Ivan Pavlov, in experiments he was conducting on the digestive system of dogs, noted that the dogs would begin salivating when the technician who fed them came into the room. His interest in this was that salivation is a reflex action, not a conscious action. In further experiments, he found that the dogs could be “conditioned” to associate various stimuli, for example the sound of a bell, with food so that, when hearing the bell, the dog would begin salivating.

This, of course, is because dogs, like humans, learn by recognising patterns. The dogs, wanting food, were looking for any clues as to where and when the next meal might be coming from. Once they recognised the pattern of “bell rings, then food comes”, then the salivating reflex is brought forward from the time of seeing actual food to the time of hearing the bell.

The problem for the dogs, and humans too, is that the pattern recognition mechanism can be tricked, which should be obvious from the experiment. There was no logical connection between the sound and the food.

Psychologists refer to the phenomenon that Pavlov documented as classical conditioning.

But let me pose a question for you. What would happen if the dogs found a way to ring the bell…?

I’ve put in links to four articles recently published in The Age on Domestic Violence. The details vary, but there are five things in common with all four articles apart from the subject of domestic violence. I’d warrant that the following observations would be the same if you examined almost any other Australian major publication.

First of all, Domestic Violence is something that is committed by men only, and women are only ever on the receiving end. By their continual omission, female perpetrators and male victims simply vanish in a puff of ideology.

Secondly, they are as much about money as they are about Domestic Violence. The word “money”, however, is seldom used. Instead synonyms such as funding, resources, services, and “whole of government approach” are chosen to disguise the greed.

In all instances, government bodies and registered charities are described as needing more money to combat the problem.

And what a problem it is. The third theme is the moral panic. Words like “extreme”, “dire”, “epidemic” and “crisis” are commonplace.  The measures that are currently in place, we are told, are not working and the violence is uncontrollably on the rise.

Fourth, the statistics are mind-boggling. One-in-three are this and one-in-four are that. This many killed, that many in hospitals, another number in shelters. And that’s only the cases they know about. The violence is “under-reported” and there is even more violence that goes “unreported”.

And lastly, giving these experts, organisations and charities money will somehow eradicate Domestic Violence. Not just help a bit, or even help a lot, but get rid of it completely.

The classical conditioning happening here is on an incredible scale, on multiple levels and requires serious examination.

On the first and most obvious level, there is the classical conditioning that Feminist social engineers are attempting to apply.

The social engineers want to condition the general public to think “men = bad” and “women = victim”. Simultaneously, they are trying to conjure a more complex serious of connections between themselves and “rescuers”, which leads to an association of themselves with the utopian solution, and therefore finally a link between themselves and the status of being worthy recipients of funding.

The problem for these parasites, however, is that the proof is not in the pudding. Their difficulty lies in two main areas.

First, there is a disconnect between their claimed levels of violence and the real world.

Let’s ignore, for the moment, those like me who actually examine the statistics and give detailed accounts as to why they are corrupt, dishonest and plain wrong.

Most of the general public cannot make a real connection between the people they know and this world of “men bad, women good”. No one they actually know, man or woman, is only good or only bad. They all tend to be human, and most of the time are “mostly good”. Some men they know are more bad than good, but this also applies in equal measure to some women they know.

In other words, they instinctively know that it’s not true.

The sense of moral panic with the inflated statistics is therefore utilised to cover up that reality gap and silence any doubters. Similarly the constant referral to the “unreported” numbers with reminders that it all happens behind closed doors is to keep the lid on disbelief.

It is this moral panic that ensures that those statistic checkers I mentioned earlier keep getting ignored. We can’t get through the fear and paranoia.

The other fly in the parasitic ointment is that their work actually does nothing of value.

For those households with aggressive women, of course, this culture promotes and encourages their behaviour. Not only are they consequence-free while they commit their crimes, but they now have another weapon in their arsenal: the false accusation.

For those men who are violent in the home, the root causes simply vanish in another puff of ideology. Alcoholism, drug addiction, compulsive gambling and lives of crime no longer play a role in upsetting domestic bliss. Only Patriarchy is to blame.

And, of course, an alcoholic treated for Patriarchy will get just as drunk just as often and create the same havoc as before.

But stopping domestic violence is not the real aim of these Feminist do-gooders. It’s all about the money, Honey.

It is a part of the human psyche to rally to the defence of helpless women. This is a reflex action. And it is essentially this that the Feminists are trying to trigger. Hit the “save women in danger” panic button , and the help, in the form of funding, popularity or votes arrives.

But humans are much better at the pattern recognition game than dogs. They can see subtleties that dogs could not. So, they cotton on that the panic is not so real, or the money is not helping, or it is just lining someone’s pockets. In short, they realise that they are being tricked.

This means that the tricker needs a new sound to fool them: a different bell, buzzer, chime, or whistle.

This is where the real conditioning comes in.

Imagine if, instead of just salivating, the dogs were conditioned to do something really useful. Let’s say that ringing the bell caused the dog to go fetch something of value (money or some equivalent) and give it to the bell ringer. And, for the sake of simplicity, let’s imagine that the dogs’ behaviour is perfectly legal.

In a few days, each person in Pavlov’s laboratory would have their own private bell at home. By the end of the month, there wouldn’t be a house in Pavlov’s town that didn’t have an identical bell.

The same thing is happening here with social engineers, Feminism, gynocentrism and money.

One group makes some small connection between say, blaming men for violence at home and money. Other social engineers see the success and try to replicate it. In other words, they begin to salivate, so they go make their own bell.

They also want to make the bell work better, to get more money. So they try to heighten the effect of the bell by strengthening the conditioning. The more effective they are, the more money comes in, the more they and others salivate.

But, if more money is what they want, they can also ring the bell more often. And the more they do, the more they salivate.

In other words, the social engineers have become conditioned, to the point of addiction, to ring that Feminist bell.

And when the bell stops working they create another trick with another sound. Gender studies, abortion, rape culture, women in leadership, women in history, education, female genital mutilation, the list goes on and on.

At this point in history today, as the four articles clearly show, the level of addiction has reached the level of a Feminist Funding Frenzy.

And it’s only getting worse.








Recommended Content