Henry Makow - manipulating SEX

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

June 17, 2011

by Henry Makow Ph.D.
(This essay was originally published in 2001)

What kind of man is this?
He is fastidious about his appearance, his home and his possessions. He wants as much sex as possible and chooses sexual partners mostly on the basis of appearance. He is self-absorbed and doesn't want emotional involvement or commitment. He thinks a woman would stifle him and children would be a burden.
Does this sound like many gays? It is also the masculine ideal purveyed by Playboy magazine to men since the 1950's.
The essence of manhood is to lead and support a family. But in 1972, 3 out of 4 male college students got their ideas about masculinity from Playboy, at an incalculable price to themselves, women, children and society.
The similarity between the Playboy and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. "The Kinsey Report" (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counterculture. It inspired Hugh Hefner to start Playboy in 1953.
Essentially "The Kinsey Report" said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey was a homosexual and the "Kinsley Report" was a fraud.
Kinsey, a University of Indiana zoologist, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to perform in homemade pornographic films. To prove that children have legitimate sexual needs. Kinsey and his fellow pedophiles either abused 2,000 infants and children and/or relied on data obtained in Nazi concentration camps. (Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, 1998, p.312)
Reisman concludes: "America's growing libidinous pathologies...taught in schools...and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policy largely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself."
Sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey's goal was "to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise." ( Reisman, Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.4 He cruised Times Square looking for subjects. More than 25% of his sample were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with impotence and self-mutilation (orchitis, Reisman p. 278), said 10 per cent of American men were gay when in fact only two per cent were.
Hugh Hefner said the Kinsey Report "produced a tremendous sexual awakening, largely because of media attention..." This shows how the elite orchestrates social change using media hype. (See Reisman, Kinsey, p.307)
With messianic fervor, Playboy took its gospel of sexual freedom to the American male who in the 1950's-1960's still consecrated sex for marriage. Playboy's aim, the aim of all pornographers, was to hook men on the glossy fantasy. To do this, they had to prevent them from finding true satisfaction in marriage.
In Reisman's words, "Playboy was the first national magazine to exploit college men's fears of women and family commitment. Playboy offered itself as a reliable, comforting substitute for monogamous heterosexual love." (Judith Reisman, "Soft Porn Plays Hardball," p 47)
Thus sworn enemies, Playboy and radical feminists, found common ground in hatred of the nuclear family. As a result, society now suffers from epidemics of family breakdown, pornography, impotence, child sexual abuse, sadosexual violence, teen pregnancy, a cocktail of STD's and, of course, AIDS. The birthrate has plummeted by 50% since 1960 and is barely at replacement level.
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder defined by the failure to establish a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. Psychologist Richard Cohen, in "Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality" (2000) argues it is caused when a male child fails to bond with his father. By having sex with men, the adult gay is trying to compensate for father-love denied in adolescence.
Cohen was gay and is now married with three children. He attributes lesbianism to a woman's reaction to being rebuffed or abused by her father. He has assisted hundreds of homosexuals, but is under constant attack for undermining the gay political agenda, (i.e. to redefine societal norms.)
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has pointed to another cause of homosexuality. A 1990 survey of 1000 gays shows that an older or more powerful partner physically assaulted 37% of them before the age of 19. ("Homosexuality and American Public Life," 1999, p.24). In addition, according to Anne Moir in "Why Men Don't Iron," some men may be "born gay" due to foetal hormone imbalances. They seem to be a minority.
For many decades, gays were told that they were "sick" and cruelly and wrongly persecuted. The gay activist solution: convince the world that, in fact, it is heterosexuals who are sick. In 1973, they bullied the American Psychological Association into proclaiming homosexuality normal. Together with feminist activists (who believe heterosexuality is inherently oppressive) gay activists began to dismantle all heterosexual institutions: masculinity, femininity, marriage, the nuclear family, the boy scouts, sports, and the military.
Backed by the financial elite, gay activists and their supporters now largely dictate our cultural sensibility. They are responsible for the puerile pornographic obsession that pervades television, music videos and the Internet. This state of arrested human development is characteristic of many homosexuals. But straights have been homosexualized too. With women acting like men, and vice versa, we can't establish a "permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex" either. The elite's purpose is to promote social dysfunction and depopulation. See "Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda".
Gay liberation manuals talk about "normalizing" their sexuality and "de-sensitizing" straights by flaunting it. I was livid in 1997 when I took my 10-year-old son to see Adam Sandler's movie "Billy Madison" and heard one teenage male youth in the film casually ask another: "Would you rather bone Pamela Anderson or a young Jack Nicholson?"
On TV's "Will and Grace," Jack who is gay dons an apron that says "Kiss the cook" pretending he thought the second "o" was a "c". Just as Communists once conned do-gooders to think radicalism was chic, gay activists define trendy for gullible liberals today.
Gay and feminist activists think traditional morality was invented to perpetuate an unjust status quo. In fact, morality is the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding what is healthy and ultimately fulfilling. Perversion is deviation from what is healthy.
Heterosexual morality places sex in the context of love and/or marriage because it is healthy and human. It ensures that the most profound and intimate physical act between two people expresses a commensurate emotional-spiritual bond. Promiscuous sex is a desperate plea for love. Love and marriage answer that call and provide for the natural and necessary outcome of sex, children.
With Hugh Hefner's help, Alfred Kinsey detached sex from love and procreation. He reduced it to another physical function like urinating. Homosexual activists champion anonymous sex: a majority of gays have 10s-100s of partners each year. In less extreme form, heterosexuals have adopted this model. Recently a social columnist enviously described straight friends whose relationships have ended: "they're out partying, having the time and the sex, it seems of their lives."
In conclusion, the "sexual revolution" was really a triumph of an elite program of arrested development. See also "The CIA, Homosexuality and Underdevelopment." The elite agenda is to redefine healthy as deviant and vice-versa and they have succeeded. In 40 short years, almost all sexual constraints have dissolved and heterosexual society is reeling. The cultural and social breakdown will only get worse unless there is a counterrevolution.
----------------------------------------------

The CIA, Homosexuality and Underdevelopment

April 10, 2002

"It's been a difficult, painful life," confessed my 79-year-old friend who is gay.

"I'm all alone. I missed my chance to have a family. I missed the boat."

I tried to comfort him. "It's not your fault. You were the victim of circumstances: a dominant mother and a weak ineffectual father."

I suggested that he is not alone.

Millions of people are deprived of family because our CIA-controlled media promotes homosexuality, specifically lesbianism disguised as "feminism". Lesbians have always been women who spurned the female role and coveted the male one.

"Look at me," I told him. "I'm straight but I've missed the boat too. I'm 52 and I don't have a family either. "

Yes, I found a sweet wife recently, and I have a 15-year-old son who lives with his mother nearby. But this is not the same as having a family. A man wrote me that he has 11 children! Of course, his father was "a man's man" and that set an example for him.

My father was old fashioned too. But I took my cues from CIA-controlled publications like Newsweek, which said people like my parents were "square."

Feminism let me off the hook. I didn't have to worry about providing for a family and giving them leadership. I could smoke pot, seek "enlightenment" and never grow up.

I didn't understand that becoming a good husband and father is the path to personal development. This is how I would find God, how I would become a man.

So, at 52, when my children should be leaving home, I contemplate having a baby. At 52, I begin to understand how men not only create new life but also determine a child's emotional and spiritual experience. I realize now that I need to set the tone in my home. I am too "laissez faire." Like Abraham and Moses, I need to lead my flock.

It's no accident the elite has targeted the patriarchal male. Strong families (and societies) are based on strong male leadership. Without it, sons become effeminate and daughters become masculine. People become dysfunctional: love starved and obsessed with sex.

Recently, I was attracted to a contestant on 'Who wants to be a Millionaire?" She stood out from other young women. She was feminine. Her manner was so fresh, her gestures so appealing. She had won $32K and she was going to start a business with it. But there was a charming quality about it all; she wasn't trying to prove anything.

I wondered what her secret was. Then, I found out. For the $64K question, she opted to phone her father. You could see from their interaction that she loved and trusted her father. When she grew impatient and panicked, he calmed her firmly but gently. Then he gave her the right answer.

Strong fathers make for masculine sons and feminine daughters. They make for strong families. Weak or absent fathers create weak men, feminists, lesbians and homosexuals. Listen to two leading feminist pioneers:

Gloria Steinem: "My father was living in California. He didn't ring up but I would get letters from him and saw him maybe once or twice a year."

Germaine Greer: "My father had decided pretty early on that life at home was pretty unbearable...it gave my mother an opportunity to tyrannize the children and enlist their aid to disenfranchise my father completely."

These dysfunctional women would have gone nowhere had they not been handpicked to destabilize society. The CIA-feminist assault on the American family mirrors the CIA assault on the Black family, and the Third World.

The CIA poured cocaine into the ghettoes and destroyed the Black family. Sixty eight percent of black children are now born out of wedlock. Then, the CIA used its control of the media and education (through the foundations) to poison white male-female relations with "feminism". Today if a man admires a woman on the street, instead of being flattered she acts like he's assaulted her. Feminism has reduced all human relations to sex, and all sex to exploitation. Our society is sour because of it.

The white family is in a tailspin. Since 1960, the divorce rate has doubled and the birth rate has been cut in half. Cohabitation has increased eleven-fold. A third of all children are growing up without a father. Tens of millions of people are "missing the boat."

The ultimate model for underdevelopment is the Third World. When I was a socialist, I couldn't understand why capitalists would keep the Third World in a state of poverty, and thwart all political change. Wouldn't it make more sense to develop these countries as prosperous markets?

Now I realize the problem is not capitalism but feudalism. A few dozen superrich families control the United States and England just as other families control the Philippines or Equator. The feudal agenda is to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the few and stifle or eliminate the many. This is the hideous truth that historian and journalist are paid high salaries to obscure. This is the essence of the New World Order.

Economic underdevelopment and our personal underdevelopment are part of the same picture. Whether its denial of livelihood or denial of our heterosexuality, the elite is deliberately thwarting our fulfillment as human beings.

The chickens are coming home to roost. What we have shamefully tolerated in the Third World now will happen to us. We are being dumbed down and degraded as human beings. (Everything that happens in the physical world first happens in the heart and mind.) We are being patiently readied for more elite-inspired terrorism, war, epidemics, low wages, and fascism. Stripped of high sounding rhetoric, this is the essence of globalism. Unlike the denizens of the Third World, we haven't the support of strong families. 

--------------------------------------------------------

The Devil's Work: Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda

February 20, 2002

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

As my readers know by now, I believe the world has for the last hundred years or more been in the grips of a conspiracy by an ultra rich elite whose goal is nothing less than the destruction of civilization, as we know it. I believe we are in the advanced stage of a gradual decline into a "New World Order" which combines monopoly capitalism with communist totalitarianism.

Believe me, this is an argument I would be delighted to lose.

We have been conditioned to scoff at the mention of conspiracy The idea that people might plan something without telling the intended victims is much too farfetched! Nor would they ever disguise their aim! My purpose is not to convert you to my view. Rather, I want you to seek information that either confirms or refutes it.

We are like the passengers on a bus that keeps having "accidents" which cause untold death and suffering. These are wars, depressions and epidemics etc. We have just completed the bloodiest century in human history: Auschwitz, Dresden, Ruanda, Hiroshima, Cambodia. Over a hundred million people were murdered, and that's not counting abortions.

We keep changing the 'driver' but the accidents do not cease. This is because the drivers all take their orders from the same diabolical source.

Because the human race keeps running off the road, we are not reaching our destination. The road is G-d's plan. For Christians, this is Jesus' Gospel of Love. The destination: to know G-d. Mankind evolved for this purpose. G-d wishes to be known by His Creation.

Our purpose is to know ourselves to be Divine. G-d is the principle of our evolution, both personal and collective. Truth and Goodness are Absolutes: they are G-d. All great religions teach us to listen for G-d's voice and obey it.

When we deny the existence of G-d, we are denying the principle of our own evolution and stunting our development. When we deny God, we deny ourselves. When we deny man's divinity, we open the door for genocide.

A reader "Pat" wrote last week that he has "a hard time believing that a group of elites could agree on anything, let alone a far reaching evil agenda...[It] seems like the process of achieving this agenda is too slow for any bad people...requires too much flawless, seamless, secretive, cooperation...The only entity with that kind of plan and patience with that kind of plan and patience would have to be the devil himself, wouldn't it?"

I replied that he was on to something. At the beginning of the 20th Century, huge fortunes were built by monopoly capitalists like J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller. The "D" stands for "devil." What is monopoly but the desire to "have it all," and to drive everyone else out of existence. Evil is the spiritual cancer that seeks to "fulfill" itself not in G-d, but in limitless material acquisition and sensual excess.

It was not a large leap for a J.D. Rockefeller to go from owning the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry etc. to wanting to own the whole world. This is the reason that Rockefeller and his foundation have been in the forefront of the population "control" and eugenics movement. Ultimately the goal is to reduce the earth's population for the simple warped reason that the less there is for you and me, the more there will be for J.D. and his cronies.

The elite just loves birth control. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner are among the ultra rich that have donated billions to spreading the gospel of contraception, abortion, and feminism using the United Nations and "US Aid." Rockefeller funded the invention of the pill, the IUD and owns the rights to the abortion drug RU-486. In the last 50 years, billions of public dollars have been spent on "family planning" designed to limit population by deceit and coercion, including compulsory abortion and infanticide. In "The War Against Population (1988)," Dr. Jacqueline Kasun writes that in 1981, a directory of population control agencies in Washington DC listed 92 private (but mostly publicly funded) agencies, 12 United Nations and 57 agencies of the US government (p. 198). "The real problem of government family planning is not one of families out of control but of planners out of control," she wrote (p.211).

For the same reason, the Elite is behind "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." Through funding and media control, they make us regard sex as a recreation/physical release rather than as the expression of a spiritual bond (i.e. a loving marriage) resulting in children.

The Elite modus operandi is to finance and promote disgruntled minorities in order to destabilize and undermine the world. Feminism is a prime example. It pretends to be about giving women equal opportunity in the workplace when in fact it is devoted to discouraging women from seeking fulfillment in motherhood.

In the bible of modern feminism, "The Feminine Mystique" (1963) Betty Frieden makes this obscene comparison between housewives and Nazi concentration camp inmates:

"They were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..."(306)

Clearly Frieden is talking about mothers. Comparing the nurturing of their children to the brutal slavery and poisoning of Auschwitz inmates is psychological warfare of the most vicious kind. Friedan, who hid the fact that she was a paid Communist activist, should have been denounced as a hate monger. Instead she was celebrated as the new oracle and received honorary degrees and fellowships at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. Saturday Review called her book "a scholarly work, appropriate for serious study" and anthropologist Ashley Montegu said it was "the wisest, sanest, soundest, most understanding and compassionate treatment of American woman's greatest problem."

Do we need further proof that the world is one-horse company town, and J.D. and his cabal own the company? They decide which politicians, universities and academics get funding, which books get published and reviewed, which movies get made. We are condemned to look into mirrors that don't reflect reality. That's why we are so skeptical of conspiracy. That's why most people on this web site don't get published. On the other hand, Eve Eisler, is reading her pornographic play "The Vagina Monologues" on HBO this month. This "play, " which features women looking at their genitals with hand mirrors and describing steamy scenes of lesbian sex with minors, masquerades as feminist empowerment. In fact, it is an invitation to lesbianism.

Feminism fits the elite's depopulation agenda. Since 1963, when "The Feminine Mystique" was published we have experienced an unprecedented breakdown in the family. More than half of all children are now born out of wedlock; the number of single parent households has tripled. In "The Broken Hearth," William Bennett writes: "Most of our social pathologies, crime, imprisonment rates, welfare, educational underachievement, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, STD's, are manifestations, direct and indirect, of the crackup of the American family (p.4)."

We are now suffering from underpopulation. The US birthrate has been cut from 4 to 2 children per woman, the European and Canadian is 1.5. (We need 2.2 just for replacement.) Russia (1.17 children) will see its population plummet from 145 million to 115 million by 2015. In the "Death of the West," Pat Buchanan argues that population decline is responsible for the inevitable extinction of the West.

Reproduction requires the most delicate care. In the case of human beings, the female must be prepared for motherhood and honored for her contribution to society. The male must be shown that the standard of manhood is to provide leadership and sustenance for mother and children. Both mother and father must be able to give their children intellectual and spiritual guidance.

Instead, in schools and universities, the tender shoots of feminine sexuality are crushed under the feminist jackboot. Young women are taught that heterosexual sex, marriage and family are inherently oppressive. Homosexuality on the other hand is an act of rebellion that is "chic" and "normal."

Frieden's comparison of mothers with the concentration camp inmates is pertinent. Betty Frieden, agent of the elite cabal, has put mothers in the concentration camp. Mothers!? The ultimate aim is genocide. The Elite want the world's population to be much smaller. Can there be any question that this is the devil's work? 

-------------------------------------------------------------

What Betty Friedan Didn't Want You to Know

August 15, 2001

Please go to the revised version of this article.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

"Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy. . .The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp."
George Dimitrov , the General Secretary of the Comintern (Communist International) speaking to the Seventh Meeting in August, 1935. Cited in Paul Johnson, Modern Times, (New York, 1983) p.323.

If I said Stalin was a Communist, would you accuse me of Red-baiting? No? Then you won't mind if I say Betty Friedan, the "mother of modern feminism" hid the fact that she was a Communist activist. I will provide the evidence in a moment.

As a former leftist-liberal, I am a typical example of how citizens of free countries have been brainwashed to underestimate the danger of Communism. I believed that Communism was basically an idealistic philosophy of public ownership. I wasn't concerned that it was a brutal dictatorship that murdered and enslaved millions. It didn't matter that the people weren't "free" because freedom was something I took for granted. I no longer take freedom for granted. A couple of years ago, although innocent, I was imprisoned by feminist domestic violence laws. Then, I was silenced at a feminist controlled university. Again, the feminist dominated media ignored my book, "A Long Way to go for a Date," a serious work of social protest. For me, it has been a slow and wrenching political and psychological awakening.

Communism was and is a worldwide movement. Although it has failed in Russia and China, its legacy in the West is alive and well. I am referring to the modern Feminist movement which is a child of the Cold War "Old Left," represented by Friedan, and the 1960's "New Left" represented by the Woman's Liberation Movement. The progeny is a radical, totalitarian party, which has gained incredible power by pretending to seek "equal rights" for women, by masquerading as "the women's movement." Feminism is a Trojan Horse. It has already inflicted incredible damage to our social fabric, culture and to our freedom. It has made us dysfunctional.

Communists, just like the Nazis, wanted totalitarian domination of the world. Their plan included a huge program of so called "Popular Front" organizations (of students, women, workers or artists) which, in the 1920's and 1930's, sought to subvert democracies. These groups invited non-Marxists to combat evil and creating a better world, thus satisfy a quasi-religious craving for meaning. Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized and controlled these fronts, and referred to them as "my Innocents' Clubs". He served Stalinism by expanding the range of propaganda to include protest marches, socialist publications, arts festivals, ad hoc committees and newspaper ads signed by celebrities. In the words of historian Stephan Koch, Munzenberg "was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the "enlightened" moral agenda of his era." (Koch, Stephen, Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)

An essential ingredient of this campaign was a large network of prominent "opinion makers" (scientists, academics, artists, filmmakers) who raised money and spread the hidden Soviet message. These "fellow-travelers" included such writers as Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker, Dashiell Hammett, and Lincoln Steffins. These non-Communists were controlled and managed by Comintern agents; in the case of Steffins, his own wife. They were a smoke screen for ideas which would not have been accepted if their origin were known.

In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:

"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. Under no circumstances.... You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break. You believe in open-mindedness. You are shocked, frightened by what is going on here in our own country. You are frightened by the racism, by the oppression of the working man. You think the Russians are trying a great human experiment, and you hope it works. You yearn for international understanding. You hate fascism, You think the capitalist system is corrupt. You say all of that, over and over. And you say nothing more." (Koch, p. 220)

One of these Communist controlled "Popular Front" organizations was the "Congress of American Women" which was founded in 1946 and reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a "foreign agent" by the U.S. government. The feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the "CAW's agenda prefigured much of the modern women's movement that emerged in the sixties." (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)

Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique (1963) which sold more than five million copies, is considered the manifesto of the modern feminist movement. Friedan and Simon de Beauvoir, are the pioneers of modern feminism. In the book, Friedan describes herself as a typical suburban housewife and mother who had a revelation. She realized that women like herself are being exploited and dehumanized; and, she actually compared their plight with that of Nazi concentration camp inmates. She pointed to career as a woman's only path to identity and self-fulfillment.

What Friedan didn't say is that she wasn't a typical housewife. Rather, she had been a Marxist activist since her undergraduate years at Smith College (1938-1942) where she wrote for the college newspaper. She dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a radical left wing news service. From 1946 -1952 she was a reporter for the union newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States."

Daniel Horowitz, a Professor of History at Smith who has impeccable Liberal and feminist credentials, reports all of this. His book, published in 1999, is entitled Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press). The essence can be found in a 1996 article in American Quarterly which is available on the Internet. (http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/aq/48.1horowitz.html). There, Horowitz writes: "Her writings of the 1940's and early 1950's reveal that... Popular Front ideology shaped the way Friedan viewed American society and politics (11)."

Horowitz cites an anti-Communist union member who described how a Communist minority "seized control of the national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals" (12, emphasis mine.) In 1947, the U.S Congress, the Roman Catholic Church and large corporations, targeted the UE as a Communist front. Afterward its membership began a steady decline.

Betty Frieden didn't want anyone to know about her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she perpetuated the myth that she had no interest in the condition of women before her "revelation." She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of "Red-baiting."

Why? Because The Feminist Mystique would not have the same impact if her revolutionary agenda were known. Communists operate by subterfuge -- infiltrating, propagandizing and pretending to be like us. Friedan could not tell us who she really was. The same tactics are used by "feminists" whose very name, and claim to be "the woman's movement" is a smoke screen for a fanatical anti feminine, anti social crusade.

The radical "Left" stalled on the political/economic front in the US, but reinvented itself as a Popular Front-like social movement. Radical women, tired of their second-class status in the New Left, split off to form the "Woman's Liberation Movement." They applied "Marxist analysis" to their own experience, deciding that inequality and injustice was based on gender instead of class. By denying and eliminating gender differences, they would create a new utopia. Thus, feminists made women the oppressed proletariat and they made the destruction of the capitalist "patriarchy" their revolutionary agenda.

Communists used the chimera of a "just" and "classless" society to seek totalitarian power. Their feminist progeny is using the equally spurious promise of a sexless society to take power. Feminists do believe the destruction of heterosexuality will bring social justice.

The FBI kept tabs on the Women's Liberation Movement throughout the turbulent seventies but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran of the New Left, finds this ironic.

"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive." (260)

By attacking the social fabric, feminists have inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever could have dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women where none should exist. Heterosexuality and the family have declined. The birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 1.5 today.[Replacement is 2.1] The future belongs to people who are having children. Under the guise of fighting "sexism," the nation's schools teach sexual dysfunction. They indoctrinate the young to deny their innate masculinity or femininity and to be open to homosexuality. In the media and universities, obeisance is paid to the feminist party line, or "political correctness." Feminist academics are busy replacing the cultural heritage of Western Civilization with their party nonsense. In the military, the introduction of women as combat soldiers has undermined efficiency and discipline. Soon we won't be in a position to defend our compromised values.

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective.

Politicians and the public have been bamboozled. Most people think this movement represents the interests of women. This, in spite of being founded on three outrageous lies. They are:

1. Except for sex organs, men and women are psychologically identical.
2. Men have oppressed women.
3. Women can best achieve self-fulfillment in careers

Feminists --male and female-- believe these lies. They have made a huge psychological investment in them. And they are too ambitious to ask questions. Membership in the Feminist Party is now a prerequisite to advancement, just as Communist Party membership was in Soviet Russia. Politicians and media have also made a huge investment in this socially destructive philosophy. As a society, we are in denial.

Joseph Stalin and Soviet Russia may be dead but the monster it spawned roams the earth. Betty Friedan has done her job by keeping the legacy of Communism alive. Western society has been subverted. 

-------------------------------------------------------

Why All Porn is Gay (Encore)

February 24, 2009

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

(originally posted in Feb. 2006)

In 2004, a woman revealed details of Hugh Hefner's sex life.

If the Playboy founder is any indication, a life dedicated to porn and promiscuity leads to homosexuality and impotence. The 60's icon of suave masculinity is, in old age, a grotesque self-parody.

Hefner, 82, pays a bevy of whores $2000 a week to be his girlfriends and have sex with him every Wednesday and Friday. He uses Viagra and watches male gay porn to stay erect while as many as ten concubines mount him in succession. The other girls simulate lesbian sex to arouse him.

"He doesn't really do anything," says Jill Anne Spaulding, author of the book "Upstairs." He just lies there with his Viagra erection. It's just a fake erection, and each girl gets on top of him for two minutes while the girls in the background try to keep him excited. They'll yell things like, "F-k her daddy, f-k her daddy!" There's a lot of cheerleader going on!"

No one becomes a playmate without having intercourse with Hefner. The "girl next door" is now a whore; and Hefner's maudlin example of arrested development is a fitting epitaph for his Playboy Philosophy.

Playboy was not a spontaneous phenomenon. It was social engineering designed to foster homosexuality and family breakdown. See my "Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution." This is why Spaulding's revelations got so little publicity.

DEFINING HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL

The "establishment" agenda is to destabilize and neuter us by encouraging homosexual behavior. This ensures we don't propagate since homosexuals have sex but don't have children.

They redefine "homosexual" as a "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice" rather than a developmental disorder so as to entrap us. Never mind that the vast majority of homosexuals come from dysfunctional families or suffered sexual abuse as youths. Our reluctance to embrace homosexuality is considered "bigotry."

In response, let's take liberties with these definitions ourselves. Having the right paradigm is the key to healthy behavior.

Forget about what you normally think of gay or straight (same-sex , opposite sex attraction etc.) Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and dedicated to rearing children; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake.

Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is a form of arrested development caused by an inability to form a heterosexual bond. As a result, homosexuals compensate using sex as a surrogate for love.

In these terms, society has become more homosexual because, due to social engineering (i.e. the "sexual revolution," feminism) many heterosexuals now fail to permanently bond. Normally, happily married heterosexuals can put sex in perspective and move on to more important things.

A perceptive reader recently wrote me: "If heterosexual sex outside of marriage is acceptable, if we eliminate the procreative aspect from sex, are heterosexuals any different from homosexuals in regards to the sexual activity?"

Exactly. I know these definitions are not "politically correct." PC is propaganda, social engineering and mind control. PC is an old Communist Party (i.e. Illuminati) term.

I do not disparage gays. According to my definitions, the vast majority of homosexuals are really "heterosexuals" like Hugh Hefner. And a small minority of homosexuals are monogamous and partake in some heterosexual values.

HOW SEX BECAME AN ACT OF HATE

Last year I wrote: "Throughout modern history Illuminati bankers have used "sexual liberation" to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny. As Masonic revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini said, "we corrupt in order to rule."

The Illuminati bankers need to introduce "world government" to translate their unjust monopoly over credit into total world control.

They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a main plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, along with the creation of a private central bank.

Every major "revolution" in modern history has increased Illuminati banker control and the sexual revolution is no exception.

The Illuminati used Hugh Hefner's "Playboy" to divorce sex from love, marriage and family. They own the major cartels and control the media through advertising.

The movies are very effective in fostering homosexuality. Sex is often something reserved for your enemies. Recently I saw "Dr. No" (1962) again. The fashionable James Bond has sex with a woman even after he realizes she is involved in an attempt to kill him. After they have sex, Bond has her imprisoned.

In the movie Munich (2006), the Israeli assassins confront an attractive woman who killed their colleague. She displays her goods and suggests her death would be "a waste of talent." She thinks they might have sex with a woman they intend to kill.

Human beings are malleable and take their standards from movies. There is nothing so destructive to human society as the separation of sex and love. It reduces men to dogs, and women to fire hydrants.

The Illuminati wishes to harness sex in the interests of hate. Love is the enemy of hate and must be destroyed.

ALL PORN IS GAY

According to our definition of homosexuality, (i.e. promiscuity outside of love and/or procreation), all pornography is gay. The porn consumer is engaged in a promiscuous masturbatory fantasy. He is not focused on his marriage and progeny.

From what I have said, it should be clear that homosexuality is incompatible with heterosexuality, just as promiscuity is incompatible with monogamy. Gay activists admit their goal is to destroy heterosexuality.

Pornography is poisoning heterosexuality. There is a place for tasteful nudity as a stopgap while seeking marriage.
(See my "Managing the Male Sex Drive" ) But as you know, pornography has reached epidemic proportions. "Adult Video News" predicts revenue of $12.6 billion this year. The Internet has literally thousands of porn sites. TV and pop music increasingly are pornographic.

Pornography warps the way a man sees all women and girls. Many sites include girls as young as 14. See "Erototoxins"

Young females think they are useful for one thing only. Thousands in the porn industry display what everyone has instead of cultivating what is rare and valuable: femininity.

I hate to burst the bubble on a billion dollar industry: Young naked women are practically identical. They have identical equipment. Boobs and bush. Symmetrical faces. Do men need to see literally thousands of examples?

There is something addictive here. Why don't men get sick of it? Why don't they suffer from gynecologist's fatigue? The plethora of breasts and splayed legs takes the wonder out of sex and causes contempt for women and impotence. Maybe this is the point: new drugs keep people running on empty. (See "The Porn Pharma Complex")

Sexual attraction is mostly a function of a woman's fertility. Women are designed to marry and procreate when they are young and most attractive. Marriage ensured that men would have to commit if they wanted sex. By undermining marriage, occult social engineers have turned a critical social and reproductive activity into a lifetime obsession, better to divert, degrade and control the masses.

FINALLY

We were not prepared for the attack on our humanity by "sexual liberation" and porn. We didn't know our leadership had been subverted by the Illuminati.

Marriage and family are the essential building blocks of society. Family ensures that each new generation is properly nurtured and prepared for life.

Most people receive values, purpose, identity and love from their family roles.

Heterosexuality provides life with profound meaning. There is no greater potential for love than marriage and parenthood.

Raising a child is the supreme act of devotion and faith in God and is practiced and tested every day.

Homosexual social engineering is gradually destroying these sources of happiness and health, personal and societal.

---------------------------------

The Other Attack on Our Manhood

September 19, 2001

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

The vicious terrorist assault on the United States will put our manhood to the test. Victory will depend on qualities that are distinctly masculine: leadership, vision, power, rationality, and courage. While terrorists attacked New York and Washington last week, gay and feminist activists have besieged our masculinity for more than three decades. In my view, this activism is a Trojan Horse in society.

Personally, I believe in live and let live. I think the majority of homosexuals feel the same way. In a time of war, we want to foster unity, not discord. But it does not help to paper over divisions that may effect our ability to fight.

Since 1970, gay-feminist activists have waged a campaign to foster homosexuality among heterosexuals. They are candid about this goal. "The end goal of the feminist revolution is the elimination of the sex distinction itself," says Shulamith Firestone (The Dialectic of Sex, 1972, p.11) "Heterosexual hegemony is being eroded," says Gary kinsman. "The forms of sexuality considered natural have been socially created and can be socially transformed." (The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada, 1987, p.219) "In a free society, everyone will be gay," says Allen Young, a pioneer of the Gay Liberation Movement. (John D'Emilio, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, p.322)

Unlike us, gays understand that their campaign for "equal rights" will erase the distinction between gay and straight. In the words of gay historian Jonathan Katz.

In one sense the right is right...to accuse the gay and lesbian rights movement of threatening homogenization....if gay and lesbian liberationists ever achieve full equality, they will do away with the social need for the hetero/homo division. The secret of the most moderate, mainstream gay and lesbian civil rights movement is its radically transformative promise (or threat, depending on your values). The Invention of Heterosexuality, 1995, p.188.

Gay and feminist activists have found common cause because, ignoring all scientific evidence, they insist male-female distinctions are artificial. While many heterosexuals consider themselves "feminists", feminism is a homosexual movement. It believes that men and women are not only equal but the same and only social conditioning makes us different. Homosexuality is love of the same.

Today, gay and feminist activists want "people" to make love to "people" regardless of their sex. They depict normal heterosexual behavior as pathological. They demonize men as abusers and the heterosexual family as oppressive. The way to social justice, they believe, is to abolish heterosexuality altogether.

Gay-feminist activism is founded in Marxism and is a subversive force. Both the Gay and Woman's liberation movements were spawned by the 1960's Marxist "New Left" These groups transferred the Marxist analysis of class to gender. The goal is the same: the "patriarchy" (white men, capitalism, class) is the source of all evil and must be destroyed ("transformed"). Women (the proletariat) and anyone else deemed "oppressed" (gays, certain favored minorities) must be handed position and power.

Why have straights passively endured this attack? 1) The gay-feminists have waged their war with impunity by asserting their victim status. Guilt, whether founded or not, is a very potent weapon. Straights can't even defend their own sexuality for fear of accusations of "homophobia" and "sexism." These days anyone who does not want to be gay is homophobic. 2) Typical Marxists, they practiced deceit successfully. They attracted widespread support by pretending to champion women when in fact they always had a revolutionary homosexual agenda. Now politicians and media are in massive denial because they have empowered these radicals and even put them in charge of educating the young. The situation is comparable to the liberal refusal in the 1940's and 1950's to admit the government was riddled with Soviet Spies.

Many public schools virtually "break the ice" for gays. For example, the Grade Seven curriculum in Ontario introduces 12-year-old children to oral and anal sex. Phyllis Benedict, president of the Ontario Elementary Teacher's Federation said the union is "trying to promote a more positive [homosexual] environment in schools." (National Post, Aug.16) This extends to undermining the heterosexual family by reading books like "Aasha's Moms" and "Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads."

On the other hand, heterosexuality is virtually a taboo. Our children's textbooks have been rewritten to eliminate any hint that men and women might be different, live in traditional families, or behave in "stereotypical" ways. As a university lecturer, I tried to teach novelists like D.H. Lawrence, who portrayed male-female love in positive terms. I was accused of "sexual harassment" by feminist activists and lost my job. (Sexual harassment is now defined as anything that makes a feminist uncomfortable.)

As heterosexuals, we cannot explore our sexuality because homosexuals may be "uncomfortable." This has led to the demoralization of society. We cannot celebrate men as masculine and women as feminine. We do not celebrate heterosexual love, the greatest gift that life offers us. This daily denial of our sexual identity amounts to persecution. It used to be 'live and let live.' Now gay and feminist activists will not let us live.

In a recent episode of the TV show Friends, Ross and Rachel are in a sports car. Rachel avoids paying a speeding fine by flirting with the handsome traffic cop. Ross takes the steering wheel and is stopped for driving too slowly. Well, if Rachel can do it, so can he. Ross tries to flirt with the male cop. I found Ross' behavior demeaning and embarrassing. The message is that we can all go both ways -- even the cop. This is the reality behind the gay activist demand for "equality". It isn't enough to tolerate them, we must become them. It doesn't matter if we are comfortable, as long as they are.

There was more on the same Friends episode. Chandler's father apparently is a drag queen. (Hypocritically, "he" is played by Kathleen Turner.) Chandler and Monica attend a drag performance by his father. Chandler reveals that he and Monica are getting married soon. There is awkwardness because dad wasn't invited. But don't despair. Chandler invites him to the wedding and we all enjoy a liberal "feel good" moment.

This situation would be deeply humiliating to any male who honors his own masculinity. We model ourselves on our fathers. Marriage is a heterosexual sacrament. A drag queen represents everything the son has rejected. But heterosexual values don't matter as long as drag queens are made comfortable. It's a wonder Chandler isn't gay himself. Stay tuned.

Homosexual behavior makes straights uncomfortable. Most men find the sight of two men kissing deeply repulsive. Gay families are not the same as ours. The adoption of straight children by gays denies their differences and distorts development. Gay marriages are different from hetero marriages, and should have a different status. The gay demand for "equality" deliberately distorts our perceptions of ourselves. It implies the gay experience is the same as ours. It is not. As Katz says, the "secret" purpose is to "do away with the social need for the hetero/homo division."

In conclusion, the homosexual model does not fit heterosexuals. It's time to recognize that homo and hetero sexuality are in fierce competition. There can only be one model. The most important domestic issue of the dawning 21st Century is:

Will ours be a heterosexual society that tolerates a 4% gay minority?

Or, will it be a homosexual society that persecutes a 96% straight majority? History is full of examples of minorities that have persecuted majorities. Take Communism for example.

If straights don't establish the norms, gay activists will. When Gay/feminist activist demand "equality," they are demanding that one model fit all. They are saying that we are the same. We are not. In order to wage war abroad, we have to make heterosexual values paramount at home. 

------------------------------------------------------