Henry Makow - general discussion

Hi Moralman,

I agree, Dr. Makow is indeed spot on in his observations. I have a thread going about feminism and the reversal of gender roles in our society, over in the Conspiracy section, inspired by a Makow article.  It's 3 pages and just keeps on going! 

So, to tackle your questions:

1. Is Henry Makow accurate in his opinions?

So far he seems to be, in my opinion anyway.  His views on feminism, the NWO, etc. are all spot on, like you said.

2. Is Henry Makow wrong on certain issues and if so then what?

He might be wrong in some of the numbers he quotes, but as far as the issues themselves are concerned, no, he's not wrong.  In my opinion!

3. Do you find feminism acceptable and if so then why?

Female rights...yes, acceptable.  But feminism and what is has done / is doing to our society.....no.  Again, see my thread on feminism.  There's 3 pages of posts from many posters here at NR concerning this topic. 

4. Do you find homosexuality as normal and acceptable and if so then why?

Umm.  Now this is a question that most don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.  Very sensitive.   One of those highly charged subjects.  Well, all I can say is that I really do firmly believe that people are born homosexual.  They don't have a choice.  Some are born straight, others are born gay, and that's how it goes.  Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed, and always will.   That's also the way it goes.  And so in that regard, yes, it's "normal".   Being that it's always existed and always will, it therefore to me is acceptable.  It's a part of nature.  It happens.  Nobody can change that.    What I don't necessarily agree with though is the gay male lifestyle, which often includes lots of promiscuity, lack of protection, and mucho drug usage.  I believe they create most of their own problems.   The diseases, the impaired immune system, that's all preventable.  Their lives don't have to be that way.  They can't choose their sexual orientation, but they CAN choose the way in which they live their lives. 

I also have a problem with the way in which TPTB/Illuminati/Brotherhood, whatever you want to call them, have taken the gay thing and have just RUN with it over the past 20 years, pushing it on the population.  It's one thing to feature gays in the media...it's another thing entirely to actually try to convert the population to the gay male lifestyle.

One Makow point which I found interesting was his take on Playboy magazine.  Since it's introduction in 1955 I think, it's worked hard to push what they call the Playboy lifestyle - lots of casual promiscuous sex with as many females as possible.  No committment, no settling down and actually getting married and having a family.  Just be that suave, cool Playboy bachelor.  And what is this?  It's the gay male lifestyle, but done by the straight male.   VERY interesting. 

Another point which I've come across - The t.v. show "Sex and the City."  About 4 majorly promiscuous single females in NYC who bang as many guys as possible, as often as possible, talking with themselves in very vulgar explicit terms in a way that the average female doesn't, and doing every sexual position / trick under the sun, putting the Kama Sutra to shame.   And guess what?  It's a show written and produced by a Gay male.   Darren Star.  So again, taking the gay male lifestyle and putting it on the straight population.   The show makes 4 heterosexual females carry on the way gay males often do. 

And in bombarding the public with this "new lifestyle" habit they hope to alter the old lifestyle habits to this new gay male lifestyle.  Makow talks about the decline in marriage and the low birth rate this country is currently experiencing, which he directly links to the campaign over the last 50 years to discouraging everybody from getting married and having a family, and instead, getting the females to pursue "fulfilling careers" (feminism) and the males to be promiscuous bachelors (the gay male lifestyle).

Hi Moralman,

While I undertand that most people probably don't want to see two people of the same sex getting cozy, (I know it bothers me when I see movies or whatever that show this, my initial reaction is always "yuck!" and slight cringing) I don't think though that there's a wrathful God as depicted in the bible that feels anger, hate or detest towards homosexuals.  The bible has also been distorted by TPTB over the years to instill fear and anxiety on the population for the purpose of control. Also, because all the psychological trauma that results from the fear and anxiety provides ample energy for them to feed on. 

Everybody is entitled to their opinions about homosexuality, and we're all entitled to our own reactions to it.  I just don't happen to agree with the concept of a vengeful, hateful, wrathful God.  I think it's bunk! 

A good place to start is the book "The Gods of Eden", by William Bramley.   Highly recommended reading that tackles a number of subjects, mostly war and religion and how both have been manipulated by our unseen controllers over the millenia.

I understand.  It depends on the people I suppose, and it sounds like you're surrounded by an annoying bunch!

Reeeeaaaaly!   Well, I've befriended a few.  So, sorry to break it to you.   At one job I was at in Florida, the most popular guy in the entire company just so happened to be a gay male pagan witch!   He was by far one of the coolest people I've ever worked with, and only one of two total people I ever hung out with outside of work...and would even CONSIDER hanging with, for that matter.  He had a great, positive energy, just exuded a high energy positive vibe.  He was extremely intelligent and very funny, FANTASTIC conversationalist, very honest and open and into ALL the "weird" subjects.  Oh yeah, and he was a loyal friend who was always the first to go to bat for one of his friends if people in the company were talkin' smack about them.   You knew he had your back.  All of which are important attributes for me for being drawn to somebody for friendship.  I didn't care who / what he was boinking behind closed doors.  All I cared about was that he was seriously one of the ONLY "REAL" people in the company and his vibe just drew people to him like moths to a flame.  In this world where we're surrouned by so many bland zombie robot MCS puppets I'll take a cool, REAL gay male friend anyday versus a supposedly straight MCS puppet.   

What's interesting is that in one breath you claim to not care who people sleep with **behind closed doors**, but in the next breath you spout talk about how "no self respecting female would befriend a sodomite."    Well, last time I checked, my gay male buddy was sodomizin'.........behind closed doors.  I never witnessed one homosexual act on his part, not even when I visited his apartment and his boyfriend was there.  Not even so much as a touch.   Nada.  It really and truly was "behind closed doors."  So that contradicts to claim that you don't care what people do behind closed doors when you kinda obviously do to the point where you believe a female shouldn't be friends with a gay male even if he limits his activities to "behind closed doors."   

Maybe because the rest of us are smart enough to realize that not every gay male and their "female supporters" are discriminating against others?   Maybe because some of us realize that there are plenty of gay males who DON'T act this way, and that it would be unfair to make across-the-board generalizations about them?

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions.   

Just a note concerning the "gay male lifestyle", a majority of gay males doesn't live like what you might see in the media suggesting the promiscues, drug using, excentric, sex addicted coming out types.
They don't use drugs and use condoms with different partners. So their lives don't have to be, and are not only, that way.
Concerning promiscuity, in the sixties there was a wave of heterosexual open relationships, but since the eighties this became less socially accepted, or went undercover while it remained in the gay scene.

Concerning Moralman's questions:

1. Is Henry Makow accurate in his opinions?

I don't think so.

2. Is Henry Makow wrong on certain issues and if so then what?

Some quotes:

* "The fact that the words "heterosexual" and "heterosexuality" are used relatively infrequently is for me a shocking illustration of the cultural vacuum the non-gay majority inhabits. Our majority "default" status doesn't explain it."

I think it does, but he doensn't explain why he think it doesn't. I think it's only normal that this 3% marginalized population gets attention as there are a lot of issues to write about concerning this marginalized group: coming out, the lifestyle, aids, the hypocracy. So in my view it's only natural that there is more written about that. Hmmm I wonder how much the word heterosexuality occurs in Makows texts compared to homosexuality.
Basicly Markow doesn't quantify how much to much is, doesn't investigate the contexts in which heterosexual and homosexual are used - so cannot argue for or against anything with the above. Just using the word "fact" doesn't count.

* Another example, he characterizes of American Wedding (2003) as a "cultural assault on heterosexual norms", while referring to his description of what are clearly heterosexual acts.

I think he means *monogamous* norms, I am not sure if and how homosexuality would be threathening that.

* "The continuing assault on heterosexuals is also seen in the demand for same sex marriage and gay adoptions, which I think, are criminal."

I think one should let people marry if they want to marry for society to show that their different sexual orientation is socially accepted. One could argue that not allowing same sex marriage is criminal as it is a sign of non-acceptance and discrimination. We live in secularized world and a democracy, for me that means that the worldview of a minority shouldn't limit the rights of another minority. Some christians like Henry Makow like to turn it around and say that their(?) heterosexual monogamous rights are threatened somehow by the majority.

* "The promotion of homosexuality is designed to make us submit to this tyranny."

Working for the acceptance of homosexuality in society is not tyranical. Henry Makow doesn't explain why heterosexual marriage would be threatened by the acceptance of homosexuality. Should I think that when homosexuals marriage is accepted, would heterosexuals marry less?

3. Do you find feminism acceptable and if so then why?

I think women should have the right to vote, and should be allowed to do all jobs men are doing if they want to, and have access to the same education. All discrimination against women should be abolished.
But no I am not against the stated goals of feminism: emancipation of women.
Whether women should be forced or stimulated to do everything men do, that's another question entirely.
I think the courage of feminist pioneers should be applauded. Thanks to feminism women can now get the education they want while my mother dearly wanted so but was kept short. Now let us support people like Nawal El Saadawi and Fatima Marnissi.

4. Do you find homosexuality as normal and acceptable and if so then why?

It's normal. Just like it's normal that some people have silver-green eyes. It has been observed in nature with sheep, birds, dolphins, primates and elephant. It's natural, it's normal. For me it's totally acceptable.
Perhaps some don't agree, well I heard work on genes is coming on nicely so perhaps we can engeneer homosexuality out of the human genome for christians who seem to have somekind of trouble with it. O no, that would interfere with God's creation wouldn't it?

What I personally don't find acceptable is two gay boys french-kissing eachother in the middle of the dancefloor when I am dancing next to them.
But thinking of it I find it similarly repulsive when a boy and a girl think it's necessary to do so in the middle of the dancefloor. Perhaps I should start campaigning or write articles against french-kissing on the dancefloor!!!

Hi Lyra, you are right to correct me - having multiple partners is indeed something that  occurs frequently with homosexual males... I am not sure this is the case with homosexual females. Perhaps it can be more attributed to the male then to the homosexuality, or perhaps it can be attribtued to the fact that the group is less bound to social conventions because they had to struggle to get out from under at least one.

I think that the broad re-thinking of human relationships in regard to it's power structure is a good thing. This '60 re-thinking in multiple domains, in particular politics, religion and social science can also be seen as being thwarted and deflected later on.
I also think that a lot of the conspiracy literature regarding this particular topic is written by christians who are resisting postmodern interpertations of their own powerstructure. I am not saying it's therefor inaccurate, but I am curious to what extent it is and to what extent it is not.

Dear Friends
kind regards
I would like to respond to the following people.
Lyra.........
I apologise for my broad generalisation for stating that "no self respecting woman would socialise with gays".
But I base it on facts too because women in general(although I must say that the girls who hang around with them are shallow anyway) always cling to gays yet they treat the other people with contempt.
Quite frankly its annoying because I am in a group of feminists and gays who all split up into their little cliques.............there is no professionalism in our class and its annoying.
Yes you are right-perhaps not all gays are the same.
miminikelo.........
I accept your first point.
If gays want to be that way then fine-as long as their agenda doesn't become an agenda attacking the hetrosexual marital and family base.
To be quite frank homosexuality objectively could be a fault in creation-how anyone could perceive it to be as normal as a hetrosexual relationship beats me.
I agree on your last statement that sex should be an instrument of a loving relationship.
Sex that has no love involved or the usual story of one night stands(encouraged by the homosexual agenda according to Makow) adds to the degeneracy of society.
You accuse me of stating that I speak in a dualistic fashion about homosexual rights.
You may be indeed correct about that but what about the homosexual agenda against civilisation and the family unit?
Homosexuals are for the most part rather hostile towards Christianity.
Furthermore it is a known fact that some homosexuals are intolerant of other lifestyles themselves whilst claiming to be victims.
Yes I fear for the family unit, morality and civilisation and the downfall of these things have been because of homosexuality and feminism.
I cannot endorse or accept promotion of homosexuality-I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing them kiss in the streets.
On the whole though I don't encourage neither do I endorse persecution for gays.
yours thankfully
John

I finally had a chance to read the article you were quoting here to see for myself the context of the quotes.   I wanted to quickly respond to them:

First we'll knock this one out of the way:

I don't believe that Makow ever said he was Christian.  He has said however that his family is Jewish.  Just for the record.  But it is interesting how when we find someone with such strong conservative viewpoints that some even say border on intolerance, our society automatically assumes they must be "Christian."   Too many hypocritical Christians giving Christianity a bad rap! 

You missed the point  entirely  of what he was saying.   Yes, the acts are hetero in the sense that they are performed between males and females......but look at what the acts themselves are.    !!!   You sort of skipped over that point.   The bride to be performing fallatio on the groom to be under a table in a restaurant.  A guy accidentally banging the other guy's grandmother in a dark closet.   And on and on and on.   His point is that movies and the media now frequently show sex in this ludicrous, bafoonish -- Tacky - Classless -- way.   This is the norm nowadays.  Thanks to the campaigning by The Powers That Be.   This point is one of the cruxes of Makow's work, if you've ever read his other articles -- that sex used to be sacred, but now has become meaningless and degraded.  And -- to tie back into my earlier point -- that oftentimes, heterosexual couples are now shown carrying on in the same degrading, promiscuous ways that gay males often do.  See my earlier reference to "Sex in the City", a show created by a gay male, about 4 heterosexual single females carrying on the way gay males do.  Case in point.    So, yeah, you totally missed his point there.

Again, you haven't been reading all of his articles.  He's talking about how the gay lifestyle is being imposed on straight people, which it is, as if it's the norm and it's "the way to be".   Makow also feels that homosexuality is not the norm and should in no way shape or form ever be condoned in our public schools, which it what is currently happening, or in the media, which it frequently is.   Personally, I do see how it's being shoved down our throats, I see that there's an agenda, but I don't have such a hostile reaction to it.  So my view is more neutral, less hateful sounding. 

He absolutely does explain it.  If you've actually read all his articles.  And Makow is also assuming that the reader is already familiar with his previous works, and does tend to leave out what he thinks is the obvious if he's already treaded over that ground in 10 previous articles.  But I'll summarize to answer your question: 

Heterosexual marriage is being threatened because:

A)  TPTB are promoting feminism which encourages women to forgo marriage and family in lieu of a Power Career;
B)  Men and Women nowadays have a hell of hard time relating to each other or having healthy, functional relationships due to the way in which media and society conditioning (courtesy of our friends, TPTB   )  have subverted male and female roles and relations;
C)  Part of this involves the subverting of sex;  We see a major trend to encourage heterosexuals to relate to each other in ways that gay males relate to each other:  Casual meaningless flings, promiscuity, lack of monogamy, not settling down to have families.
D)  By TPTB promoting / pushing homosexuality on everybody telling us we "must" embrace and accept it, they are sending a message to the public that this lifestyle is okay, and even sending the not-so-subtle message heteros should carry on that way as well.   

I'm for female rights as well.  I'd have to be, I'm a woman!     But feminism isn't about female rights, or "female pioneers".  That's not what Makow is talking about.  Feminism is something else entirely.   Again, I'd recommend reading Makow's articles on the history of Feminism and its Communist origins for more information.   In a nutshell, the "manifesto" for feminism is to neuter women as Makow puts it, to reverse the gender roles and get us to forfeit a husband and family in lieu of a career, so that there's a decline in strong healthy families, and a decline in the birth rate.   Female rights were usurped by the feminist movement and turned into something else.   

Now, let's highlight some gems from this same article which weren't even mentioned:

"Women's Studies" which originated in *Communist Training Schools* , is devoted to the indoctrination and psychological neutering of young women at university. They learn that men ("the patriarchy") are the cause of the world's problems. Gender roles and family are social inventions to oppress women. They learn to devote their few precious years of fertility to getting a career and usurping the male role. http://www.savethemales.ca/000180.html

In today's context, "tolerance" etc. really means non-gays must embrace homosexual behaviour. This is also seen in their attempt to *force schools* to adopt "gay friendly" values. http://www.narth.com/docs/makingsafe.html.    Resistors are typically accused of "hatred" and "intolerance." There is a clear distinction between accepting differences without rancour and not wanting to adopt those differences for yourself.    My oldest friend is a homosexual. I have known him for 43 years.

And stuff I have to admit I disagree with: 

Homosexuality is a developmental disorder. The elite's policy is to use it to subvert society. I elaborate *here*

This Makow view I disagree with.  I sincerely believe that people are born this way.  It ain't easy being gay, and I think if many of them could be different, they would.  Which just goes to show it's not a choice, because who would choose a life of difficulty over a life of ease?   

Anyway, just wanted to address this latest article of his.  It's Makow 101!