either. Her answer isn't to desocialize children and allow them real freedoms. It is to hyper-socialize boys in the way we have done with girls—with perhaps a nod to their “differentness” and masculinity.
And this is another place her thesis falls apart. You can't nurture masculinity in any climate of hyper- socialization. The type of independence both girls and boys need isn't fostered by any government program, not on the federal level or even the local level. It isn't even “fostered” at home, strictly speaking. Independence isn't fostered, it is allowed. Obviously, the most independent child will be one left alone to a great extent to form his or her own opinions about the world. That child may then have something to add to society and civilization. A child “fostered” at every point and during every waking moment can only turn out to be a slave of some sort.
We have more reason to be suspicious of Sommers when she takes the 1999 Columbine shooting as given in her first chapter. This book was written in 2000, before most of us started realizing these things could be faked. That was before 911, and at the time I hadn't a clue. So it is possible Sommers would do things differently now. But we now know all such events are manufactured to create fear and confusion. They are a continuation of the old CHAOS and COINTELPRO programs, which have been admitted to exist by the FBI and CIA. We are told that although the programs were functional in the 1960's and 70's, they have since been mothballed. You shouldn't believe that. Today's programs have the same earmarks as the old programs, so anyone awake should make the logical working assumption that the old programs are still alive—though perhaps under other names and under other departments. In the same way, the logical assumption is that Sommers knew this and was hired to insert Columbine into her early chapters. It is in her second sentence. This helps continue sell the event, as well as to make use of the event for the reason it was staged: to make us fear our children, distrust one another, and break up the family even further.
If Sommers had since begun to speak out against manufactured events, I might consider the possibility she was unaware of them in 1999. But she hasn't and so I don't. I wouldn't assume anyone of her intelligence could miss all the signs of them now, in 2015; so if she is still not talking about them, she is most likely an accomplice.
We also have indication of this from the timeline. Sommers' book was published in 2000 and Columbine happened in April of 1999. The references to Columbine don't look like late additions, which indicates the book was written quickly and rushed into print. It normally takes longer than that to write a book and get it on the shelves. Since the second book is slender and repeats a lot of the research of her first book, it might not have taken that long to write. However, to me it looks like it is possible the book was written expressly to play on the manufactured Columbine event.
In chapter 6 “Save the Males”, Sommers eviscerates Dr. William Pollack's 1998 research on the boys' crisis, showing it was most likely manufactured to bring attention and dollars to McLean Hospital at Harvard. This is why I liked her back in the day: she is very good at stuff like this, and I enjoy watching these fakes like Pollack take a tumble. However, she again drops the Columbine story like a famous name, without ever looking analytically at the event itself. But she goes beyond that this time, also dropping the names of Susan Smith and Melissa Drexler, two others involved in fake events. [See my papers on Charleston and on Gabby Giffords for more on Susan Smith.] This is more indication her book is not what most think it is.
Sommers arguments against Pollack are good. She shows how boys were demonized by Columbine and the multi-year media circus afterwards (which is ongoing to this day). But her solutions turn out to be just a different flavor of fascism. She recommends we let boys be boys—that is, be stoic and reserved if they wish, even to the point of “repression”. She also recommends we re-introduce competition, allow male-only events and classes, and so on. In other words, go back to the past. But while in some ways this would be better than what we have, it again ignores all the most important considerations and facts. In addition, it looks to me like a military solution to the problem, and I wouldn't be surprised if the military suggested it. If there is resistance to the new feminine fascism, go back to the old masculine fascism, where men were completely formed by top-down control by other men. But this manufactured debate isn't even worth entering: we can't go back to the past in this one way, since the world isn't what it was in 1950, much less 1900. Unless the huge propaganda machine hovering over the heads of both boys and girls is disassembled, it won't matter if boys are quiet or talkative, competitive or cooperative, masculine or feminine. Neither boys nor girls will have a chance of physical or mental health in a world run by corporations and dominated by liars and psychopaths. In the end, it doesn't matter if boys are squashed under a masculine or feminine fascism: either way they are squashed.
For instance, Sommers recommends the new regimen of Great Britain in dealing with boys, which includes “strict homework checks, high expectations, a structured environment, frequent testing, and consistently applied sanctions if work is not done”. You see what I mean by a return to the old fascism. Sommers admits boys are not doing well, and her solution is to strap them to the old grindstone. This indicates to me someone is well aware of what I said above about boys being revolutionaries. They are reading these statistics like I am, but their response is not to disassemble the MATRIX. It is to crack down on these boys who aren't saluting the program with enough fervor.
And guess what? Although we were given the impression back in the day that Sommers was in the minority, standing nearly alone against the mainstream, miraculously all the things she recommended were almost immediately done. In her second book, Sommers admits that the mainstream has come over to her side in many ways and in a very short time. Although we were told that her first book was savaged by feminists—and that we are to understand feminists are in control of all government bodies—somehow it created huge shifts in policy nonetheless. Given her ties to the American Enterprise Institute, that should no longer surprise us, but those readers limited to the data in the books would find it unexplainable. And the same thing happened with her second book, policymakers almost immediately incorporating these ideas into the US system. Schools are now cracking down on boys (and girls) in unprecedented ways, including lockdowns, chainlink fences, zero-tolerance policies, suspicionless searches, and even unannounced drills—in which schoolchildren are terrorized by police running through the halls with real guns. If you think any of this is helping our children deal with trauma, you must be taking too much Zoloft.
And the excuse for turning our schools into detention centers has been the very same series of fake events Sommers helps to sell in her books. We have seen these military-style crackdowns in schools based on the various Sandy Hook shootings and Boston Marathon bombings—which never happened. Like Columbine they were manufactured to create fear and confusion. The “conspiracy theorists” have told us these events were run to pass gun laws, but I have shown you that was also a smokescreen. Somehow, the gun laws never end up getting passed, do they? No, what the events were created to do is to sell more guns. Gun sales have gone up like never before, and guess who is making all that money? The same bastards running the hoaxes. The trillionaire investment groups have bought up all the gun companies in the past 15 years, so they are happy to see you stocking up on weapons and ammunition. But the fake events are also used as an excuse to keep schools and society at large in a permanent lockdown and in a permanent orange-alert. These events, culminating in 911 but never- ending since then, are what have allowed for the Police State you and your children now live in. They have allowed for the illegal searches, the illegal detentions, the illegal confiscations of property, the Orwellian free-speech zones, and the overall gutting of all your Constitutional protections. They have allowed Congress to pass all sorts of unConstitutional “laws” by which the government and its stooges can do whatever they wish, with little or no recourse to the courts—since they have also been bought. If Sommers were really concerned about protecting her son, or creating a world in which he could exist productively, she should have addressed this. Without addressing it, all her smaller concerns and arguments come to nothing.
You will say the book comes from 2000, prior to 911. I will be told I am judging Sommers based on 15 years worth of hindsight. That argument might hold water if Sommers had since extended her comments in any substantive way. She has continued to publish on related topics, but her social critiques have grown in no real way. Like Camille Paglia and many other “intellectuals”, she appears stuck in the 1990s, refusing to address the incredible events of the past 15 years—other than to take them as given. To anyone of true independence like you and me, this must been seen as fairly astonishing. How could someone whose job it is to comment on society completely miss the main currents of the past decade and a half? She and I are both Phi Beta Kappa—in other words we are both top one percenters. Can I believe she simply hasn't noticed what I have noticed? Although she exists in the midst of it much more than I do, she hasn't seen the signs? Hasn't developed any suspicions? Hasn't noticed any contradictions?
As I said, that isn't believable. Her link to AEI tells us that she must know exactly what is happening and that she has made her peace with it in some way. Like millions of others, she has found a way to profit from the status-quo, and cannot thereby attack its greater manifestations. She can only attack those on the other side of some manufactured fence.
Another thing that indicates this disagreement is manufactured is Sommers' 2013 award from the National Women's Political Caucus. That should have astonished everyone involved in the debate, since it would be like the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan being given an award by the NAACP. By 2013, Sommers had (apparently) been attacking these mainstream feminists viciously for more than 17 years. So why would they be giving her an award? We are told the award was for her New York Times article of February 2 of that year entitled “The Boys at the Back”. However, that article hasn't moved one jot from her 1994 argument. Except for one thing: Sommers has agreed to change the subtitle of her first book, leaving the word “feminism” out of it. Otherwise she is still doing the same thing she was doing in 1994: sell same-sex classes, vocational training for boys, and “refusing to let them be inattentive”. Pay attention Johnny: the blue-pill will be forced down your throat one way or another—with coddling or discipline—take your pick.
We see more evidence of that in chapter 7: “Why Johnny Can't, Like, Read and Write”. There Sommers belittles the 1928 Child Centered School of Rugg and Shumaker, which helped do away with rote memorization, passivity in the classroom, and the authoritarian milieu that dominated schools up to that time. But again, we are being sold a false dichotomy. Neither the old way nor the new way has worked, but it isn't because children are now enjoying too many freedoms or too much creativity. The progressive format of Rugg and Shumaker should have worked, given a society that really wished to educate its children. However, we now know that hasn't been the case. The financiers didn't want an educated populace, they wanted a dulled-down populace too stupid to do anything but the work it was told to do and the shopping it was told to do. As long as the Plutocrats are in control of the schools, it won't matter what format the class adopts. The children can sit passively and chew on their propaganda or run around noisily while digesting it: either way, it is the same propaganda.
So once again, Sommers is pointing the finger in the wrong direction—I assume on orders from above. She is making these progressive educators like Rugg the fall guys, when they aren't. Yes, some of them have taken the whole laissez-faire idea too far, but we must assume they have also done this on orders from above. No doubt the Plutocrats embraced progressive education early on, seeing it could be bastardized far more easily than the old-style format. As with Modern art, once you start jettisoning conventions for any reason, you can keep jettisoning them until nothing is left. The early progressive educators suggested we remove some of the old rules as counter-productive, but the Plutocrats used that as an excuse to turn education into a free-for-all with no discipline, no context, and no content. This ensured students would graduate without knowing anything.
Rather than reverse that, and reintroduce content and context, Sommers proposes making a bad situation worse. Her bosses appear to want to reintroduce only the discipline. They want children memorizing the propaganda by rote, being tested on it, and being punished for refusing to do so.
Beyond that, this pushing of a return to same-sex education is a similar disaster. I don't believe for a moment that separating the boys from the girls will help either of them. Nor do I believe the idea is being pushed by Sommers to help boys. I didn't see it 20 years ago, but I see it now: separating the sexes is just another way to traumatize them. I now see that it has been part of the longterm project to isolate the sexes. If men and women are separated from eachother, mistrust eachother, and are constantly bickering, not only can they not make alliances or successfully resist the governors, they cannot even gratify one another in the old ways. As I have reminded you in recent papers, the financiers don't want males and females gratifying one another for free. That doesn't put money into anyone's pocket, does it? They want you purchasing porn and sex-toys and hookers and the various other sexual crutches of modern society. Those are billion-dollar industries—industries they now control. So of course they are going to push this return to same-sex classrooms.
The same-sex classrooms also help them promote homosexuality. In the old days, the same-sex classes weren't created to promote homosexuality: it just happened that way. Humans are adaptable creatures, and they learn to make do with what is available. But today the Plutocrats are promoting homosexuality, and it has to do with their plans for population control. It is a way to address overpopulation without passing Chinese one-baby laws and the like. Although compared to Europe and Asia, the US isn't really overpopulated, many of the top Plutocrats come from here, and they like to run their operations at home, necessary or not. Homosexuality is also being promoted because the governors believe gays are less likely to resist them. I don't know that is true, but I can tell you that belief drives part of the current project. The Plutocrats see most gays as they see women: more easy to control with emotional “arguments” and other societal misdirection. But since it would appear many of the Plutocrats are also gay, it is hard to understand their reasoning in this. They must believe there are two types of gays, I guess.
I don't know what goes on in the mind of these psychopaths, and so there is no point in getting into it further. The fact is, any fool can see they are promoting homosexuality, for whatever reason or reasons. What used to be a no-no is now a yes-yes. I see both promptings as equally curious. It seems to me that a healthy society would neither promote nor demote homosexuality. It is like trying to promote or demote blonde hair or freckles or thin ankles: it is the promotion or demotion that is unnatural and that can only lead to ruin of one sort or another.
But to get back to it, it looks to me like promotion of same-sex education is just another project of the financiers, supporting their longterm goal of isolating the sexes. Isolating the sexes and breaking up the family have been two of the top goals of the financiers for a century, and if we add destroying religion, we have the top three. All of these goals are easy to link to the financiers, since only the financiers benefit from them. It was discovered long ago that single people with no religion spend the most money, since they buy the most useless and compensating products. It is these products the Plutocrats specialize in. It is these products that have allowed for the incredible expansion of all markets in the past 100 years.
You will say this overlooks the marketing to children, but it doesn't. Single people can still have children, you know. The financiers love single mothers above all other entities, since they can then market to both the mother and child. It is a salesman's ultimate fantasy: two traumatized people guaranteed to traumatize one another for life. The list of possible compensating products is endless.
In chapter 8 “The Moral Life of Boys”, we get more clever misdirection. It is so clever it would have fooled me in 1995. It would have fooled me because it speaks directly to my old-fashioned sense of moral order and rectitude, as it was meant to. Sommers says we need to quit leaving children to their own devices and teach them morals again. I quite agree, in principle. When I argued for independence above, I didn't mean I thought children should be brought up in a vacuum. I just meant their entire days shouldn't be planned for them by financiers, fake do-gooders, and anal-retentive parents. Sommers says we should raise young men as gentlemen, but she once again sets up a false dichotomy. This time her fake debate is between Bertrand Russell (a spook), who claimed the idea of the gentleman was created by the aristocracy to keep the middle class in order, and James Q. Wilson, another spook, who countered that the concept of the gentleman enabled the middle class to supplant the aristocracy. Both ideas are outrageously false, and apply to both history and current society not at all. Looking at Wilson's claim first, we have to laugh. The aristocracy wasn't supplanted by the middle class. The aristocracy was supplanted by the financiers. It was the bankers and other billionaires who pulled down the Kings, not the middle class. And the financiers then supplanted the middle class, driving them down into the lower class. The middle class has never been a major player in the class wars, except as a great lump to be manipulated or drained. Russell's claim is equally risible, since the aristocracy didn't believe the middle class could be gentlemen. Those in the middle class weren't gentlemen by definition. A gentleman was someone who didn't have to work for a living. The middle class had to work for a living. That is why the aristocrats in Downton Abbey are always looking down their noses at those “in trade”.
So Sommers is simply mixing several definitions of “gentleman” to confuse the issue. Of course I agree with her that young men should be taught manners, deportment, morality, and all the rest. Both the US male and female are now vulgarians, and they could both use the right sort of education and discipline. I just can't convince myself Sommers or her bosses have any interest in this sort of education. In context, I have to believe the idea of a gentleman is being re-introduced for all the wrong reasons. I suspect the financiers want to raise the new boy as a gentleman to take the final fire out of him. He will be too polite to speak out and too concerned for his fingernails to fight back. I get this all the time from people sent into silence me: they lead with the argument that I am not modest enough. It is implied that a scholar and an intellectual does not raise his voice, get excited, or state things with assurance. Of course this is as the governors want it. They prefer to rule over the meek, so they sell meekness as the crowning virtue. I suspect the same thing is going on with this reintroduction of the “gentleman”. As with everything else now, it is sold as the opposite of what it is. Sommers sells it as a return to truth, high-mindedness, excellence, and virtue; but in practice it will be the fall into further depths of subservience, shallowness, and hypocrisy.
This reading of Sommers is supported by backing up a page, to a section she calls Rousseau in the Courts. Here she finds a way to twist both history and polemic, arguing students shouldn't have Constitutional rights to protest or due process. She tells us these court findings in favor of students (Tinker v. Des Moines and Goss v. Lopez) have caused the breakdown of teacher authority in schools. Is that true? Not even close. Again, I would have bought her argument in 1995, since I find the fall in school standards alarming. I have never been in favor of the “therapism” Sommers rails against, or the feel-good new-age relativism she also criticizes. However, I have since come to realize that none of these things came about in the ways we were told. We are told they arrived on the wings of the progressive 1960's, being promoted by hippies and other clueless leftists. Sommers repeats this old story. But neither the courts nor the leftists are to blame for what has happened to culture in the past 50 years. The idea that leftists are to blame for anything is absurd, seeing that the American left was killed back in the late 1800's. The left since that time has been a total creation of the financiers: a faux-left propped up to give the right something to appear to resist. That applies to the Marxists and all the fake leftists since then. In my research, all the top “leftists” turned out be fascists in disguise. See for example my paper on Ramparts magazine, where I show you that most of the so-called leftists of the 1960's soon reverted to being neo-conservatives. We are told this was a natural maturity, but the telling is not convincing. With a little hindsight we can now see the leftists of that time were just pretenders. I have shown you we find the same thing if we study the Beat Generation or the Lost Generation. What were sold to us as artists or marginal characters making their own way always turn out to be the sons and daughters of the merchant elite. I showed this was also true of JohnReed, the most famous US Marxist of the WW1 era, who was actually the scion of billionaires. Most importantly, I showed you it was true of Marx himself, also the scion of billionaires. You have been sold a false history from the beginning, and Sommers is just continuing the sale.
US schools weren't eviscerated by leftists and progressive judges, they were eviscerated by CIA fake events, federal programs designed by fascists, conservative thinktanks, and—at bottom—by the financier class who wanted a subclass so ignorant it couldn't tie its shoes, much less revolt in any meaningful way. By financier class I don't mean middle-class tradespeople, I mean the super-wealthy billionaires and trillionaires who got their wealth from trade. This includes the bankers as well as the owners of industry and other capitalists. These are the people that have been in control of all US institutions since before the Civil War. Since none of these people are or ever have been leftists, there is no chance US education has ever been determined by leftists.
So when we see Sommers attack these court rulings in favor of students, we can only assume she wishes take away students' right to protest and their right to due process. Does that sound like a step in the right direction? Do you think boys will be re-empowered by making the schools we have even more like prisons? More to the point, do you think the big financiers behind the American Enterprise Institute want to take away the rights of students to protest in order to help boys get back on their feet? Of course not. The fascists want to take away students' right to protest and to due process for the same reason they want to take away your right to protest and to due process: it makes you that much easier to control. They want you sitting in little free-speech pens surrounded by chicken wire and cops with AK-47's, just as they want your sons and daughters huddling in locked-down schools, patrolled by the National Guard and drug sniffed daily by attack dogs.
Chapter 8 is a goldmine in my exposing of Sommers. Every page I read is another notch she falls in my estimation. Let us return to the first page of the chapter. After belittling Pollack for demonizing boys in chapter 6, she demonizes them just as fully in chapter 8. To build up to her sale of morality a few pages later, she first has to show us how immoral the new boy is. She actually uses statistics from the American Psychiatric Association to convince us boys are suffering from a “conduct disorder”. I kept expecting for her to explode this manufactured disorder and the APA like she had Pollack and McLean Hospital, but she doesn't. She sells both with a straight face, expecting us to miss the grand contradiction. Right after that she borrows all the horror stories her earlier opponents used to demonize boys, including the Glen Ridge case and the Spur Posse. And she uses them precisely like they did.
The Glen Ridge rape case was used throughout the 1990's to demonize boys. In it, some high school jocks from a wealthy community allegedly gang-raped a retarded girl. The event was promoted with this dire warning:
What's ultimately most shocking about this crime is how ordinary it was, how predictable—how in one way or another it's happening now, all across America.
Our first assumption should be these events were faked like the rest, but regardless of that, Sommers variant interpretation hardly gives us a better picture of boys or men. She tells us,
The problem with these young male predators was not conventional male socialization but its absence.
As you see, boys are pretty well demonized either way. But with Sommers' variant interpretation, we are at least left with the possibility boys can be held in line with the moral equivalent of a bootcamp drill sergeant. She tells us boys are “barbarians” that have to be civilized. I hate to think that was her experience with her own boy. It wasn't my parents' experience with me, I know that for sure. Even in my terrible twos I was no barbarian. But wait, I remember Sommers saying something to opposite effect, either regarding her son or regarding all boys. Oh yes, it was in chapter 6, when she said,
We must bear in mind that Pollack is not talking about a small percentage of boys who are seriously disturbed and lethally dangerous. He is attributing pathology to normal boys, and his conclusions are expansive and alarming.
I'm sorry, isn't Sommers doing exactly the same thing in chapter 8, just 40 pages on? In bringing up Glen Ridge and the Spur Posse and then calling all boys barbarians who need to be civilized, isn't she being equally expansive and alarming? Actually, in doing this she isn't just being expansive and alarming, she is contradicting herself in spectacular fashion, self-destructing before our very eyes. She actually has the temerity to quote Janet Daley saying, “Boys must be actively constrained by a whole phalanx of adults who come into contact with them before they can be expected to control their asocial, egoistic impulses”. What? Doesn't that contradict what Sommers was telling us about her own son? Doesn't that contradict what you know of your own upbringing? Did you have to be constantly constrained by a entire phalanx of adults to control your asocial, egoistic impulses? I didn't. Like most, I wanted the approval of my parents and the adults around me, and therefore wasn't difficult to control at all. I required a minimum of discipline and learned readily. But regardless of my own experiences or yours, Sommers is contradicting herself in grand strokes. Claiming that boys are born with asocial, egoistic impulses (where girls are not) is equivalent to “attributing pathology” to them. Asocial impulses are normally categorized as pathological, since we would expect any higher animals to be social. Defining any humans as innately asocial would be like defining ants or wolves as asocial: it is both counter-intuitive and counter to all evidence. No humans are innately asocial, except possibly sociopaths. Sommers is basically defining the average boy as a sociopath in chapter 8, after defending him against that claim in chapter 6. Madness.
In this same chapter, Sommers not only mentions the Glen Ridge rape case, she gives us a three-page run-down of the event. Her account sends up so many red flags I think I will be forced to address it. See myaccompanyingpaper, published simultaneously to this one, where I show many pages of evidence it was faked by the CIA.
Before I wrap up, I want to return to Sommers' deconstruction of Dr. William Pollack. I mentioned him above, as connected to the McLean Hospital at Harvard. She showed that Pollack had jumped on her 1994 suggestion that boys were at risk, coopting it and turning it to the purposes of his Institution. In other words, he admitted that, like girls, boys were also in crisis. He then used that crisis to propose various kinds of intervention, mainly institutional, psychological and pharmacological.*
But the reason I returned to Pollack is that, like him, I am admitting both both and girls are traumatized. So some will ask why I cannot make alliance with either side. Well, I can't make alliance with Sommers, obviously, since she is denying either boys or girls are traumatized. She pooh-poohs Pollack's research by telling us that, like girls, boys would also be doing fine if the feminists and progressive educators weren't sitting on them. I have shown that isn't true, because even if the feminists and progressive educators quit squashing boys, boys would still be crushed beyond recognition by the Plutocrats and their tools in Intelligence. But the Plutocrats don't want you to see that. They have hired Sommers to make you think both boys are girls are just fine. If we were to believe her statistics and interpretations, we would have to believe that most people in the US were basking in great pools of self-esteem and confidence, troubled only by the occasional wrong-headed feminists. All we have to do is return to same-sex 1950's model classrooms and everything will be hunky-dory. Once we embrace her “equality feminism”, where boys are treated as equals and gender feminists stop repressing them, we will again produce the greatest workforce in the history of the world.
But with a little deeper digging, her entire thesis crumbles into styrofoam peanuts and blows away in an ill wind. I kick myself that I bought this crap in the 1990's. The US education system is broken, but it wasn't broken by feminists or progressive educators. Feminists and progressive educators have been just two tools in a much vaster project of societal ruination, and until we address that project and its authors, we will get nowhere on any given question of policy. The past two decades have given us clues galore about who those authors are and what they are really up to, and it is past time we stared the beast down. If we cannot look at him we can never hope to dodge his charge.
I also can't ally with Pollack, since although I agree that both boys and girls are in serious trouble, I have no interest in using that trouble to sell them pills, psychiatric or medical treatments, or a smorgasbord of expensive government programs. Boys and girls don't in fact have the troubles these people assign to them, and the causes of these troubles are likewise far different than the mainstream would have us believe. I can see that both Pollack and Sommers are creating problems, not solving them. In order to increase confusion, they are being paid to create one more fake debate, one where neither side ever speaks sense or tells the truth.
In conclusion, we see that once again both sides have been manufactured to misdirect you away from the real projects and the real players. Curious isn't it, that neither those in the manosphere nor those in the femosphere ever let on that the CIA exists, much less that the financiers behind the CIA exist. You would think the feminists would attack the Plutocrats directly, since a majority of them are indeed men. But you never see this, do you? You never see them attacking the men that really are controlling them and limiting their freedoms and mentally and physically abusing them. Why? Because those men really are controlling them. In other words, those women are being paid to attack punks in the manosphere as “haters”, not to attack the billionaire fascist paying their salaries. In the same way, those on the other side like Sommers also never let on that there is an unseen level of control beneath the waters they sail on. They always keep your eyes on the little eddies and never admit there is a great tide driving them all.
*That is another thing we haven't looked in this paper: the increasing drugging of children since 1990, based on these same faked events and the resulting studies that followed. It is just one more thing Sommers seems to draw your focus away from.
Comments