It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dr. Henry Makow, Disinfo Agent Par Excellence

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 08:56 PM
Dr. Henry Makow is a frequent contributor to Rense.Com I have seen his articles brought up here on ATS a few times in the past month, so I would like to write a little bit about why I think he is a less-than-reliable source.

He frequently comments on Femenism, Zionism, the Illuminati, and the Holocaust.

While I will concede that Dr. Makow does occasionally speak of problems which may have a grain of truth to them or issues that warrent a further investigation, I do not like his "shock value" approach.

Tonight I will start by examining his stance against feminism.

1. Anti-Femenism.

Dr. Makow has a somewhat valid premise that the Femenism Movement has gone beyond male and female equality and now has a goal of supplanting a man's role in society completely. This is surely true for some of the most extreme femenists, I do not deny that, but I oppose the way that Dr. Makow uses a viewpoint which is absolutely not consistent with the view that the majority of feminists hold in order to support which appears to be a knee-jerk reaction against women’s changing role in Western society.

He takes an extremely conservative, if not mysogenist view of masculinity and femininity, as shown by these quotes and their respective articles:

Men should never forfeit power by worshiping a woman. The essence of masculinity is power. Women crave male power, expressed as male love. When a woman falls in love, she surrenders "power" in exchange for love.

Men and women are equal in terms of dignity and self-fulfillment. But they do not find fulfillment in the same way. Women find it in self-surrender. By insisting on equal power, feminists emasculate men and neuter women. Their marriages remind me of roommates.

Most women are passive by nature. They want to be possessed and used for a purpose they consent to. I suspect that many women want more control from their husband, not less. The feeling of "neglect" arises from not being needed, sexually and otherwise.

Men have been conditioned not to lead, not to make demands. They are taught to be cool, laid back and have no plan. Women lose interest in these men.

Women are so formidable these days; men don't know how to approach them. But the essential relationship hasn't changed. It is about a man convincing a woman to do what he wants.

I wish Dr. Makow would spend some time examining how much of a woman’s “need for a man” is an artificial media and cultural creation.

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her.

I find it difficult to believe that he is actually arguing that forcing a woman to cover up to that extreme, on pain of death, indicates an ideal representation of femininity!

Dr. Makow fails to recognize that many of the regions which enforce such strict religious dress codes were very secular a few decades back, and only descended to that extreme when a party with different albeit no less conservative religious view than his own came
into power.

Women are baby-machines:

A "means to an end" may sound harsh to some. But in fact, nature designed women to make things happen. Mainly babies. A girlfriend once said, "I want to be used."

A man might think of a wife as a race driver thinks of his car, a cowboy his horse, a shepherd his dog, or a carpenter his tools. Men treasure the things that belong to them, serve them well, and are true.

It is A man’s right to “possess” a woman:

At the risk of being politically incorrect, what many men want most in marriage is not great beauty, brains or sex, but the simple feeling of "possessing" a woman. In other words, what they seek is a degree of ownership or power. (Gasp!)

And I believe that, in their heart, many women have a complementary craving, to totally "belong" to their husband.

This is the key to intimacy, how two people become one. When a man wins a woman's love, she entrusts herself to him. And of course he aspires to be worthy of this responsibility.

Thus, a woman empowers her husband. Men and women were designed to complement each other, not to compete or fight.

Having just come out of a relationship that was absolute hell because my ex displayed that exact attitude, this quote, indeed the entire article, especially sickens me.

Feminism is an Illuminati Plot

Feminism is a self-perpetuating form of father-loss. Its goal is to "overthrow the patriarchy." The word originates in the Latin "pater" or father. Feminism, like Communism, originates in the Illuminist endeavour to overthrow God and the natural order and impose on mankind a dictatorship of the rich.

Feminism is designed to weaken society so that it will succumb. It is extrapolated from Marxism: men "oppress" women by virtue of their role as wife and mother. This of course is nonsense. Both sex roles involve sacrifice. Men have supported and defended families with their lives for centuries.

Throughout the course of his writings on this subject Dr. Makow contradicts his own views several times. For instance in this article, he first states that we are by nature sexual beings:

For the survival of the species nature has hard-wired us to have sex. This powerful, primitive instinct is more of a curse than a blessing for men and women alike. Men are sexually attracted to practically all pretty fertile females. Females are probably sexually attracted to most powerful handsome men. Given license, this primitive imperative is a recipe for social chaos. It leads to the destruction of marriage and family, another feature of the satanic banker Communist program.

And then, a few paragraphs later, says that our sexual drive is a creation of TPTB:

Our societal obsession with sex is an aberration. It is the result of a kabalistic spell, and is neither normal nor healthy. The emphasis on sex cannibalizes the energy we would devote to other things that define us as human. Mankind is in the grip of a satanic cult. This one echoes a similar progression. Dr. Makow seems to not realize that acting on that urge to procreate, while expecting an emotional relationship to materialize when it wasn’t there in the first place, will always lead to “empty sex,” regardless of what media is involved.

Here is one thing that irks me. In a good number of his articles Dr. Makow rails against ‘promiscuous’ women who act as though their bodies belong to any man on the block… yet in other articles, such as this one, he gawks at ‘traditional’ women’s bodies as if he owns them!

The weather was superb in Toronto and few jeans were in view. I saw enough beautiful young women wearing great summer dresses to last me a long Winnipeg winter. I suspect tropical weather would banish all forms of female frigidity including feminism.

These are a few examples ATS… later I will delve into some of his other topics.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by asmeone2]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:17 AM
Here's another gem regarding how Dr. Makow beleives that women who wear blue jeans are by default lesbians:

"Slovenly" "Drab" Unkempt" "Slatternly" "Blowzy" --many adjectives come to mind to describe most women who wear jeans.

Since I noticed this trend, I am appalled by its prevalence. At least half of the women I see are wearing jeans.

Occasionally they are with men who are also clad in blue denim, emphasizing the unisex character of this proletarian garb.

But usually these women are alone and don't look happy. Often they seem angry and lost. Usually they are talking on a cell phone or listening to their ipod.

Men, if you're tempted by such a woman, her jeans signal that you may have to deal with her "GID" --"gender identity disorder." Her jeans are saying: "I don't want to be a woman. I don't want to look good for men. I fear and distrust men. I want male prerogatives."

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:33 AM

Originally posted by asmeone2
Here's another gem regarding how Dr. Makow beleives that women who wear blue jeans are by default lesbians:

"Slovenly" "Drab" Unkempt" "Slatternly" "Blowzy" --many adjectives come to mind to describe most women who wear jeans.

Arf! You'd think he was writing in the late 1880s or something. I'm surprised phrases like 'painted harlots' and 'wanton strumpets' didn't make it on his list.

But usually these women are alone and don't look happy. Often they seem angry and lost. Usually they are talking on a cell phone or listening to their ipod.

Welcome to 2008, Dr. Makow. I hope your time machine ride wasn't too bumpy. Yeah, we're all getting pretty disconnected and fragmented as a society and we're becoming increasingly dependent on technology as a whole. However, it's nothing to do with feminism, lesbianism or demin trousers or the fact that Wal*Mart don't sell bustles or whalebone corsets.

Mind the horseless mechanical carriages!

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 10:37 AM

Arf! You'd think he was writing in the late 1880s or something. I'm surprised phrases like 'painted harlots' and 'wanton strumpets' didn't make it on his list.

Too bad he wasn't. Dr. Freud would have fun psychoanalyzing Dr. Makow.

I can appreciate some of the points he's trying to make here, but Dr. Makow is very bad at matching up cause and effect. Frumpy blue jeans, for instance, means that the person inside them is a bad dresser... not necesarily a lesbian.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 11:28 AM
I actually sent a lengthy email to Makow some years ago, after reading another of his online rants. Reason I went to the trouble to write to him --- as you say -- was the rank, bitter, twisted, misogynistic bile that dripped from virtually his every sentence.

Since then, I haven't bothered much with his stuff. It's always the same: the 'bad guys' are creating divisions between male and female, are emasculating males, are encouraging females to usurp male roles, etc. etc.

I don't know about the Disinfo element. I'll have to think more about it.

Really, though, is there ANY woman, let alone women plural, of whom Makow does approve ?

If you were to take the time to compile his numerous online rants it would read like the worst examples of fundamentalist religious misogyny.

On and on and on. The old drip-drip technique. Brainwashing. Programming .. ' women are bad, mad, evil, stupid, weak, cunning, not to be trusted, not to be relied upon, not safe with power in their hands, power hungry, man-hating, child-hating, devious, corrupt, immoral, etc.

Over and over and over.

Sure, he lays a thin groundwork of questionable justification for it, but not to the point his readers might actually start thinking about that at the expense of the 'women are bad' message.

And I'm sure there are males out there who absolutely lap it up and rank the guy as some sort of hero. Divorced men who refuse to pay child-support .. men who justify their hatred of women because their 'ex' did them wrong, for example .. men who seek other men with the same mind-set. These, surely, are Makow's intended audience ? A sort of 'misery loves company' type group ?

I used to browse a now-defunct forum whose members were primarily American. And I was sickened by their Makow-type attitudes. These men were rabidly anti-abortion as just another excuse for dehumanising women.

And the language they used to describe women was foul beyond belief. Yet many of the women they described in this manner were those they'd chosen to marry and bear their children. But when their wives for whatever reason left them, these men referred to them in terms you wouldn't even use for diseased animals. And they boasted about being paid 'off the books' in order to avoid paying child-support.

I quite often asked them where their children were sleeping that night. Had their children eaten that day. To whom were their children turning for affection and recognition in lieu of a father's presence and attention ?

And I asked why they believed women should sacrifice their life in order to raise, support and educate their children .. while the absentee fathers sat in comfort before a computer, connected to internet, with all the time in the world to disparage females, with other like-minded absentee fathers.

Like Makow, these men had nothing positive to say about females.
Only criticism. Foul, vile criticism. They hated, literally hated, half the world's population .. the female half.

They pretended to be anti-abortion.
I asked if the reason they claimed to be so 'pro life' was because the impregnating of females was a means via which certain males could financially, emotionally, socially and otherwise cripple women's lives, careers, ambitions, freedoms, choice, etc.

Wow. If they could have smacked me down or shot or stabbed me through their internet connection, they would have done.

Their hypocrisy was beyond startling .. it was toxic.

There they were, happily referring to women generally in four letter language for choosing (some women) not to have a child ... yet at the same time, these same supposedly 'pro life' males refused (and it was gleefully expressed) to support those children whom their wives and de-factos, girlfriends etc. HAD chosen to bear !

It appeared these men had impregnated women (most had children by a series of women) because doing so was their primary means of asserting their wish to dominate, control and destroy.

They'd used their semen as a weapon .. a weapon against women.

And the children they'd fathered ... were bullets.

Once the bullets had been fired at the target, these men had no further use for those bullets.

The bullets were of no concern to them.

It was the target .. women .. whom they'd wanted to destroy.

Then you'd come across the same posters in other threads, writing lascivious comments about under age girls and boys who sold themselves.

I asked them how often it occurred to them .. when they read of young kids being murdered and used .. that these same children might be their own.

At which point, the four letter insults were hurled at me.

These men, in my opinion, are Makow's target audience. They share what appear to be Makow's misogynistic views. They live to criticise women.
And like Makow .. it's never enough. All the rants are never enough -- can never quench their hatred of women.

Which, to me, implies they are (including Makow) closet homosexuals (in my personal opinion).

I mean, where is Makow's ideal female ? Does she even exist ?

Is she submissive, i.e. 'weak and stupid' ?

Is she suppressed, i.e. 'unsuited' to basically any position requiring initiative and strength ?

What does Makow's ideal woman wear ? A gingham pinafore and a headscarf ? A neck to knee sack ? A Jackie Onassis Chanel suit (ooops .. sorry .. that would take too much of 'the man's money'. Ok. A hand-made Jackie O suit perhaps .. made from hand-spun wool gathered from the woman's budget-priced sheep in the backyard).

What does Makow's ideal woman do with her life ? Does she keep her head facing the floor as she slaves to keep her man and brood happy ?

For if she goes to work, then Makow regards her as a 'pseudo man, usurping the male role' .. even if she's going to work to provide bare necessities for her family.

I honestly can't imagine there exists a woman who would satisfy Makow's exacting expectations.

Which makes one ask .. is there a Mrs. Makow ?

But most importantly ... who on earth does Makow imagine himself to be ?

I have a mental image of him, and of those men who spend their lives in forums with like minded misogynists ... criticising women at the same time as those women are doing their job for them because they .. those men .. refuse to support, protect and care for their own children. I visualise those men as small, bitter, hate-filled, lazy, irresponsible, useless wastes of space.

No, I don't read Makow any longer. I regard him as verbal poison.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:13 PM

Thank you for your well-thought out reply. I wrote that because I have seen Dr. Makow's articles quoted here on ATS a few times in the last week. I wanted to bring to light that he is a less than credible source.

While I do not want to speculate upon Mr. Makow's personal motivations, as I do not know him personally, he has stated that he has been divorced twice and married his third wife, who is from the Philipenes, specifically because she is what he consideres "traditional."

And I'm sure there are males out there who absolutely lap it up and rank the guy as some sort of hero. Divorced men who refuse to pay child-support .. men who justify their hatred of women because their 'ex' did them wrong, for example .. men who seek other men with the same mind-set. These, surely, are Makow's intended audience ? A sort of 'misery loves company' type group ?

A while back I started a thread on ATS detailing my opinion that the alleged "Conspiracy against men" and "Court Bias against fathers" was due much more to the attitudes and actions of men as a whole than it was an organized conspiracy--for instance, that men tend to underreport spousal abuse and are typically not the ones that leave in an abusive relationship.

I was surprised by how most of the people that posted responded with overt hatred and said that I was just spouting out proganda and must be an insecure femenist. They ignored completely the premise that I set out in the original post!

By this time I think "Abused but ignored men" is a false truism that our society has latched on to and refuses to release now, because it is a convenient excuse. Recently there was a thread here in which the OP complained that he was milked for child support and wasn't allowed to see his child, but later on posted that he wouldn't want his child support to be used to pay for the electric bill because the child's mother would also benefit.

If it wasn't that that kind of attitude seems to be so prevelant I would write Makow and those like him off as bitter men trying to rationalize their own shortcomings, but I think they really do have a detrimental effect to society as a whole.

He might as well write an article saying "No really does mean yes!" and be done with it.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by asmeone2]

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:26 PM

What today's 'anti-feminists' or whatever they're called forget or choose to forget, is that there have always been strong .. very strong .. and capable women.

Widows, for example, who somehow managed to support and raise large broods of children back in the days when there were no 'jobs', let alone careers, for women. My great-grandmother worked 14 hours a day in one of the 'dark, satanic mills'. She left before dawn and trudged through deep snow, worked all day and trudged back again, once more in the dark. Fed her children, put them to bed. Had a few hours sleep sitting in a chair before the fire, then up at 2 am. .. did the baking etc. and then set off for work again. Six days a week. No running water. No electricity. No convenience foods. Raised two boys who survived Gallipoli, France and Egypt in WW1 and went on to raise their own familes through the Depression, and did it well. That poor woman lived to nearly 80. Less than five feet tall. Hands like a man's from all the work.

Yes, she did a man's job. And a woman's job too. And there have been millions like her, unsung heroines, strong, capable, resourceful .. because they had to be.

It was the same in WW2. Women went to work in the factories and did hard, dangerous work while the men were off fighting.

And it's the same today. Women are serving burgers and cleaning motel rooms to earn the money to put food on the table. Their children's fathers are nowhere to be found. They're lurking behind computer screens making excuses for themselves and pretending to solve the world's problems instead of supporting and raising their own children. Or they're marrying a new wife and producing new children without a backward look at the family they left in their wake.

When it's convenient, men expect women to be strong and resourceful.

When it's not convenient, those strengths are criticised.

Women are expected by men to be able to switch it on and off.

What I really deplore are those, like Makow, who pit men and women against each other and work ceaselessly to widen the gap between the sexes.

Makow claims to oppose this, yet he's one of its chief proponents.

Men and women complement each other. They both have strengths and weaknesses. They make a good team. It's destructive to both sexes when they pit themselves against each other, based on gender.

There are women out there right now, herding cattle, chopping wood, skinning food for the pot .. and all to help their men and keep their families going. And there are men who right now are not only earning the bacon but cooking it too.

Some men are justified in being bitter about women, just as some women are justified in the low opinion they have of men.

But Makow's stereotypes only seem to cut one way. He blames all women for the failings of both males and females. He seems to be implying that if women wore cotton frocks and remained in the kitchen, all the world's ills would be solved.

He seems keen to ignore the fact that women stayed in the kitchen for hundreds of years, yet their men still strayed ... still came home drunk and beat their wives .. still molested their children .. still gambled .. still walked out on their families. And that was long before child-support legislation, long before women were able to enter the workforce in any capacity other than as drudges who did other people's washing for a few pennies a week.

There were as many if not far more fatherless children and orphans two hundred years ago as there are now.

Women have always outnumbered men when it comes to single-parenthood. It's the women who've kept the children with them in the vast majority of cases. And it's never been easy. Far easier to up and leave and start again as a single man.

Yes, I've seen countless men claim in forums that the 'reason' they won't pay child support is because they'll 'be damned if I'll give that b...tch a cent', even though they know that by withholding child support, they are dooming their own children to a sub-standard existence.

They want women to 'pay'.

Pay for what ? For being women ? Yes. Pay for being women. Pay with their lives and pay in misery for being women.

Pay for inciting male lust.

Not a far step from fundamentalist Islam's edict that Muslim women should wear a shroud so that men will be spared the task of controlling their own lust.

But even there, is the lie.

For it's not the subduing of their own sexual lust that's at the bottom of it.

It's lust of a different kind. The lust for power and control.

And because trying to control each other would be a full time job and would entail personal danger, men instead choose to exert power and control over women -- who are smaller and weaker and less prone to physical violence and retaliation than men.

So it's bully tactics. They dominate women because its easier and promises more success.

And religion is used as 'justification'. The male God is utilized as a tool by bullying males to suppress females.

And Makow, with his self-righteous preaching about 'good' and 'bad' women, is simply vocalising his own shortcomings.

What all these misogynists fail to grasp is that women comprise half the world's population. They don't have to seek mens' validation. They don't need mens' permission to do anything at all.

Makow seems to be living in a fantasy world .. a world that has never existed. In his world, women are naturally 'inferior' to men. He seems to suffer from a Doris Day complex, where women's only worth is that which men bestow upon them, where women should be decorative and submissive to the 'superior male' and should giggle continually in the hope of concealing their brain.

Well, Mr.Makow .. Doris Day in reality was always a strong, independent and resourceful woman. In reality, it sounds as if you'd be scared to death of her .. a woman with opinions, a woman who expected men to be men or stop wasting her time -- and a woman who wore jeans, way back in the 50s.

And here's another tip Mr.Makow ... asian women are amongst the strongest, most resourceful of all .. especially those who've made it to the West. They know how massive the Western male's ego is and they're prepared to pander to it .. as long as it suits their own purpose.

Western women on the other hand are far more honest and straightforward. But you don't like that, do you? You .. who professes to be so honest and straighforward yourself.

Fortunately, the majority of Western males do appreciate intelligence, humour and honesty in their women. So your convoluted ravings go unread by them.

The only way forward is for men and women to go from right here, right now .. towards the future, working in harmony and mutual respect.

You, Mr.Makow, seem to believe the only way forward is backwards .. to a time that never existed apart from as a misogynists' wet dream.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:53 PM
Here is a link that may shed some light on the feminism issue.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:04 PM
Marsha Law,

I fully recognize feminism's dubious origins. I wouldn't denythem for a second.

However the thread is not about that--it is about the way that Dr. Makow perverts the entire spectrum of issues regarding feminism.

It would be one thing if he was calling for equal respect for both genders, but he's calling for a male-dominated society. I don't see a lick of difference between the "improvements" he calls for and the "problems" that he is trying to solve, the only difference is who's on top.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:07 PM
reply to post by asmeone2

Maybe Makow is CIA too. Divide and conquer.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Dock6

Boy, I don't think I have much to add after that!

People like Dr. Makow seem to forget that the "good old days" in which woman were content to be at home is almost completely illusory. I see the 50's and early 60'a extended as the pinical of this balance, but people seem to forget that only 15 years before that, women were out working in "Men's Job's" just as much as they are now. There have always been "working women," but the nature of the work changes with the time. Similarly, in times past when cottage industries or homesteads were the norm, most men also worked within the home. It was, and is, only the top echalon that can afford to perpetuate "classic" gender roles.

I would not find his writings half as offensive as they are if he would also criticise men, where applicable, instead of insiting that all male shortcoming are due to females "neutering" them.

posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by marsha law
reply to post by asmeone2

Maybe Makow is CIA too. Divide and conquer.

He's so over-the-top, I have to wonder...

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:55 AM
reply to post by asmeone2

Hi again Asmeone2

Took me ages to find this thread today

But sure, it's Obama's day and his supporters and even detractors are bound to dwarf other issues

Yes, we're in agreement re: Mr.Makow

and I suspect that most men would agree with us when we suggest that he develop a philosophy of 'The Buck Stops Here ' instead of continuing his habit of using women to bolster his misogynistic attitudes.

Much as I'm going to hate it, this thread has made it compulsory for me to familiarise myself once more with the Makow brand of non-logic


Then I guess it's another email to Mr.Makow to let him know the only eyes over which he's pulling wool are his own.

Hope others will take the time to do likewise

And the thrust of my message to Makow will be to suggest very strongly that he step aside from his computer and get himself down to the supermarkets to observe everyday mothers with children in tow, trundling the family shopping through the aisles, comparing weight with weight and price with price in order to get the best deal for their dollar whilst at the same time explaining to their children (tired from being at school all day) why that packet of sugary breakfast cereal will not be going home and to kindly stop pulling their younger sister's hair.

If those women wear jeans, it's because they're cheap and comfortable and practical .. not because their wearers are trying to be 'faux men' or are intending to 'usurp natural male dominance'.

And if those women are tired and brusque, it's often because they've been at work all day too, to supplement the family income --- not because they're undermining the male role or trying to sleep their way to the top.

Those women simply want sleep .. period. Most of them haven't
experienced a decent full night's sleep since they fell pregnant with their first child.

I'm groaning at the thought of having to plough through more Makow, but it's an obligation, I suppose, considering the thread topic.

I'll just cook the family's evening meal first .. then hang out some more washing in the hope of getting it dry before the next shower. Then I'm sure I can manage to mow the lawns without burning the food. And if I'm as speedy as I usually am, I'll have the washing in and folded before dark. After the meal and washing up, I'm sure I can get some ironing done. Then a bit of Makow in between some dusting and giving the bathrooms another once over. I just have to get more organised, I can see that ... I'm really falling behind in all that whoring and emasculation I should be keeping up to date ... wouldn't want to disappoint Makow and his wild imaginings.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 10:56 AM
I wouldn't bother with the emails. I think it would be like debating with a religious person. I'll wager from the voracity of his articles that he needs to think of things as he does as a security mechanism and isn't going to consider your points.

posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 08:10 PM
Dock6, you are a very intelligent person, and I will try to reply to some of your concerns.
I am what you could call an anti-feminist.
The distinction here is - are you happy to be a woman, or do you want to be a man?
When they did tests with little children, little boys show different behavior than little girls. Old societies accepted this difference and modeled the whole social system around them. This has lasted for centuries. All of a sudden, the whole model is wrong, and "modern" society claims that women should do same things as men. Fine. Who is going to take care of children? If you go to work, your child has to go somewhere and be influenced. By whom? By "modern" books, "modern" teachers...your children are not yours any more. You are at work, trying to act like a man, fight like a man, make decisions like a man. But, what will your children learn from all that?

My conclusion is that this "modern" system is made to create zombies who will do what corporations and bankers want them to do. The whole "feminist" movement is nothing but the destruction of family. Family is no longer needed, just like yard is no longer needed to have chicken (cages will do). We are the ownership of the corporations and they model our lives. Women are far easier to manipulate, that is why male behavior is forever under suspicion. Males are encouraged to soften, to not lead, to not have opinion, to basically give up on everything that feels normal for a grown up male.
I don't like the direction this world is going. Not at all. And any woman, proud to be a WOMAN (not a male-like feminist), should not like this. Women are capable of many things, but their biggest talent is - family. Some of them can be Queens, some even scientists. But, if we lose mothers and wives, we will no longer have anything. We will be zombies.

posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 12:13 PM
Bringing up an old thread, perhaps...

But I agree with Greshnik. It's sad that a family can no longer survive on one income. The parents, or the mother, is no longer afforded the ability to raise her own children. Which goes right along with keeping families not as close as they were, and children growing up being raised by strangers do not have the old morals and respect that earlier generations did.
Some would even say they have no work ethic, are lazy, and disrespectful to everyone.

I respect women who just want to stay home and raise their children. Unfortunately, many are single and cannot... Or even if married, a household cannot get by on one income alone anymore.
I am pretty sure this is what those in power want.
Families are no longer close as they were, and they have free-reign to shape young minds however they see fit. Especially to support and continue the status quo.

Can't have people thinking for themselves and deciding to overthrow an unfair and unjust system!

I am a stay at home mom... But only because I am lucky to be able to work online. No, am not a disinfo agent! Although I bet it pays better...

I have no interest in trying to be a man. I just want to be supportive to my man, and help him keep the bills paid and family fed. A lot of times for parents, that means going without yourself.
It's really a lot of hard work.

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 03:43 AM
Makow is right on eveytime i have ever read his stuff
you got to ask yourself how you base your beliefs
on fundamentals that GOD set forth for a basis of society or
what has evolved by way of osmosis in our new world view

posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 11:13 AM
LostNemasis and Greshnik,

I think a woman can be happy as a stay-at-home mom or as a career woman, the problem is when she tries to do both at the same time, or does one when she wants to do the other.

But besides that, one thing that Dr. Makow does NOT talk about and should, if he is actually interested in a fair examination, is that most of his proverbial "womanoids" do not actually want to be men, but are simply working a job because that's what they have to do to survive.

He neglects to take into account that most of these woman are not career-hungry domineering individuals putting their prestige before their family, but just individuals trying to keep their family afloat when dad's income isn' enough.

A huge portion of those women don't even HAVE a "dad" to fall back on. Contrary to Dr. Makow's paperdoll stereotypes single women are NOT all sitting back on their laurels trying to squeeze child support dollars out of their children's fathers. He seems unable to understand that in cases where the mother must raise the child on her own, she is simply incapable of staying at home with them.

I do not like his apparent attitude that a woman is morally corrupt or has gender issues if she has to work to support her family. Men AND women have their flaws; many of Dr. Makow's percieved "problems" with women stem from those women being cheated or harmed by the men in their life.

He seems unable to read his history books and learn that this "golden age" wheret the mom stayed at home did not actually exist as he thinks it does. Even in the 50's which seeems to be his barometer many of the lower-class women worked "pink collar" jjobs, and a decade before that, during WWII, women were the workforce. THey built tanks, flew airplanes across the ocean to supply the troops with supplies, and served in the armed forces as nurses.

Good thing we had all those women with a gender identity disorder around to help us through the war!

Prior to that, in the 20's, 30's, and beyond, many women worked as servents, laundresses, seamstresses, and more. During the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s and 1800s it was common for women to work in factories (and in deplorable conditions.) Children also worked in these conditions; I guess they wanted to be men, too.

I would like to also point out that prior to this, before the advent of technology began to bring people together, men also worked "at home." Entire families lived off of their plots of land, think 'Little House on the Prarie," and both gnders began to move away from the homestead as times changed.

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 05:49 PM

posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:59 PM
Here are some e-mail exchanges I have had with Dr. Makow, disinfo agent par excellence. It has to do with his rants against homosexuals, specifically John Sheehan, whom Dr. Makow had gushed over in school-girl fashion, for being a real man for calling gays the cause of the massacre in comments this month linking the defeat of Dutch troops by Serb forces at Srebrenica in July 1995 to the presence of openly gay soldiers in the Dutch military.

----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Makow
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Sheehan apologized..but you didn't print his retraction

# off


On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:28 AM, wrote:

Henry I am very disappointed with you. You lied to me when I confronted you about your homophobia. I have the e-mail, the one in which you favour "don't ask, don't tell policy". That policy by the U.S. Army is unacceptable to me and gays serving their country. I also have links to all your diatribes against homosexuals on your web-page.

You aren't fully honest. You can post whatever you want on your web page but the selective use of information amounts to misinformation. The following is but one example and one challenge I am calling you out on. It has to do with General Sheehan, his defamatory remarks about gay soldiers (which you gleefully reported) and the relatively mild demand for an apology, which he made on March 30th 2010, which you selectively chose not to report.

I am contemplating my next course of action.

Most Sincerely,




General John J. "Jack" Sheehan (born 1940) is a retired United States Marine Corps general. His final active duty commands, culminating 35 years of service in the Marine Corps, were as the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) for NATO and as Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. Atlantic Command (CINC USA COM) (1994-1997.)

In March 2010, he told a Senate Sub Committee that gays serving openly have a debilitating effect. (See YouTube above) He said the Commander of the Dutch Army blamed open gays for the failure of the Dutch to prevent the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica of 8,000 unarmed Bosnian men and boys by Serbian militia. It was the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.

Gen John Sheehan represents the true American male, in the finest American fighting tradition. In the above Youtube he is cross examined by the Jewish Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, who clearly favors allowing gays to serve openly. This is the classic challenge Americans face today from organized Jewry in the service of the Illuminati. This challenge jeopardizes all Jews who are going to be blamed for America's destruction. :

US general apologises for Dutch gay soldier remark 30 Mar 2010 21:35:44 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Sheehan apologises to Van den Bremmen in a letter

* Comments had led to threats to sue for defamation

By Ben Berkowitz

AMSTERDAM, March 30 (Reuters) - A retired U.S. general has apologised for comments this month linking the defeat of Dutch troops by Serb forces at Srebrenica in July 1995 to the presence of openly gay soldiers in the Dutch military.

On March 18, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander John Sheehan told a U.S. congressional hearing that European armies had been weakened by efforts to "socialise" them, including allowing gay soldiers to serve. [ID:nLDE62I1AY]

He specifically cited the example of Srebrenica, where Serb paramilitaries overran lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers before slaughtering over 7,000 Muslim men and boys. It was Europe's worst atrocity since World War Two, and a six-year investigation into the attack led to the fall of the Dutch government in 2002.

Sheehan said he had been told by a Dutch military commander that the Dutch felt the presence of gay soldiers was one of the reasons the peacekeepers were so easily defeated.

Disinfo agent par excellence!

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in