Weinberg's statement reflected the prevailing cultural orthodoxies of the time, and the approach to youth culture that allowed the 1960s social revolution to occur so successfully - that the young know best: that they are heroic freedom fighters, overthrowing the oppressive prejudices of their dinosaur parents, inducting us into a brilliant and brave new world.
Of course, this is complete nonsense, and no successful society had ever previously held this position, since the young, by definition, haven't done much of anything yet, and so lack the life experience to make definitive social judgements about the direction cultures should take - hence, every society prior to the Western ones of the 1960s, had prioritised and respected the wisdom of older people who had lived full lives.
This was turned on its head in the 1960s, precisely because knowledgeable and experienced people would have been impossible to sell on the "wisdom" of 1960s so-called counter-culture (which was certainly not "counter" to the establishment, and was actually organised and bankrolled by intelligence agencies such as the CIA, but more on that later). All the social deterioration that's taken place since the 1960s - increasingly fractured communities, atomised people, and lonely lives - was entirely predicted by the older people of the time, if society gave way to counter-culture pressures, hence they resisted it.
The young - idealistic, impressionable, and inexperienced - were the ones sold on the ideas of alleged "freedom" - of rejecting traditional values in favour of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll - and so it was the young the social engineers targeted, instructing change agents like the aforementioned Weinberg to drive deep wedges between the generations, explicitly fostering distrust and hostility between the young and the old(er).
As I've mentioned before, "generation wars" are not natural and inevitable, and don't exist in societies that aren't exposed to the media and government schools. Pitting teenagers against parents is a modern, Western phenomenon, driven by the TV and subversive curriculums in government schools, aiming to constantly create division and friction in families with the ultimate aim of destroying their unity altogether.
This agenda has been very successful for several generations now, and has been magnified further by the current antipathy between Generation Z (born 1997-2012) and their largely Generation X parents (born 1965-1980).
The difference we see now, however, is that while Gen X may once have been fighting their own parents for more freedom and access to more liberal lifestyles, Generation Z appear to be campaigning for the opposite, aggressively policing their parents' speech to the extent many Gen X parents proclaim you "can't say anything" around them, and that - while the causes they campaign for may ostensibly seem "liberal" (transgender rights and so on) - their attitudes to this campaigning is extremely dogmatic and conservative, completely intolerant of any diversity or different views.
Indeed, Generation Z has been described as "the most conservative since World War Two", and it appears that they are far less likely to engage in typically youthful risky behaviours, such as binge drinking, than older generations. A quarter of them don't drink at all, and those in the 16-25 year old age bracket are far less likely to drink than those over 25. Moreover, and in sharp contrast to the "free love" climate of the 1960s onwards, adults in Generation Z are having markedly less sex than adults in their 30s and 40s.
This is a very notable social shift, where it is the older generations engaging more in typical "youth" behaviours, and the actual youth giving them an increasingly wide berth.
This shift appears rather perplexing to many members of Generation X, who can't understand why their children are such "squares", but it's obvious, really - if your parents are liberal, giving you free reign to go out all night drinking, smoking spliffs in your bedroom, and bringing "special friends" home, there's only one way you can rebel against that, and it's by becoming more conservative. If your mum is always the one two bottles of wine deep at the end of every family gathering, whilst your dad is smoking a joint whilst making off-colour jokes to Uncle Fred, a would-be rebellious teenager has to do the opposite. Doing exactly what their parents do, is, after all, the height of un-coolness.
I remember reading a 'joke' a few years ago, advising teenagers that, if you want to really shock your family this Christmas, tell them your life goals are to get a job, get married, and have children - the 'joke' being that this will be far more scandalous and shocking to many Gen X parents than the go-to life plan of, go to uni, go travelling, party, that they expect their kids to pursue (and that they often pursued themselves).
The joke works because it's true. A new generation war has emerged, and its foot soldiers are Generation Z, increasingly condemning the "libertine" ways of their parents and becoming ever-more conservative themselves... and that's precisely the social backdrop that has conspired to give us the likes of Andrew Tate, and an increasing number of very similar (and very popular) influencers.
Many of us only became aware of Andrew Tate courtesy of his recent high-profile arrest, but he has been meteorically well-known amongst the young - particularly young men - for quite some time, to the extent that every teacher knows his name, because the male students reference him so often.
I can't recall a time when a single individual was so well-known and so looked up to by so many teenage boys - even football heroes haven't typically attracted the kind of hero worship and status amongst the youth that Tate has - and doesn't it seem rather, ah, improbable that the worshipped hero, the 'Top G', for all these secular young British boys... is a fundamentalist Muslim?
This sort of seems to get swept aside when Tate and his influence is being evaluated, with commentators focusing more on his luxury lifestyle and pumped-up physique. But his beliefs are certainly not swept aside by Tate himself, who has made it quite clear he thinks not only that the whole world should convert to Islam, but that "regular" Islam, of the sort practised by most British Muslims, isn't good enough: that, and I quote, "ISIS are the real Muslims".
As any self-respecting theoriser of conspiracies is well aware, ISIS are a CIA/Mossad creation, designed to destroy and turn people against Islam, just as the nominally Christian "far-right extremist" terrorists are designed to destroy and turn people against Christianity, so please don't flood my comments with tiresome accusations of "Islamophobia" (or "Christophobia", for that matter, although that is one of the few phobias I've not yet been accused of).
The social engineers don't like either Islam or Christianity, as these are powerful unifying movements to those who belong to them, giving them a sense of belonging and meaning that tends to get in the way of their being "perfect" atomised, rootless worker-drones with no loyalties to anything but employer and state, and that is why social engineers have been agitating for decades to try and get rid of both (and in relentlessly trying to turn Christians and Muslims against each other).
They've been pretty successful with Christianity in the West, with, for the first time, a majority of people in the UK not describing themselves as Christian, and Church attendance at an all time low.
They have not as yet had the same success with Islam, and the ultimate goal is to fracture and destroy it, just as they have with Christianity, but they have to play the long game (as they always do), and that is where we're going with Tate, and similar influencers, who - whether they identify as Muslim or not - are expressing some very fundamentalist ideas, such as, men should not 'permit' their female partners to have any male friends - this is in line with strict Islamic teachings enforced in places like Afghanistan, that women should never be alone with a man they're not related or married to.
So, we currently have Tate as "persecuted hero", allegedly languishing in "Romanian hellhole prison", who will shortly be exonerated of this staged "establishment framing" against him, therefore seeing his already meteoric star, shoot into the stratosphere. (Please note that a lawyer - who is not a fan of Tate but was simply intrigued by the case - has gone through the case against him and ruled it completely flimsy and lacking in any real substance that could convict him.) To be clear: I believe Andrew Tate is nothing but an intelligence asset (his dad was CIA), a meticulously managed change agent, who is playing the part of "unjustly persecuted hero" to solidify his image as a martyr and therefore exponentially enhance his already considerable influence when he is absolved.
Tate has demonstrated unequivocally that being a fundamentalist Muslim with extremely regressive views about women, not only hasn't put the youth off him, it's actually proved a very popular position. It's not surprising: the degenerate insanity that now infests the nation's schools is enough to turn anyone into a religious fundamentalist, quite frankly, and that is by design. We were intentionally pushed so far one way, to manipulate us into pushing back the other.
About two years ago, a young woman named Meadow Walker, daughter of deceased Hollywood star Paul, set up a website entitled 'Everyone's Invited', encouraging young people to anonymously detail what they were having to deal with at school and college regarding sexual harassment and assault. The stories are quite horrendous, and it's not a climate that anyone who was educated in the 1970s, '80s, or '90s would recognise.
Thousands of young people agree with the statement that "rape culture is endemic" throughout education, and that many teenage boys are so "predatory", that even the teachers don't feel safe around them.
Equally, parents of teenage boys fear their sons will be unfairly accused of rape or assault, and have their lives ruined by false allegations from hurt or scorned girls.
Whichever way you look at it, it's patently obvious the current approach to "dating" amongst young people (if we can even call it that) is not working, leaving many hurt, confused, and increasingly desperate, and so, when someone like Andrew Tate comes along, condemning the current culture as libertine and degenerate and offering an alternative, he has a very captive audience.
However, he would not have such a captive audience if he tried to aim his message indiscriminately at everyone. Older people are a harder sell, because they have life experience and because their brains have matured (full adult brain maturation does not occur until age 25, with final 'pruning' going on until 30). Fully-fledged adults are able to say, " yes, we have some serious cultural problems that need addressing, but that doesn't mean we all need to become extremist fundamentalists and re-adopt archaic attitudes to women and relationships between the sexes".
Young people find such nuanced thinking much harder, as to them, things are very often "all or nothing". That's why social engineers targeted them to push the engineered 1960s cultural revolution through, and why they're targeting them again now. (It's also why the Labour Party is so obsessed with giving the vote to 16-year-olds: because they're much easier to manipulate than older voters.)
So, Andrew Tate and co are here to present a "solution" to our angry and disenfranchised youth, that will appear to help mend many of the social ills they are experiencing, in particular, their relationships with the opposite sex. This is the main preoccupation for most in the 16-25 age bracket, and what Andrew Tate is promising boys in this age-group must sound like manna from heaven to those who have struggled to ever form a meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex, and whom, not infrequently, did not grow up witnessing one in their own household, either. It is no secret that there are a lot of "lost boys" looking for a father figure, and that it was exactly this phenomenon that led to the incredible success of Jordan Peterson.
Interestingly, and not incidentally, Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate have publicly discussed the benefits of converting to Islam.
The point I am making is that Andrew Tate already has the devotion and loyalty of millions of young people - girls as well as boys - and so it will not be difficult for him to next convince them to convert to fundamentalist Islam. You may think this sounds far-fetched, but we have to ask the question of why precisely a fundamentalist Muslim, of all people, has been held up as the saviour-hero for teenage boys. He is, after all, quite a leap from David Beckham.
It can only be because he is meant to induct them into this world view - and, as I said, the long-game goal of this is to ultimately destroy the religion, by presenting it in such extreme terms that eventually there is an inevitable rebellion.
In effect, Andrew Tate will have the same effect on Islam that The Handmaid's Tale is depicted as having on Christianity. If you were a resident of Gilead, what would be the chances, once you'd escaped, of you remaining a practicing Christian? Obviously zero, as you would associate the religion with nothing but extremity, oppression, and abuse, and that is the same thing going on here, but to get people to eventually have that reaction will take time.
Youthful Generation Z are being set up - just as the youthful Baby Boomers were in the 1960s - to spearhead a cultural revolution that is made to look organic, but in reality is all being stage-managed behind the scenes. Their more conservative attitudes, their disdain of the liberal values of their parents, and the trauma many of them experience at school and college where it comes to interpersonal relationships, all make them prime fodder as foot soldiers in an ultra-conservative revolution.
You will note that in the New World Order blueprint, 'Imagine', where there are no countries (one world government) and no possessions (you will own nothing and be happy), there are also no religions.
But getting rid of religions - extremely powerful movements with millions of adherents worldwide - is not an easy task. It's taken the social engineers nearly an entire human lifetime to change the UK from the Christian country it was in 1945, to the non-Christian country it is now, and disabling Islam will be a similarly arduous task for them, but because of technological advances meaning their influence over individuals is so much more ubiquitous (we are now constantly plugged into "the grid" by virtue of the internet, phones, and 24-hour TV, in a way that people were not in the 1960s), it will undoubtedly be rather quicker.
So, that is what I think is up next: "persecuted hero" change agent, Andrew Tate, who is in reality a CIA/Mossad asset, posing as a fundamentalist Muslim to induct the youth into such a movement, with the ultimate aim of having a society so socially austere and regressive (think Handmaid's Tale - serious predictive programming if ever I saw it) that ultimately we rebel against it and reject all forms of Islam (just as we have largely rejected all forms of Christianity) and society becomes entirely secular, therefore fulfilling the third pillar of the sinister 'Imagine' diktats - no religions.
The secular, humanist - in fact, transhumanist - future is still the ultimate goal, but at the moment, the biggest global obstacle the social engineers have to overcome, is Islam. Billions of Muslims worldwide, many of them extremely strict and observant, are not just going to roll over and accept the NWO (note that Muslims are far more likely to be vaccine-sceptic than secular communities). They can be hardcore in a way that most Christians - of those that still exist - are not, and they will fight back. As Andrew Tate has observed, "I could walk through the middle of London with a t-shirt saying "Jesus is gay" and nothing would happen to me. If I had a t-shirt saying the same about Mohammed, I'd be dead within the hour."
A force of nearly two billion people worldwide, many of whom will fight to the death to defend their religion, is a big problem for the social controllers, so they need to neutralise it, and as I said, that's a big task that takes time. They can't bomb Islam into submission (they've tried), so now they're taking a more long-game and subversive approach, using far more complex psychological weaponry to ultimately bring the faith down in a way that makes it look like it's something organic people have chosen, just as they did with Christianity.
The social engineers of the 1960s depicted Christianity as a terrible, extreme, oppressive and backward force that abused people, so cultures violently reacted against it and declared themselves atheist (secular). People believe they made this choice themselves of their own free will, but in many, if not most cases, this choice was made for them by canny social manipulators through the process of the manufacture of consent.
This is the phenomenon whereby social engineers get us to do what they want us to do - becoming atheists, taking vaccines, supporting Ukraine - by making us believe that we want to do it, and they're very, very good at this sort of 'crowd control'. So, in the imminent future, they will do the same with Islam, but they have to do it in stages.
That's what they're going for next, the first stage of a longer term plan, using the youth as the cultural army to bring in an extremist, twisted form of the religion (aided and abetted by the actual army in the nation's hotels), leading ultimately to a revolt against it and the conclusion that "religions are the source of all problems in the world" and so should be scrapped permanently. I can't predict how long this process will take, but all I can say is "less than the sixty years it took them to get rid of Christianity - probably a lot less".
For anyone thinking this seems like a leap of lunacy too far, that this is all just too complex and far-fetched, please remember that we have been intentionally taught to be very limited in how we view and organise our lives - to plan, and to see the world, in terms of days, weeks, and months. The ruling classes don't do this. They plan in years, decades, and centuries. So our natural reaction to imagining they could plan and carry out schemes that take decades to complete, is often to dismiss and ridicule it, as that level of organisation and long-term planning is generally completely foreign to us.
Believe me though, it's not to them. As intergenerational dynasties, passing on huge power and wealth from generation to generation, and very keen to keep hold of it, they always play the long-game - and they know the masses, overwhelmingly, don't have the patience or the strategy to compete at that level. That's why in preparing for our own future, it's important to look further ahead than simply what the ruling classes are doing now, and to anticipate next moves and see how this all fits into the bigger, longer picture.
It is not my imagination, nor a symptom of my "conspiracy theorising", that currently, one of the most famous men in the world, heroic saviour to millions of young men, is a fundamentalist Muslim. He is, he's not shy about saying so, and this isn't an incidental detail we can just brush aside in favour of focusing on his Twitter spats with Greta Thunberg. It's an absolutely crucial detail giving us a very big clue about where the social engineers intend to take us next.
As ever, I do not wish to frighten anyone with my analysis - and as a flawed and imperfect person, I may have got it wrong (yes, it does happen...) - but this is what I see. The takeaway point is to prepare for a future that is almost certainly going to look very different to the past, and to be aware that, although the coming sweeping changes will be passed off as natural and organic, brought in by an angry and disenfranchised youth (just as the manufactured 1960s cultural changes were), it's all being scripted and stage-managed behind the scenes: "they" are always trying to hack us, manipulate us, manufacture our thoughts and behaviours to their desired ends. Therefore, analysing their attempts to do this is one crucial way we can see through them, and stop ourselves being so manipulated - and therefore, retain our vital independence and sovereignty.
And as long as you've still got that - you've still got everything to live for, and a future worth fighting for.
Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader-funded, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you would like to make a contribution of any size, please do so through...
Your support is what enables this site to continue to exist, and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.