Below - T. Stokes, Whistle blower Dead at 93(scroll down)

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

Should Married Men be Allowed to Cheat?

May 23, 2013

James raises the problem of boredom in marriage.
He says men are programmed to seek variety, and should be allowed some slack. I welcome reader feedback and will give my own later.

by James
(henrymakow.com)

Agree with all you say here, about marriage and the man-woman bond.

The trouble with marriage is that after some time boredom sets in. It seems unavoidable, in most marriages. Have never seen this discussed here, though. The fact that man is naturally polygamous seems to have something to do with it. And isn't it God who made us that way?

(TV's #1 philanderer, Madman's Don Draper)

Yet our cultural "leaders" have carefully crafted movies and TV shows of happy marriages, in which one little misstep or fling by the husband with another woman becomes fodder for the most terrible of dramas and tantrums by the wife that inevitably must lead to divorce and family break-up. That has developed into something of a subversive standard formula the TV Jews have foisted on people (with a litany of other family destroying machinations).

Why not be a little more forgiving with men who have a romp in the hay out of the house? Most men still love their wives and family and would never think of abandoning them. Mankind has been like that for millions of years and it hasn't changed yet since we became "civilized". We can either be honest about it or sweep it under the rug.

I know the purists will be outraged about this but never mind their torpedoes and accusations of promoting Sodom and Gomorrah. This is meant to honestly explore whether - absent the artificial formula of the TV b*stards - it could save families that (almost unnecessarily?) break up.

FIDELITY OVERRATED

I speak from personal experience, but more so also from observation of others. Besides, I wanted to know it from the horse's mouth. A number of years ago I asked more than 50 women the same question.

It went like this: You live in a tribe with a strong and good leader, clearly the best man. You have to choose to have kids from one of the regular guys in the tribe and have him all for yourself. Or you could be one of the wives of the leader and have kids from him. But you share him with other women. He is not exclusively yours.

I expected some kind of contest between the two positions. Surprise, not one woman wanted to have kids from a regular guy who is not the best. They all wanted kids from the strong leader, even when they had to share him with other women.

That proved to me that for females the priorities are different. They are hardwired to do what is best for their offspring.

For a male it's different. He will kill if another guy messes with his woman. For him it's a question of paternity and infidelity cannot be tolerated. Very basic.

This whole story just proves that while jealousy is not absent in females, it is not the top priority. The whole infidelity issue is contrived and overrated. Male and female infidelity are not the same. At least not in a natural setting. Only in today's brainwashed world they are.

This was one of the early things TV audiences were duped and molded with, together with the portraying of queers a normal, in the 60's. It has been downhill ever since.

-----
Makow Comment- Fidelity is essential to a marriage. If men sow their wild oats before marriage, they will know that infidelity isn't the answer to marital boredom. I posted James' comment because it is provocative and would enlist interesting reactions.

You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2013/05/should-married-men-be-allowed.html

Articles >>

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for "Should Married Men be Allowed to Cheat?"

JC said (May 24, 2013):

I suppose that since our culture has become one where lying and cheating is acceptable in almost areas of society your premise is acceptable.
However, that doesn't make it right. Right in this context refers to integrity. Marriage is much more than a physical or legal bond between a man and a woman.

Successful marriages are ones based on mutual trust and living together in truth and integrity. Tell me what about cheating has anything to do with integrity?

Dan said (May 24, 2013):

Matt 19: 8-12

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

--end quote---

Causa finita est.

The reason James provides for polygamy is lust. "Boredom" is a pollite way of saying the man's wife just doesn't make his dick anymore. He needs a woman he doesn't know so he can focus on her tits and ass so he can get it up.

In the marriage Jesus was talking about, love between one husband and several wives is impossible, for holy matrimony is the formation of one mind out of two, and polygamy destroys this. "Love": that is divided among several partners is not true marriage love, but lasciviousness. It's also quite GAY.

So please don't drag Jesus into your petty sexual fantasies. Holy marriage is only possible between a man and woman who have placed God FIRST in their lives - even ahead of a hard penis.

Tony B said (May 24, 2013):

f you want to cheat, don't get married. Find a partner as one-track, dumb-assed as you are. Neither of you will be happy with your sex life - or each other. Did your parents satisfy your every whim, proper or improper, as a spoiled brat kid? Did the public schools successfully dumb you down to the point that you can't discern the difference between right and wrong? You fit right in to the "new age" bunk.

anon said (May 24, 2013):

Cheat? God's law allows for more than one wife. Nothing in the new testament forbids a man to have multiple wives. St. Paul wrote to one church saying the bishops should have only one wife. This was the law of that time, the roman law. He didn't want trouble with the proconsuls. It is in no way a command to us. And was a.command only to the.bishops then. Islam is more godly than current Christianity in its marriage law. Chinese are more realistic also. God's law is perfect. It plainly allows polygamy. Most 'christian' women hate that law because they hate GOD.

Arina said (May 23, 2013):

Boredom in marriage comes from either complete ignorance of God, or from an unequal yoke (2 Corinthians 6:14). If the yoke is equal in the Lord, then both spouses’ prospects exceed by far the physical level, and there’s harmony and fidelity. The purpose of marriage is beyond physical. The purpose of mankind is beyond physical. Everything should be considered at the spiritual level. The body is but a vehicle. Its instincts should be subdued and kept into obedience by the God-given spirit. Boredom does not exist. It is only a strange impression of our carnal, worldly nature lacking true spiritual understanding. It is a lowly temptation, but we have to catch it, denounce it and fight it. If we do, we will receive help and we will overcome it in Christ Jesus: “In the world you shall have tribulation; but take courage: I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

Andrew said (May 23, 2013):

When you posted the essay about “social capital,” it reminded me of the structure of a traditional family.

There has been a quiet movement, called Christian Polygamy or Christian Patriarchy (non-Mormon), in which marriage is an agreement between individuals and not licensed by the state.
Traditional sex roles would be a part of the contract.

This modern movement strongly disdains the concept of any sex outside of marriage but forgets that concubinage was permissible in
Biblical times, especially when she was not a bondmaid and not betrothed.

Hagar received a blessing, typically overlooked by the Judeo-Christian tradition, She was not married and not assumed to be in adultery. Also, see Leviticus 19:20-22, Proverbs 30:21-23

The patriarchal nucleus of the world's largest family is said to be Ziona Chana, a putative Christian, who does not support them all on
one salary. Would his personal life be legal in your jurisdiction?

Dominique said (May 23, 2013):

There is no excuse to be a cheater. Relationships are built on trust and nothing less. Boredom isn't any excuse to seek out other women any more than the desire for children justifies a pedophile's vile actions. In fact, in the Bible adultery is grounds enough to be granted a divorce (Matthew 5:32). We are ultimately responsible for our actions as we are rational beings. Blaming infidelity on supposed "genetic hardwiring" (who funded THAT study?) is nothing less than a cheap excuse for a lack of self-control and personal responsibility. After all, God disagrees as He will hold everyone responsible for their actions and NOT their "genetics".

Grace said (May 23, 2013):

Women can get bored too so they should just go out and "romp in the hay" and the husband should just say okay no biggie. Also seems like a great idea to teach kids this too. Oh and the husband is also responsible for raising the children born from the wife's cheating too because women are programmed to try and have children with men and diversify the human gene pool- just look at chimps. Yeah great idea lets all just behave like chimps and do whatever we want without consequences because we get "bored" with human things like fidelity or loyalty or responsibility. Great idea dude.

Below- Charles Darwin - Stock Picker (scroll down)

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

Man & Woman mirror God & Creation

May 22, 2013

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1-2

Ideally, man represents God's Will ("form.") Women represent His Creation.
Despite gender confusion, women are still looking for leaders, protectors and providers, so they can raise their children themselves. Traditional gender roles give our lives meaning. That's why they are under attack.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.
Why "Hell has no Wrath like a Woman Scorned'"
(Revised and Updated from 2002)

In a deceptive article, "Infantriarchy", currently lauded as "brilliant" on the anti-feminist website A Voice for Men, Gordon Wadsworth argues that "equality and self actualization" will result from overcoming two basic "defects." He seems ignorant that these "defects" in fact define gender and are at the heart of heterosexuality.

"The female defect is her desire to infantilize herself; to project a facade of weakness and victimhood. The female does this because part of her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf. This is a mechanism which allows the female to feel desirable, important, and powerful. ...Thus, the female defect keeps her from assuming personal responsibility, which presents a barrier to her self-actualization.

The male defect is his desire to compensate for the infantilized female. He does this because part of his identity is contingent on earning female validation. He thus demonstrates his ability to protect, provision and inform. This is a mechanism for feeling useful, powerful, knowledgeable, and important. The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females... This becomes his own barrier to self-actualization.

These defects mean that the female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility."

Wadsworth thinks he is anti-feminist; but this is pure feminism - neutering the sexes by empowering women and enfeebling men.

Wadsworth is providing a recipe for more gender neutering and confusion not "self actualization." Gender is based on an imbalance of worldly ((physical, material) power between male and female. Just look at how much stronger males usually are. As I have said, heterosexuality requires the surrender of female material power to a select male (husband) in exchange for his power, expressed as his love. This exclusive contract is consecrated by exclusive sex, marriage and family.

Men want power; women want love. Marriage is the exchange of the two; i.e. Male love in exchange for Female power.

With "strong and independent" women, there is more temptation for men to evade their role, i.e. providing leadership. This is just what the Illuminati want. Instead, men need to return to the traditional model, where the male is the Captain of the ship, and the woman is the First Mate. This is what women still want: a man strong and worthy enough to earn her allegiance. No amount of feminist social engineering can overcome natural instincts, as long as Captains don't abandon ship.

MARRIAGE IS MYSTICAL

Marriage and family is a God-given path that allows us to find love and grow inwardly. Today, millions of people are in a state of arrested development because they cannot form a permanent relationship.

Man represents the God Principle. Woman represents the Creation Principle. There is no war. Man and woman are in love. God is in love with Creation and vice-versa.

"Making love" is a physical expression of this mystical alchemy. It illustrates how each Principle works. The Male Principle penetrates, possesses and plants the seed. The seed is the spirit, code and spark of creation.

The female yields, opens and accepts the spirit. But, by being possessed, she also possesses. Look at the imagery. The penis is totally engulfed by the vagina. The man belongs to the woman who belongs to him.

Another metaphor is the relationship between a farmer and his land. The farmer cultivates the soil and plants the seed. The verb "husband" means to cultivate and manage prudently. The land gives birth to new life and nurtures it.

Femininity is by nature passive and instrumental. Woman is a bridge to the future. She is a medium. When she is fertilized, grows large, and gives birth, she transforms herself and her mate into their child. Through the child, they are recreating themselves and producing the future. Creation is in a constant process of transformation.

If a woman isn't chosen and used for a higher purpose, she never realizes herself and remains unfulfilled. If she is discarded after having sex, the sting is all the sharper. In her soul, the sex act is a living metaphor for the love of God. This may explain the elemental wrath of the scorned woman.

Love in a woman is synonymous with trust, openness and acceptance. Indeed, this is exactly what a man most craves from a woman. He needs someone to believe in him. Her belief makes anything possible for him. Her faith provides the space that the male expands into. She is Creation.

A woman wants to be nurtured, used and shaped by a man's love, which is a surrogate for the divine spirit. I'm not saying all or most men are surrogates for God, but this is the ideal. When a woman loves a man, she accepts his leadership. She is content to be consulted and considered.

Men forget that the position of wife is a status to which all women aspire. Dating is an interview. Courtship is probation. Marriage is a Sacred Covenant. Women find their bliss in being intensely needed by her husband.

FIND A WOMAN WILLING TO BE YOUR FIRST MATE

A single man should approach marriage with a clear sense of how he wants to live, where a woman fits, and what her job description is. This is what women actually want and what they respond to. They do not respond to men who are starved for sex and love, and don't have a plan for her. Nor are they satisfied with men who want them to remain independent, two parallel rails that never meet.

In conclusion, Marxists, having failed to create a class war between capital and labor, created one between men and women. The aim is the same: power. They are creating conflict where none exists. They are trying to portray as a disease something that is in fact mystical and divine. They are presenting sick behavior as healthy. They are standing between millions of people and God.

Men represent the God-principle. Women the Creation-principle. Man and woman, God and Creation are in love with each other. They need each other for completion and self-transformation. The way to stop the spread of Marxist feminism is for men to start acting like men, so that once again women may trust and yield to them.

---

Makow - Relearning Heterosexual Love

You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/220801.html

Articles >>

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for " Man & Woman mirror God & Creation "

Lisa (NYC) said (May 23, 2013):

Thank you for your article Men and Women in Marriage Mirror God and Creation. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of needing traditional gender roles for true happiness in marriage. I have been unhappy lately due to the fact that my husband is putting pressure on me me to work a job that I would like to quit. I have been married for thirty years and for many years I was an at-home mom raising my children and caring for my home and my husband. This was the happiest time of my life and I felt a sense of appreciation that my husband would provide for us and felt like I wanted to do things for him like pack his lunch and always have a nice meal ready for him when he arrived home.

The job I have now leaves me exhausted and irritable most of the time and my days off are spent catching up on the house work and grocery shopping. I don`t feel the compassion for my husband`s hard work that I should, but mostly resentment at having to do all the housework and cooking in addition to working a full-time job.

I believe this two-income lifestyle is what the feminists have foisted on society and is the opposite of god's plan for marriage and the cause of misery in women and the soaring divorce rate in the U.S. Now that so many women are in the workforce, the economy has become so upset with higher taxes and higher costs of living that the wife feels locked-in to working or else risk putting her family at a great financial disadvantage. There has been a survey which states that women are less happy now than thirty years ago and I believe it is due to the fact that feminism has pervaded our culture and is keeping women from their true god-given role in life and thus their ultimate fulfillment.

The feminists must have known that the they could use women's unhappiness as a weapon in their goal to destroy marriage and family. Do you have any advice for a woman like me who wants to be a wife and homemaker and is experiencing pressure from a husband who does not value this as much as a woman who brings home a paycheck?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to reading your articles on a daily basis and I was wondering if possibly you would write an article pertaining to this situation of women being locked into the role of wage-earner and what is the right perspective to have once they find themselves completely dissatisfied with it.

JV said (May 23, 2013):

This is a great succinct article on the matter, and yes, many 'men's' sites still buy into the feminist frame/ mold.

One thing I would add here is my belief that the effects of modern warfare have , had, twisted men's souls to such a degree that with inevitable PTS (only the moral ones get PTS), these traumatized former men, now confused and emotionally laden and unpredictable 'men' , trying to go from the unspeakable insanity of war to the humdrum responsible sanity of peace, these damaged men, with young daughters witnessing such men as 'examples of the gender', feminist ideology made a lot of sense to them witnessing a generation of damaged 'male role models', damaged by industrial war.

One cannot separate the 'war crimes' against the psychologies of one's own troops from the 'rise of feminism'.
Damaged men do not good fathers or husbands make, for 'the school of murder' has been their most compelling education. note how these 'honour our troops' leaders throw them into the trash can of homelessness as soon as they are no longer of use. Then only their 'families', their women, are left to 'deal with the mess'. Feminism came out of this cooking pot created by 'the Masters of War' Dylan described.

Naomie's 'Shock Doctrine' relates to inter-personal relations in families, as well as intra-country dynamics. This quote speaks to how the 'international elite' succeed by war as a pre-condition for the rest of the ill they intend:

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." :
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 - (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) - Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

Annette said (May 23, 2013):

Bravo on your article, Man Woman Mirror.
I don’t know if there was a forum for rebuttal to that retarded article but if so, your article needs to be posted. You are on the money.

I never wanted to be subservient to my husband, I wanted to walk hand in hand with him as an equal. But that walking hand in hand requires respect for each other’s roles.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTLEY RIGHT, without the support of a strong male there is no way for a woman to take care of and nurture her children as they need to be nurtured. Studies have already shown children dumped at day care have lower IQ’s and are emotionally and psychologically underdeveloped as compared to those children being cared for by their own mothers.

I’m so tired of it all the propaganda, but what is more disheartening is seeing how the younger ones have bought all the lies, and are living and defending them. A voice in the wilderness you are. Thank you for that voice.

Dan said (May 22, 2013):

The "Infantriarchy" article opens with an appeal to a false analogy, "If our species were observed by an alien race...". Wordsworth never gave a reason why "our species" has these 'defects'. Instead, he gives a motive: "her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf." C'mon Gordon, how do you know that?
He doesn't say. He just whips out one logical fallacy after another in what appears to be a vitriolic cliché filled internet rant.

Volumes were written over centuries regarding the 'fairer sex' when it was well understood that women were physically dependent upon men before machines replaced the need for constant physical labor to survive. That's easy for us to forget in today's world, in which everything is done with the flip of switch.

JG said (May 22, 2013):

Beautiful article here Henry, good work! The Anti-God Marxists who are the authors of this "feminist movement" have successfully perverted the identity of the woman from innocence and submission to defiance and dominance. This was successfully achieved when they made females competitive with males in the workplace. When a man can no longer protect and provide for his wife his marriage is dissolved.

Once the roles of male and female are reversed in the marriage is when all hell breaks loose in the family unit. So many homosexuals grew up with mothers who dominated their fathers, thereby creating an atmosphere of love and sympathy for the male and not the female. This nightmare did not happen by "chance", but by Satanic "design".

Below- "Queer As Folk" show Made Me Nauseous (scroll down)

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

Charles Darwin - Stock Picker

May 21, 2013

Darwin found that the human ape will accept a bribe to betray his fellow apes.
His belief in the "survival of the fittest" was wholly based on self-observation,
and was aptly named "Darwinism."

"So, we're to believe that Darwin, after studying bird eggs all morning, would lie on the sofa, browse the Times financial section, and say, "I think I shall invest in this one." And somehow he picked only winners. "

The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism . . . . (Protocols 2:2-3)

by James Perloff
Excerpt from "Truth is a Lonely Warrior" (2013)
(henrymakow.com)

As the author of two books exposing Darwinism's myths, I was stunned by this reference [in the "notorious forgery" - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.]

I understood Darwinism's relationship to atheism and social destruction, having witnessed it firsthand in the 1960s. But how did the Czar's police make that link? And if their goal was to persecute Jews, why bring Charles Darwin into the picture? - he wasn't, to my knowledge, a significant figure in 1900 Russia.

Furthermore, the statement about "arranging the successes of Darwinism" intrigued me, because Darwin lived as a gentleman on a huge estate with up to eight servants. Yet he received no wages from employment, and earned only about 10,000 pounds from his books during his lifetime. Darwin did receive an inheritance from his father, but not enough to maintain such a grand standard of living.

Very few books have discussed Darwin's finances, and only one did in detail: Darwin Revalued (1955) by Sir Arthur Keith. This rare book disclosed that Darwin made a fortune through investments. Reviewing Darwin's ledgers, Keith reported: "I note that in some of his earlier dealings there were small losses, but in all his later investments there were only gains, some of them on quite a big scale."

(left, Darwin puppet)

Only gains? Even Warren Buffett will tell you he's occasionally made a bad investment. But not Darwin. To what may we attribute this success? Here's how Keith chose to explain it:

"The more we come to know of the man Charles Darwin, the more the wonder grows that he could carry on so many diverse activities. We have been accustomed to think of him as a naturalist brooding over the problem of life in plants, in animals, and in humanity at large, but now we find a man leading a secluded life near a remote village in the country and carrying on a successful business as a financier. No doubt The Times helped him; after lunch was the occasion given to it. His biographer tells us: 'After his lunch, he read the newspaper, lying on a sofa in the drawing-room. I think the paper was the only unscientific matter which he read to himself.'

Thus we may infer that, after assimilating day by day the trend of affairs in the news columns, he did not forget to look at any movements in the stocks which interested him. He had his stock-broker on the Exchange and his lawyer in London to do business for him."

So we're to believe that Darwin, after studying bird eggs all morning, would lie on the sofa, browse the Times financial section, and say, "I think I shall invest in this one." And somehow he picked only winners. Also, at 22, Darwin's eldest son William was made a partner in the prestigious Southampton and Hampshire Bank, though neither he nor the Darwin family had any background in banking.

Could Darwin's triumphant investing have resulted, not from fortuitous newspaper picks, but careful guidance by financial powers? Might this also explain his son's good fortune in landing a bank partnership? I can't prove it, but as a creationist I don't put much stock in "chance."

PROTOCOLS OF ZION: PURE EVIL AND NO "FORGERY"

But to return to the Protocols. I had never read a message so evil. They are often called a "clumsy forgery," but I was personally struck by how they laid out, in sophisticated detail, the very plan for global conquest unfolding today, which Truth Is a Lonely Warrior describes, including: world government; banking; the use of socialism, communism, revolution and Masonry; the attempted destruction of Christianity; and establishment of the Antichrist on his throne.

Let's take examples from the Protocols. By the way, selective quotations can easily distort a book. I want to stress that I haven't strained to find a handful of quotes supporting the thesis that the Protocols might be true, while eliminating quotes contradicting that thesis. I encourage you to read the entire Protocols for yourself. Regarding world government they state, for example:

By all these means, we shall so wear down the "goyim" that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super-government. (Protocol 5:11)

We will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international super-government, and with submissiveness. (Protocol 9:4)

[Continues]

---

James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power, Tornado in a Junkyard, and The Case against Darwin. The above passage is an excerpt from Chapter 18 of his new book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. Currently available only in Kindle format. While not insisting that the Protocols are fully authentic, Mr. Perloff, who is of Jewish ancestry, finds that that they approximate reality too closely to dismiss, and that the claim that they are a hoax is based on a combination of logic and evidence that is less than compelling.

Related- Darwin Illuminati Shill

Makow Note: James' book "The Shadows of Power" was the first conspiracy book I read when trying to make sense of the world, and it opened many doors!
--
First Comment from Eliezer:

The emergence of the Protocols coincides roughly with the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati in 1776. As the late William Cooper explains in Behold A Pale Horse, The Protocols are not a "Jewish" document, but an accurate account reflecting the attitude, methods & intentions of the Illuminati or "illuminated" ones. The "illumination" of a people undermines their enlightenment & destroys their vision. Thus, the art or craft of packaging darkness & death in an external "illumination, as opposed to an internal enlightenment." This occultic mechanism causes a people to embrace their own destroyer(s), especially if they're "animals."

Immanuel Velikovsky, author of several books offering a radically different account of the history of our world, including World's In Collision, Earth In Upheaval & Ages In Chaos, as well as the recently published 2010 Mankind In Amnesia, writes this about Darwin's engineering of "scientific" pretext for his survival of the fittest -- "The plot now being settled, the drama of everyone against everybody (an economy of mutual predation rather than affirmation) else could go on without any fear that the stage itself would collapse. For man at the top of the ladder it was like a license to devour or exploit the less developed -- soul or no soul; for man, this battle of survival in the animal kingdom is usually no more than sport. In any case, what all this did was quickly to bestow a century-long enduring victory of (applied anti-social) Darwinism over man's hidden apprehension as a descendent of survivors of catastrophes of unfathomable destructive power."

For this feeling of security in a gradual evolutionary process (verses a frequent & punctuated catastrophe, like Pompeii for instance) & what Velikovsky describes as "the peaceful history of our planet -- man was ready to part with the idea of his uniqueness and agree[d] to be counted as one of the animal kingdom." So, writes Velikovsky, "man was offered an opportunity to barter his godlike origin for the security (and apparent relative permanence) of his abode. Darwin, infers Velikovsky, "knew the sacrifice (in intangibles, soul, higher faculties, meaning & purpose etc) he asked and the guarantee of peace of mind he offered." Paradoxically, for man the instinctual animal to have a "peace of mind" however, seems an obvious oxymoron.

So, the result of Darwin's efforts were, as Velikovsky explains, "[W]hen Darwin destroyed the sense of absolute separateness of man & animal, he undermined belief in the soul's being separate (and immortal) from the surviving body (Oops! no more "world to come"). Thus, Darwin deflated man's pride (& stature) in his (Divine) origin and (his, man's) uniqueness." Indeed, a true & far reaching psyop if there ever was one.

You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2013/05/charles-darwin-stock-picker.html

Articles >>

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for "Charles Darwin - Stock Picker "

John said (May 22, 2013):

Charles Darwin was a member of the rentier class. He inherited wealth from his father as did his wife who inherited wealth as a member of the Wedgwood family. His investments included farms and investment in stocks, particularly the new railways being constructed at the time.
He was never very wealthy but through shrewd investment was able to fund his life of scientific research and his family's comfortable lifestyle. This is all well documented in Adrian Desmond and James Moore's definitive biography.

Doug said (May 22, 2013):

The Protocols of Zion is incredibly accurate - it will send chills down your spine. If freedom ever wins I'm sure it will be on every newsstand as a matter of history and required reading for every high school student. That and The Report From Iron Mountain are both must reads.

Its funny, but Darwin wasn't really a Darwinist in our sense. Marx was quoted as saying "I am not a Marxist".

Conroy said (May 22, 2013):

Darwin's trip and work in 1831 was in response to Humboldt's earlier 5 year scientific trip 1799 to 1804 which did not produce the demeaning evolutionary concept reducing man from the image of god to evolving from ape.This was the British and European hierarchy battle against the end of the dark ages , serfdom, Renaissance, nation state, republic classical music, industrial revolution etc uplifting the masses against the wishes of the ruling class. This battle has continued with rock and roll, drugs, communism etc leading to globalism, end of nation states.

See Humboldt's Book,"Cosmos" withdrawn from academia, which would refute Darwin at-
http://www.amazon.com/Humboldts-Cosmos-Gerard-Helferich/dp/1592401066/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369203852&sr=1-2&keywords=cosmos+humboldt

Tony B said (May 22, 2013):

I find it odd that this writer, who seems to have researched Darwin, does not mention, at least in this excerpt, that the whole family group - including Darwin's father and earlier - were well connected, high masons.

CC said (May 21, 2013):

To Leland, below, the one who commented earlier with the phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny",

If you will just do a simple Google search of Recapitulation Theory, you will see that this theory has been largely discredited by the Biological sciences for many years now.
Are you still willing to wager the future of your soul on some pseudo science from the 19th century?

Look it up yourself. Knowledge is power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Leland said (May 21, 2013):

as regards evolution v. creationism
I have three words for you
which I was taught in 1966
in 11th grade biology:
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny".
It is observable and reality-based.
I really don't wish to burn in Hell for Eternity
and the religion of my parents growingly haunts me
but given the choice between Genesis Chapter I
or any other well-intentioned "creation myth"
versus what is observable via the Satan-spawned
microscope... I'm going with my "lying eyes".
may Universe be good to you.

Thanks Leland,

The point of Darwinism was to make man a monkey and evict God from the universe. Our bodies can still be products of evolution while our souls are Divine.

henry

JG said (May 21, 2013):

Darwin was a NWO schill for the propagation of atheism. Scopes, who was an ACLU agent, was sent down to Tennessee to peddle Darwin's theory of evolution in the public schools. And yes, they literally made a "federal case" of it known as the Scopes Trial. The case which was tried by ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow was designed to put God on trial in his own backyard of the "Bible Belt". This was all well choreographed in the movie "Inherit the Wind".

The great William Jennings Bryant defended the scriptures and Christianity won that battle. Unfortunately, years later, the ACLU won the war of removing God from the American Public Schools and the rest is history. Today, a large part of "Christian America", in the administrative sector, has become complicit with it's persecutors.

William said (May 21, 2013):

The author of DiVinci Code, Dan Brown, also experienced 'extreme success' making him worth over $100m with just a few books. Scores of other popular authors who out-sold Dan Brown in books and movie scripts don't come close to his wealth. This is a set-up to contribute to his 'authenticity'.

Death of Whistleblower T. Stokes, 93

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

May 23, 2013

Death of Whistleblower T. Stokes, 93

by Chris Cooper
(henrymakow.com)

The ex-intelligence operative and analyst Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes has died aged 93.

Known as T Stokes, he came up the long hard way and never achieved the rank many said he deserved, always an advocate of democratic freedoms he wanted much less secrecy and did not see why things like the House of Commons menu should be an official secret.

A supporter of real news activists, his outspokenness for sharing the aims and goals of the intelligence world with the public and often engaging their help as watchers and informants made him many internal enemies but brought him massive public approval, with his catchphrase " trust the people ".

Stokes believed that NWO Communism could only be defeated by educating the public that the Soviet Georgy Arbatov soft socialism plan was the thin end of a very sinister wedge.
One of his remits was the protection and care of Winston Churchill's wartime close colleagues and secretaries after the war.

British intell wanted Britain to stay out of W W II and so Churchill replaced all the key figures in order to get Britain into the war, having the popular intel cheif Vernon Kell murdered in his own fireplace.

Churchill's used black magicians in W W II, many of whom were known personally by Stokes who himself studied occultism, and was also was one of three men who exposed Churchill's murder of Neville Chamberlain the most popular Prime Minister ever.

But it was the Michael Gordon case which brought him to prominence, Gordon was an unusual recruit for the intelligence world, he was quite low I Q, awkward, unfit, overweight and self conscious. He failed most tests, yet was chosen for special training and sent to Russia to recruit dissidents in the nuclear weapons arena. He was caught and died under torture.

Stokes maintained he was chosen especially to fail as all he was taught was false and should have come out under torture giving the Soviets a pack of false leads and wrong intel, but Gordon never spoke he died without revealing any of his fake data.

The intelligence hierarchy is of vital importance to a foreign power and is known as the Or/Bat or order of Battle, and knowing this the whole apparatus can be unravelled
so Gordon had been instructed to name people actually outside of the service.

Stokes wanted the British news media to cover Soviet murders of British nationals, which usually appeared in the British news media as deaths through car crashes, skiing acidents drug overdoses or falling from high balconies during parties.

Both Peter Wright of Spycatcher book fame, along with T Stokes were alleged to have secretly briefed the Daily Express Defence correspondent Chapman Pincher on anything they wanted revealed through the newspapers, both believed that every operation against the Soviets up until the late 60s failed because of high level traitors, Stokes was able to penetrate through Londons Jewish taxi driver community into Mossad, and along with James Rusbridger who was murdered, claimed that Lord Rothschild was the major spy of W W II, and also claimed that since the Russian revolution of 1917 the Soviet Union was run by Rothschild appointees who colluded together with the British Rothschild's to bring about wars and conflict for financial gain.

In the early seventies crisis when the Soviet navy had Britain surrounded by nuclear subs, no one knew whether this was an exercise or the real thing, The Russians wanted to see how the British responded in a security flap, Stokes trounced them by calling in all retired officers and giving them two weeks work on half their old pay and put them to work laying false trails, generally muddying the waters and allowing small snippets of info to get to the Russians that the British were pro-active and taking hard line military control of the situation. This is known as chicken-feed release.

In 1973 Stokes was sent to meet a dissident Jewish nuclear physicist who wanted to pass information to the west about the horrific Israeli nuclear arsenal. When the documents were passed in the Moscow art gallery, he was seized and after a quick trial next day, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison.

He did not help himself by constant escape attempts and after injuring two guards was given 6 years at Svetmagorsk on the Siberian border. In 1977 he was exchanged for the Communist activist Brian Edward Mitchell and brought home. Weighing just 5 stone he had been severely burnt by having petrol thrown over him and set alight while asleeep in his cell.

Physically and mentally shattered, he claimed he had been betrayed to the Russians, and began to whistleblow about Soviet criminal activity in Britian. This angered the British authorities who accused him of being an angry and bitter man, and a big falling-out ensued which never healed.

BY T Stokes- Was Churchill an Illuminati Agent ?

NEW YORKER MAGAZINE cartoon

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

May 18, 2013

paul-noth-with-a-real-live-woman-right-here-why-would-you-turn-to-the-internet-for-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg

My wife and I got a kick
out of this cartoon
in the latest New Yorker

Knights of Columbus are NOT Masons says Hernando, a Spanish Reader

Bigger Text | Default Text | Smaller Text |

May 16, 2013

Knights of Columbus are NOT Masons says Hernando, a Spanish Reader

I have just seen this article saying that The Knights of Columbus are Masons?
Come on!
Here you have the web and the history of the Knights of Columbus, founded by a priest and giving honours to the Virgin Mary (Mother for Us, the Catholics), to the Pope, etc.
http://www.kofc.org/en//index.html
According to this point of view, even all the Catholics could be "secret or infiltrated" Masons.

The priest of my Parish Church could be a secret mason.
The Bishop of my diocese could be mason.
And all the 1.000 millions of Catholics could be masons. The world upside-down!
This person says that the Klu-Klux-Klan was catholic or christian?
Not at all, sir. The fact that they burn a cross in their meetings or rituals don't mean that they were Christians as an association. Perhaps some of the KKK members could be covert Catholics or Christians but NOT the association officially.

The symbols.

Here in Spain, the Civil Guard (a Police Corp) also has the FASCIO, as a symbol, but is not a mason society. The fascio comes from the Romans and in Spain, my country, there were Romans, and called this country HISPANIA.
Probably the Civil Guard (Police, Police, Police) took this symbol as precedent from the Romans or simply as a group symbol, meaning that this Police would be united and grouped as a corp to prosecute the delinquents, NOT AS MASONS, PLEASE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Spain)

One could ask then: Do they have the crown in their logo because they only serve the King and Queen? NOOO!! They have this symbol of the crown because in Spain we have as a political system a Parliamentary Monarchy and even our shield in Spain has a crown, though many people would prefer to have a Republic.

Conclusion:

Some people, IGNORANT of the real and authentic meaning of things don't interpret things adequately. What I have to hear today is:

1) The Knights of Columbus, founded by an Irish priest who wanted to help the inmigrants to New England, and that forms a society with good relationships with the Church, within the orthodoxy of Catholics belief (faith, Virgin Mary, Pope, etc) is... MASON ?

2) A symbol as the "fascio", the Roman fascio (unknown in the other side of the Atlantic Ocean because the Romans weren't there, is interpreted as... MASON? when there is a Police Corp in Spain called "Guardia Civil" (or Civil Guard) that has the same symbol. Perhaps the Civil Guard is also... MASON? I don't think so, because dozens and dozens of members of the Civil Guard in Spain have been assassinated by the terrorist group ETA (this is not, as in USA think, a separatist group of the Basque Country, but a TERRORIST GROUP who has murdered around 1.000 people (police, judges, politicians, journalists, civil people, children...)