Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution
June 17, 2011
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
(This essay was originally published in 2001)
(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
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:
- Except for sex organs, men and women are psychologically identical.
- Men have oppressed women.
- 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.
(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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------
