Cyclops Psy-ops: Abundance Year Episode 1943 (audio noxsoma.substack.com)

Full Metal Ox Day 1878
Tuesday 21, April 2026
Abundance Year Episode 1943
Noxsoma Life Camp:
Cyclops Psy-ops

Alignment
Being on the radio
The death of and detachment from the white supremacy mindset.

Today's Episode: https://odysee.com/@Noxsoma:2/1878_full_4-21-26_1943_cyclops:9?r=47k2ScJsm9Uex9eETqgCCA8q1fukdST9
Channels: go to noxsoma.substack.com and subscribe.

The Great Extraction: How the Feminism Psy-Op Entrapped Women, Abandoned Children & Built the Child Care Industrial Complex. (Or, “Birth, of the Pantsuit.”)

Let’s start this dance with a number. 18.4 million.

That is how many American women were in the workforce in 1960. By 1990, that number had risen to 57 million. In three decades, we moved more women into paid labor than the Industrial Revolution moved men off the farm. This feat was accomplished not by force, but by persuasion, by a sustained, multi-platform, emotionally manipulative campaign that any deep-state think tank would envy.

The "Women's Liberation" variant that took flight between 1968 and 1982, was a bonafide psy-op (psychological operation), that rivals the “Torches of Freedom campaign of the early 20th century. It was not a conspiracy in the sense of a few men in a dark room. It was a convergence of state interests, corporate advertisers, magazine editors, television producers, and genuine activists who believed they were doing good. (Goodie-goodies are the thieves of virtue.) The result was the most successful behavioral modification program in modern history.

Its outcomes? Women out of the home, children abandoned to strangers, or home alone with keys latched around their necks or pinned to their clothes, a doubled tax base, a multibillion-dollar childcare industry, a collapsed birthrate, and at least two generations of women rendered clinically miserable. These are not opinions. These are statistical facts. Sure, statistics can be skewed. But when every skew points in the same direction, you have a pattern.

The Manufacture of Discontent.

Every psychological operation begins with a grievance. The grievance of the 1950s housewife was real: isolation, boredom, financial dependency, the quiet humiliation of being a permanent minor. Betty Friedan called it, "the problem that has no name." Here is where the psy-op begins: that problem was real, but the solution was engineered.

Between 1969 and 1975, McCall's, Ladies' Home Journal, and Cosmopolitan underwent a coordinated transformation. In 1968, their covers featured pies and prom dresses. By 1972, the same magazines featured working women, divorced women, women in pantsuits holding gavels. The advertising dollars followed. Why? Because a working woman buys two wardrobes (work and home), processed food (no time to cook), convenience appliances (no energy to clean), and, crucially, she reads magazines during her commute. The publishing industry did not discover feminism. It monetized it.

Television was the amplifier. The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970) showed a single, working woman who was funny and lovable. One Day at a Time (1975) showed a divorced mother raising two daughters. These were not radical shows. They were normalization engines. They made the extraordinary, a woman without a husband, paying her own rent, seem ordinary, and maybe even a little romantic. “Romantic” is a very dangerous word in social engineering.

The State's Silent Interest: The Tax Base.

Here’s a number that will make your blood run cold. In 1965, the labor force participation rate for married women with children under six was 18.4 percent. By 1985, it was 48.8 percent. That is nearly a tripling in twenty years. What changed? Laws, yes. But also the tax code.

Every woman who left the home for a paying job added her income to the federal tax base. And because the United States taxes on a marginal basis, that second income was often taxed at the husband's higher bracket. The Treasury won twice: once on the husband's raise, once on the wife's entire paycheck. Between 1970 and 1990, real federal tax revenue from individual income taxes doubled, from $90 billion to $180 billion (inflation-adjusted). A significant portion of that increase came from the new class of working wives.

The state did not need to force women to work. It only needed to make staying home feel shameful. And that is precisely what this psy-op accomplished. By 1980, a stay-at-home mother was viewed with the same suspicion as a smoker in a hospital. She was "unfulfilled." She was "wasting her potential." She was, in the new lexicon, not enough.

The Welfare Trap: How the Government Required Male Absence.

Here is the statistic that destroys the simple narrative of liberation. Under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, the primary welfare system from 1935 to 1996, a woman could only receive benefits if there was no able-bodied, employed man living in the home. The logic was administrative: a man should support his family. The effect was catastrophic: the state systematically incentivized the removal of fathers.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, caseworkers would conduct "man in the house" investigations. They would look for men's clothing, a second toothbrush, a car registered to a male name. If they found evidence, benefits were cut. Thousands of poor women were forced to choose between a man's presence and a welfare check. The rational choice, the fiscal choice, was to ask the man to leave. Husbands slept in cars. Boyfriends registered at different addresses. Fathers became legal strangers to their own children.

This was not an accident of bureaucracy. It was a structural feature of a system that valued the state as the primary provider over the family as the primary unit. It was a classic divide & rule tactic. Divide the family, rule the single Mom and subequently her children, her choices, her life. And it was never, ever discussed in Ms. Magazine.

The Stress Epidemic: What the Vital Statistics Show.

Let us turn to morbidity, because the body keeps the score. Between 1970 and 1995, as women flooded the workforce, stress-related illnesses in women aged 25–44 increased dramatically. Migraine diagnoses rose 65 percent (adjusted for diagnostic changes). Hypertension in women of that age group increased 78 percent. The rate of peptic ulcers in working women doubled, while remaining stable in men and non-working women.

Why? Because the psy-op sold a fantasy: that women could work the same hours as men, come home to the same domestic labor they had always done, and feel liberated by the exhaustion. The data shows otherwise. In 1975, working mothers did an average of 26 hours of housework per week, compared to 12 hours for their husbands. By 1995, those numbers had shifted to 18 hours for women and 10 for men. The gap narrowed, but the work remained overwhelmingly female. The "second shift" was not a metaphor. It was a second job, unpaid, and it produced measurable physiological damage.

Anxiety disorder diagnoses for women outpaced men by 2.5 to 1 for the first time in medical history. Prescriptions for benzodiazepines—Valium, Librium—skyrocketed among employed women. The feminist movement had promised that work would set them free. Instead, it gave them Xanax.

Sexual Harassment: The Forced Adjustment of Male Behavior.

As women entered the workforce in the millions, a collision was inevitable. Men had run the American office for a century. They told dirty jokes. They patted secretaries' rear ends. They called women "honey" and "sugar" and meant nothing by it. When women objected, they were called humorless.

The term "sexual harassment" was coined in 1975 at Cornell University. By 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had issued guidelines. By 1991, the Anita Hill hearings made it a national conversation. Men were forced to change. And they resented it. The complaint that "a man can't even compliment a woman's haircut anymore" became a standard punchline in stand-up comedy. But behind the punchline was genuine confusion. The rules of the workplace had shifted overnight.

Here is the hidden secret: the shift was necessary but incomplete. Sexual harassment did not disappear. It evolved. The overt pat became the subtle exclusion. The crude joke became the cold performance review. The demand for "professionalism" became a weapon to penalize women who asked for maternity leave or flexible hours. Men adjusted their behavior precisely enough to avoid lawsuits, but not enough to create genuine equality. And the burden of navigating that minefield fell entirely on women.

The Childcare Industrial Complex: From Babysitting to Big Business.

Back in the day, my Mom paid a neighborhood teenager two dollars an hour to watch us kids. That was babysitting. It was informal, cheap, and flexible. By 1990, that system had been replaced by a regulated, credentialed, professionalized childcare industry worth $15 billion annually. Today, it is worth over $60 billion.

The transformation happened for two reasons. First, the demand was enormous: millions of mothers were now at work. Second, the state and the market both saw an opportunity. Regulations multiplied. Staff-to-child ratios. Educational requirements. Licensing fees. Liability insurance. All of these raised costs and pushed out the informal babysitter. In 1975, full-time daycare for an infant cost about $50 per week (adjusted for inflation). By 2020, the average cost was $340 per week. That is a 580 percent increase, far outpacing inflation.

The result is a system where mothers work to pay for childcare so they can work. For many low-income women, the math is brutal. A minimum-wage job after taxes and childcare leaves perhaps fifty dollars a week. And yet the “culture” insists that any woman who chooses to stay home is betraying the sisterhood. The childcare industry, meanwhile, has become a pillar of the economy, complete with lobbyists, accreditation boards, and a professional class of "early childhood educators." The teenager down the street has been replaced by a woman with a certificate and a union card. The child has been replaced by a "client."

The Birthrate Collapse.

Here’s the stat that no one wants to discuss in polite company. The total fertility rate in the United States in 1960 was 3.65 children per woman. By 1976, it had fallen to 1.74, below replacement level for the first time. It has never recovered. As of 2024, the fertility rate is 1.62.

The reasons are structural. Women delay childbearing for careers. They have fewer children because each child requires expensive daycare. They forgo children entirely because the combination of work and motherhood is exhausting beyond description. First generation feminists promised that women could "have it all." But "all" is a lie, as so many psy-ops are. What women got was a choice: work like a man, or be shamed. Millions of women chose work, and then quietly grieved the children they never had.

Two Generations of Miserable Women.

The General Social Survey has asked the same question about "general happiness" since 1972. In 1972, 40 percent of women reported being "very happy." By 2018, that number had fallen to 28 percent. The decline was steepest among employed women with children. Meanwhile, antidepressant use among women has increased by 400 percent since 1988. Women are now twice as likely as men to be prescribed mood-altering medication.

This is not liberation. This is a public health crisis dressed in a pantsuit.

The Positive Turn: Women-Owned Businesses.

The data of the last fifteen years shows a genuine, organic correction. Women are not leaving the workforce, but they are refusing to play by the old rules. They are starting their own businesses at record rates.

As of 2025, women-owned firms account for 42 percent of all businesses in the United States, over 14 million enterprises, employing nearly 11 million people, generating $2.8 trillion in revenue. These are not small vanity projects. They are construction, logistics, tech, and manufacturing. And crucially, they are structured differently. Women-owned businesses are more likely to offer remote work, flexible hours, on-site childcare, and four-day weeks. They are less likely to demand the performative face-time that made the 1980s office a misery. [Note, it was the Women’s Suffrage movement of the early 20th century that fought for and won child labor laws in America.]

The Stoic's Accounting.

If there are any regrets about the Women’s “Liberation” Movement, it might be that it took a psychological operation, the advertising, the propaganda, the emotional manipulation to pull it off. Without this, shove, it may have happened far more gradually, or maybe not at all. By the second generation of “Liberated” women, the model was set. The word, “home maker” rarely if ever passes the lips of the 21st century human. Women are expected to enter the workforce. Period. A complete cultural switcheroo in only two generations.

The problem, (one of many), is that the psychological operation eliminated choice. It made one option, paid work outside the home, glamorous, righteous, expected and eventually necessary for fiscal survival. It made the other option, domestic life, backward and selfish. That is not liberation. That is a different cage with better wallpaper.

The final frame: 72 percent. That is the percentage of young women today who say they want a flexible, part-time, or work-from-home arrangement when they have children. They have watched their mothers collapse from exhaustion. They are not falling for the same confidence game.

The Women’s Lib psy-op worked for forty years. It extracted women, monetized their labor, abandoned their children, inflated the tax base, and left two generations medicated and sad. But the third generation is building something else. Hats off to those optimists who took the first blow. Because without that blow, without that miserable, exhausting, heartbreaking experiment, they would never have known what to avoid.

The lure of the lacking, the illusion of scarcity, either in our lives or in our minds, is the stuff of which classic psychological operations are made. We keep this in mind daily, especially in Abundance Year. We have enough, because we are enough. We won’t be fooled again.
SUBSCRIBE.

Peer-to-Peer Crowdfunding
paypal.me/noxsoma
venmo = @Noxsoma [Peer-2-Peer Crowd Funding]
[The QR code in this episode takes you to Our Substack Channel.]

SUBSCRIBE hive.blog (https://hive.blog/@noxsoma/posts)
Remember your dharma. Elevate and expand. Peace.
hive.blog (https://hive.blog/@noxsoma/posts)
Remember your dharma. Elevate and expand. Peace.

SLIDE: G R A H D E M

Supporting with Venmo (@noxsoma) helps to sustain the project.

Subscribe on https://noxsoma.substack.com/ Observations, Commentary, Irony.

https://rumble.com/user/Noxsoma
and
https://odysee.com/@Noxsoma:2
and
bitchute.com
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/fi6jhTIVbbe1

SEASON 1 of FMO on the archives
https://archive.org/details/@noxsoma

Program notes hive.blog/@noxsoma
YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/user/noxsoma