Henry Makow

Join our
Mailing List

Enter your email address:

Subscribe | Unsub.

Receive a reminder of Henry's latest column.

Sorry, you need to update your browser to view this flash animation

On Independence Day remember:

The U.S. is a "British" Financial Colony

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 04, 2005

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

In July and August I will be revising and reposting essential articles from the past year or so. This originally appeared as "Proof! World Government is a Banker Ruse" in May 2004.

On Independence Day, it is sobering to remember that the U.S. has been a financial colony of Britiain for at least 100 years. This is confirmed by the "Col. E.M. House Report", a chilling 10-page "progress report" dated June 10, 1919, which portrays the United States in these terms.

The author is Col. Edward Mandell House (1858-1938), the Rothschild agent who secretly directed U.S. affairs during the Woodrow Wilson administration. Col. House was known as Wilson's friend and "alter ego." (He had not served in the military and the term "Colonel" was merely honorary.) The report is addressed to British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, whose career was made as a lawyer for the World Zionist Organization.

The report details Col. House's progress in preparing "for the peaceful return of the American colonies to the dominion of the Crown." The League of Nations was a facade for British hegemony, which means the hegemony of London-based international bankers.

House writes: "We have wrapped this plan in the peace treaty so that the world must accept from us the League or a continuance of the war. The League is in substance the Empire with America admitted on the same basis as our other colonies." (Emphasis mine)

The report oozes contempt for Americans. "The plain people of this country are inveterate and incurable hero worshipers," Col. House explains. A man with a slogan that expresses their "undefined aspirations" can manipulate them easily.

Afterwards, they will trust the sloganeer no matter what he does. [Woodrow] Wilson has gained this trust and this accounts for "his exceptional usefulness to us."

Rep. Jacob Thorkelson (1876-1945) introduced The House Report to Congress in Oct.1939 and published it in the Congressional Record (Oct. 13 1939, pp.598-604). Attempts to delete it were thwarted. The complete text is available on line.


British bankers took over the U.S. during the Teddy Roosevelt Administration (1901-1909) when Rothschild front J.P. Morgan alone controlled 25% of American business.

"Crown" refers to the owners of the Bank of England. Their identities are an offical secret. According to E.C. Knuth, the "international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric 'Crown' as its symbol of power and has its headquarter in the ancient city of London...the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution... is not subject to regulation by the British parliament and is in effect a sovereign world power." (The Empire of the City, p. 59)

Col. House continues: The "peaceful return of the American colonies" can only be brought about with "the consent of the dominant group of the controlling clans."

Col. House relates how these classes are being taught to accept "British" leadership. He details how the universities and press are staffed by "British-born" or Canadians.

"Through the Red Cross, the Scout movement, the YMCA, the church, and other humane, religious, and quasi-religious organizations, we have created an atmosphere of international effort which strengthens the idea of unity of the English speaking world."

The Overseas Clubs, service clubs, and war charities "enable us to pervade all sections and classes of the country."

We "hold all American newspapers as isolated from the non-American world as if they had been in another planet instead of another hemisphere. The realization of this by the Associated Press and the other universal news gatherers, except Hearst, was most helpful in bringing only our point of view to the papers they served."

He boasts that the United States "while still maintaining an outward show of independence" is identical with other colonies in its relationship to the Crown. "Has not President Wilson cancelled the big Navy program and dutifully conceded to us the command of the seas?"

He boasts that "the Anglo American alliance" has become "the unchallenged financiers of the world."

He congratulates "our fiscal agents Messrs Pierpont Morgan & Company" for "putting this country into the war." They exert "widespread influence on newspaper policy" through advertising and lent $200,000,000 to Japan to build a fleet to compete with America (making the U.S still more dependent on England.)

Col. House boasts that the "Crown" used money lent by the U.S. government for war purposes to buy up oil fields in California, Mexico and Latin America.
"The war has made us custodians of the greater part of the world's raw materials... [We] now largely control the oil fields of the world and thereby the world's transportation and industry."


The pressing issue now is to "transfer its dangerous sovereignty from this colony to the custody of the Crown. We must, in short, now bring America within the Empire."

The first step was Wilson's plan for the League of Nations "which we prepared for him."

"Any abrupt change might startle the ignorant American masses and rouse them to action against it. And us. Our best policy therefore would be to appoint President Wilson the first president of the League... he will be able to satisfy [Americans] that far from surrendering their independence to the League, they are actually extending their sovereignty by it..."

Foreshadowing The Patriot Act, Col. House says Woodrow Wilson "alone can father an anti-Bolshevik act which judicially interpreted will enable appropriate punitive measures to be applied to any American who may be unwise enough to assert that America must once again declare her independence."

Col. House goes into great detail about how Wilson must be messaged and manipulated. Many people think someone else wrote this Report but only Edward Mandell House knew Wilson this well.

For example he says Wilson "is easily slighted and remarkably vindictive." The new British ambassador should be a "Wilson worshipper" and "a gentleman-in-waiting to the President." He lists the gifts Wilson already has been given.


Col. House suggests staging the first session of the League of Nations in Washington.

"This will convince these simple people that they are the League and its power resides in them."

He recommends a "series of spectacles by which the mob may be diverted from any attempt to think too much of matters beyond their province."

"While awaiting these diversions for the vulgar, we are incessantly instructing them in the wonders of the league. Its praises are thundered by our press, decreed by our college presidents, and professed by our professors. Our authors, writers and lecturers are analysing its selected virtues... we have enlisted 8000 propagandists for the League. We have organized international and national synods, committees, conferences, convocations, conventions, herald the birth of the League as the dawn of universal peace."

"Agriculturalists, bankers, brokers, accountants, chemists, and all other functional groups capable of exerting organized professional, business, financial or social pressure are meeting to endorse the League in the name of peace, progress and prosperity...Our film concerns are preparing an epoch-making picture..."

"In short, our entire system of thought control is working ceaselessly, tirelessly, ruthlessly, to ensure the adoption of the League. And it will be adopted, for business wants peace, the righteous cannot resist a covenant, and the politicians, after shadow boxing for patronage purposes, will yield valiantly lest the fate of the wanton and wilful pursue them."


The House Report unveils the reality behind globalization and the United Nations. If ever we needed proof of a long-term conspiracy to subvert national sovereignty and ensnare humanity, this is it.

Thanks to the valiant opposition of Republican Senators, the United States rejected the Peace Treaty and with it the League of Nations Nov. 19,1919. The plot was temporarily foiled.

But the British bankers' covert campaign to impose world tyranny has not abated. They financed Hitler and engineered the Depression and World War Two. The League of Nations was resurrected as the United Nations in 1945 and the "Cold War" hoax initiated. Many believe we are in the early stages of "World War Three."

The New World Order, world government and globalization are all extensions of British imperialism which itself is the expression of the financial hegemony of central bankers and their minions.

All segments of society continue to be propagandized with the virtues of the UN. National institutions are subverted. The press and education continue to be controlled. Politicians are figureheads.

Americans are helping to build the 'new world order' for its master, "the Crown." In Col. House's words, Americans will be colonists who have to "petition at the foot of the throne."

The references to control of oilfields suggest that oil is first and foremost an instrument of world domination. The final stage of world tyranny involves gaining complete control of Middle Eastern oil. This explains Iraq and portends an invasion of Iran.

The threat cannot be characterized as strictly "Jewish." The Rothschilds have received a degree of collaboration from the world's financial, cultural and political elites so as to render this point mute. [Essentially collaboration is the price of admission.]

Lemming-like, Western elites have embraced a death-wish for civilization.

Related, my "The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism."

printTo print this article, go to the Articles and open this article from there. All articles in the archives are printer friendly.

Information is the Currency of the Realm

Democratic Fantasies: Symbols, slogans & spin

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 03, 2005

bigbrother By Tibor S. Friedman

Americans surround themselves with symbols that represent who they think they are or want to be. Symbols and slogans conveniently defer introspection and curiosity.

True patriotism and love of country requires we go beyond putting Support Your Troops magnets or flags on our cars. The Great American experiment in democracy is in crisis and immediate jeopardy. The most secretive administration ever has installed a repressive security apparatus paving the way for dictatorship and martial law awaiting an 'event' to trigger the trap set for us. Unless we become active participants and educate ourselves about the crisis that is rapidly enveloping us the Great Experiment will end.

Americans aren't stupid but uninformed of what is really happening in their country and the world because of the dumbed down content and propaganda they consume in the mainstream media (MSM) and the public educational system. Recent studies have declared that high school graduates are unable to write a coherent sentence; schools teach information and expect students to retain and regurgitate data, not connect them. This is by design; the elite do not want too many critical thinkers in a diminished economy.

Information is the currency of the realm. The Internet today offers our best hope for our education and research, at least until the Elite figure out how to replace it with the restricted and establishment controlled Internet 2 currently being developed.

Information is managed and edited in the MSM and propaganda is an acceptable tool long used in media and education. Spin is the method of the day used to confuse and deflect. The Infotainment Industry—MSM and Hollywood combined—share financial, operational and propaganda interests. A recent example is the TV docudrama Oil Storm on Fox TV on June 5 that served the goals of putting fear into Americans about losing their oil lifeline and their American way of life and to gather support for the 21st Century Oil Wars by calling them the War on Terror, which is phony and being used by the psychopaths to divide us and reduce our numbers. The Bush administration is supported by Fox (aka GOP TV) owner Rupert Murdoch. Similarly, other media events usually have some ulterior motive to influence the public in some way.

For us to fully appreciate our current crisis we have to review our media history.

Walter Lippmann, the prominent journalist in the 1920s, said that the public must be put in its place. He believed, as did Woodrow Wilson and the Elite, that the responsible men (Elite) should manage the 'common interests' and 'live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,' the ignorant and meddlesome outsiders. The only function the 'herd' has was to trample periodically in support of one or another element of the leadership class in an election.

As the 'herd' in the last century became more enlightened ever more sophisticated mechanisms for controlling information and perceptions have developed. The manufacture of consent, a term created by Edward Bernays, the father of the Public Relations industry, author of Propaganda and coincidentally Sigmund Freud's nephew, has become an art form and required of journalists.

Bernays says: "Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons. . . as civilization has become more complex. . . . the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented. . . . I must lead the people. Am I not their servant?

"The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes."

Expanding on this understanding about the MSM and the Public Relations industry (the propaganda machine) we can include gatekeepers, or sources considered to be on the left (so-called liberals), who are charged with making sure that dissent and alternative views do not stray too far off the reservation of Elite acceptance.

Excluded topics include the 9/11 Truth Movement, the New World Order, the City Of London financial center, chemtrails, the Federal Reserve, Inc., etc. It is safe to assume that your letters to the editor are monitored and pre-selected prior to printing. I suspect that some letters and articles in The New York Times (as elsewhere) are fictitious, manufactured and planted, like the Judith Miller articles on WMDs (with con man Chalabi as her source) in the NYT prior to the current Iraq War that encouraged the congressional vote to go to war. MSM always supports and benefits from war. CNN's Aaron Brown declared that now that we are at war we have to get behind the government and the troops disregarding CNN's obvious cheerleading efforts to build support before the war.

My purpose of this article is to address the obvious fantasies about our democracy and the so-called free press (MSM) and their failure to provide Americans with real information for making educated decisions; we are considered the least informed population in the world. The MSM and most gatekeepers are believed to be infiltrated with CIA personnel and work explicitly for the Elites in power, in corporations, government and banking and serve to protect their interests in the US and abroad. My ultimate purpose is to compel Americans to wake up and begin to explore what is going on and to become engaged in their lives and their children's futures.

It is not my intent here to go into all the aspects that constitute the over arching plan (conspiracy, some would say) to create a One (New) World (Order) Government—a generational and incremental implementation process that, now in its final stages, presently threatens the world with the 21st Century Oil Wars and the destruction of what little sovereignty is left in America and elsewhere (observe this process in the EU).

Neo-liberalism / Globalism (imperialism disguised as democracy and free trade) are names used to describe the acquisition and consolidation of ever greater wealth, natural resources, total political power and control over others and are the motivational forces which drive the decisions by the international Elite. They control the transnational corporations, the 200-plus think tanks (the Council On Foreign Relations being foremost in the US) which exist to facilitate their goals, the foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc), the World Bank, IMF, WTO, the Federal Reserve (a private corporation never audited and with no congressional oversight); this influence is pervasive and can only be truly appreciated as one researches the various issues.

Themes and Trends

The recent Online Journal report on Bilderberg 2005 confirms the intent and complicity of our leaders and the transnational corporations and banking interests they serve to create a One World Government using the UN, or similar institution, and to further diminish America economically and to ultimately abdicate US sovereignty and the Constitution to a Regional and subsequent World Power while enriching themselves and accumulating power in the process.

The Congress, MSM (including CPB, NPR and PBS), all academic and other Institutions, with rare and generally marginalized, individuals as exceptions, are in general alignment with this 'conspiracy.' This diverse involvement is reflected in the roster of the 4,000 or so members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group described as, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessman, politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, the power elite that unilaterally determines US foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged - and obvious subversive–foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits) for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.

The Royal Institute of International Affairs, in London (the center of power for the New World Order elite), founded its American wing, the CFR, funded by the Rockefellers, in 1921. The RIIA's patron is the Queen of England.

CNN has recently been using CFR 'spokespeople' to get Americans to accept them as 'mainstream' and also uses other conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings and CATO Institutes to disseminate their views designed to shape American perceptions and beliefs.

Think tanks provide the two supposedly oppositional political parties with intellectual material and propaganda. Issues are used as smokescreens and for public distraction and confusion while greater and more relevant issues are ignored or downplayed. What we witness in MSM is the allowed official version of reality–much of it staged theatre. It is apparent as one examines (CFR, TC, Bilderberg member) Bill Clinton's record (presiding over NAFTA, media consolidation, FDA approval of GMO going into the world's food supply via Monsanto, laid the foundations for the USA PATRIOT Act, passed welfare 'reform' etc.) and associations that he is as much (if not more so) a Globalist / New World Order operative as George Bush is. Both parties serve the same masters as one can see from the Bilderberg attendance list.

John Edwards auditioned at the annual Bilderberg meeting in 2004; apparently the elite chose to stay the course with George Bush. One cannot become president of the US without the Elites' explicit approval. The election is a formality and exercise for the benefit of creating the illusion of an ongoing democracy. The 'free speech zone' areas created by both parties in 2004 were their version of democracy. The MSM (already) is focusing on the battle for the White House 2008, creating mythologies of opposing individuals and distracting the public with a hope for change that never comes—as both parties work towards the creation of a New World Order with the United States as a much reduced power, economically and militarily. Remember that politicians are the fronts for (or part of) the Elites and as such share in their fortunes and power. One need only look at the Bush dynasty and their involvement in and creation of their fortunes and power by the Military / Industrial / Intelligence Complex. War is profitable.

Henry Kissinger (perennial Bilderberg, Trilateral, CFR member) received knighthood from the Queen of England in 1995 for his lifelong devoted service to the Crown; after years of trying to retake the American colonies the City of London decided to infiltrate through the CFR and other ways to reclaim their perceived influence over their new addition to the Empire; and so it appears it has. Their conspiracy has become our fact.

Conspiracy theories are a convenient 'slide' term used by MSM and others to short circuit further inquiry into a matter. The greatest conspiracy is the one created by this concept that keeps people from being inquisitive and concerned about the health and direction of their country. As noted, only a small group of Elites know the full scope of their agenda while those outside are given information on a need to know basis and as loyalty and subservience is developed move closer to the center of affluence and control. A corporation is a perfect example of this where one can succeed and move up the hierarchy as long as one fulfills the needs of the corporation but if one challenges the system, then you could be ejected and possibly blacklisted from entry into other corporations. In this way, people buy into the system and by being invested in it are reluctant to jeopardize their position and wealth. Hierarchy assures compliance, promotions or corrective actions if needed. America is a transnational corporation (an Enron) disguised as a government; a form described as totalitarian corporatism.

What can you do?

As Catherine Austin Fitts and others suggest, voting, writing to your representatives or editors has limited, if any effect, but continue letting them know what you think. The system is generally rigged with gatekeepers to marginalize any dissent or resistance.

The only practical options open are to divert our financial and personal support for the tapeworm (the system) by withdrawing our attention from TV (shut it off) and its mind control and our money out of large multinational banks and corporations that depend on our money to survive, and putting it into local banks and businesses; cut up all your credit cards. Support local efforts to develop sustainable economies and environmental initiatives; get to know your neighbors and share what you know.

Ultimately, the tapeworm will have only itself to devour.

Stop supporting the so-called two-party system that is really two groups belonging to the same business party that share the One World Government agenda. The continuity of bipartisan corruption clearly shows that, with rare exceptions like Reps Cynthia McKinney and Ron Paul, their allegiance is to the international elite and not to the American people.

printTo print this article, go to the Articles and open this article from there. All articles in the archives are printer friendly.

From Greatest Generation to Porn Generation

July 02, 2005


by Judith Reisman
Posted Jun 27, 2005

This is our legacy to our children? A porn generation? I was talking with a sweet young 14-year-old girl the other day. She was depressed. "All the boys I've been friends with at school, really friends with, they're now acting so inappropriately."

No, she wasn't hurt by anyone. But, she says, "I have to slap them and it's really upsetting. I know they're watching pornography,"she adds. "That's where they get all that stuff from. And it hurts, also because they are ruining their own lives." She chokes back the tears.

Don't expect Dr. Phil or any other television maven to reveal pornography for what it is: a major erototoxic virus infecting most exposed. The virus was released into society December 1953 when Hugh Hefner used it to emasculate Joe College. Rendered impotent without fantasy sex, millions of men over time crossing every political, racial, religious, educational and socioeconomic boundary lost the virility and virtue needed to protect their wives and children from the current porn deluge. And when men are emasculated, popping Viagra while lusting after tragic centerfold paper and celluloid and computer dollies, women turn away from home and embrace work that may be empty but is reliable.

Benjamin Shapiro, a strapping young 21-year-old author, columnist, survivor of UCLA and current Harvard Law s\School warrior, has written the book for parents and youths, ”Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (published by Regnery, a Human Events sister company). Shapiro's Judeo-Christian advocacy is sane, compassionate, documented and easy to take, although he has drawn the wrath of many suffering the pains of amorality.

Shapiro tells the baby boomers and liberals who make up the current leadership in this country that they need to take responsibility for what they've done to American society.

Shapiro observes that if children infected with venereal disease from oral sodomy at age 12 are not seen as a broken nation, we aren't looking hard enough. The baby boomers and grown-up flower children became the mass media and education authorities who have corrupted society, writes Shapiro.

Of course, I find this young man especially wise in his awareness of the role of Alfred Kinsey in normalizing the porn generation. Describing Kinsey's impact he says, Kinsey claimed that Americans were secret perverts and sex maniacs. By lying about our parents and grandparents, Kinsey invalidated morality as a a social ideal. Then, using the old bait and switch trick, says Shapiro, Kinsey pulls out the tattered hypocrisycharge.

The only way to alleviate guilt became abdication of moral sexual standards, he says. And when the chief goal is erasing guilt, even for immoral actions, all that remains is narcissism.

Shapiro argues, with strong support, that discarding traditional morality gave our children over to social liberals, who control our culture through music, film, television and other mass media so that the normal is now considered deviant. He says the effects upon his generation are disastrous.

I do not think Shapiro exaggerates. Like it or not, the porn generation is the future of this country, says Shapiro. Think of that and consider what decisions will be made by future judges, juries, legislators, prosecutors and Presidents who are pornography addicts.

It is not a good era for parents to rear their young. They try to restrict the erotically laced videos, rap, adverts and Internet porn. Now they are faced with Rainbow Party, a Simon Pulse book (a division of Simon & Schuster) by Paul Ruditis that has little girls pick out different lipstick colors to practice for some boy-girl oral sex orgies. The boomer generation led to Gen X that logically has produced the X-Rated Porn Generation.

Shapiro's writing is crisp and right on target. And take a deep breath folks, because the young man is pointing his finger at most of adult society, for children now are paying with their lives for the adult selfishness and abandonment of strong moral standards.

Most parents are not nearly in the know enough about the problems their children face in trying to survive their toxic porn environment. Shapiro's is a critical wake-up call for parents and it is a book that can give them the knowledge necessary to begin to turn around the amorality that is destroying their children.

"I am a member of a lost generation," Shapiro writes. "Never in our country's history has a generation been so empowered, so wealthy, so privileged-and yet so empty."

Pornography will not go away unless we treat it like an environmental toxin. Pornography was never about sex. It was always about emasculating men and neuro-chemically linking sexual lust with shame, fear, violence and degradation.

Dr. Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, has written frequently for HUMAN EVENTS on Alfred Kinsey. She is the author of Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences ”The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme" and the soon to be released Kinsey's Attic: How One Man's Sexual Pathology Changed the World.

Canada Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage: Just a sexual relationship now

June 30, 2005

gaycouple by Father Raymond J. de Souza

National Post

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

All in all, it is an impressive bit of work for a mere 38 years. The same-sex marriage bill that passed the House of Commons yesterday was the final chapter in a story that began in 1967, when then-justice minister Pierre Trudeau introduced his Omnibus Bill. Famous for its decriminalizing of homosexual acts (" ... the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation"), it was the liberalization of divorce laws that led more directly to where we are today.

And where we are is that civil marriage in Canada is simply the conferring of legal recognition and benefits upon a conjugal relationship, with no reference in principle to permanence, progeny or public benefit. We have achieved, with the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual partners, the reduction of marriage to a mere sexual relationship.

That is an astonishing accomplishment in less than four decades. Mobilizing the resources of the state behind sex seems rather superfluous; there has never been a lack of interest. An older wisdom sought to mobilize the state behind marriage, which at its core was about bridling unruly passions for the purposes of social stability and the upbringing of children.

What happened back in 1967? Trudeau's Omnibus Bill made divorce easier, which would in due course flower into full no-fault divorce, which renders marriage the only contract unilaterally breakable by either party, at any time, for any reason.

It was from there a short step to the conferring of spousal benefits on those who weren't married, but in conjugal relationship. Common-law "spouses" get the benefits without the commitment.

When civil marriage is thus stripped of its permanence and its commitment, what is left to distinguish a married relationship from any friendship? Sex. Hetero or homo, it doesn't matter. Ergo, same-sex marriage.

So we have arrived at the curious position that the state doesn't much care about what goes on in the rest of the house, but is mightily interested in what goes on in the bedroom. Civil marriage is now not about anything else.

One of the incongruities of debate over homosexual marriage is that advocates argued that it would encourage monogamy and stability. As my colleague, Andrew Coyne, has put it: "The conservative case for gay marriage expresses itself in the hope that marriage may have the same civilizing effect on homosexuals that it does on heterosexuals, encouraging stable, monogamous relationships and the social values that go with them."

It was an incongruous argument because we have been, post-1967, busily undermining all that makes marriage stable and monogamous.

Now, barring a reversal in a future Parliament, we have same-sex marriage. How about we start shoring up those civilizing effects in law, on the principle that what is good for two ganders might be good for the goose and gander too?

A good place to start might be the treatment of common-law spouses. The research data show that cohabiting couples split up more often than married ones do, and married couples who were cohabiting before marriage have a higher divorce rate than those who were not. Cohabitation is a recipe for social instability, exposing women and children in particular to the insecurity of sequential polygamy.

What public good is served by encouraging cohabitation? The principle that state benefits should be available wherever there is regular sex is not conducive to social stability. Now that homosexuals have the ability to contract civil marriage, and no vestige of "discrimination" holds, why shouldn't the government insist that marital benefits require marital promises?

And while we're at it, why shouldn't those marital promises mean what they say? Namely, that the bond of permanence cannot be broken unless the terms of the (civil) marriage contract have themselves been broken, or that the parties mutually agree to break the contract? Why shouldn't marital contracts be at least as strong as, say, the contract to renovate the kitchen, where one party cannot unilaterally break it?

Such reforms are hardly on the political agenda, but they should have the support of those who argued so passionately that marriage needed to be radically changed to accommodate homosexuals. If that support is not there, it will be clear that the same-sex marriage debate had little to do with marriage, and everything to do with state-sanctioned homosexual sex. Indeed, a long road has been travelled since 1967.

But the burden of carrying this debate forward does not lie principally with the advocates of same-sex marriage. It was not they who dismantled marriage these past four decades. That was done long beforehand, and now we will see if there is any constituency for reversing that trend. If not, yesterday definitively marked the consummation of the decline of marriage.

© National Post 2005

General Comments: A Woman who Gets it. And "Life Under Fascism"

June 28, 2005

familyDear Dr. Makow,

Thank you SO much for your candidness in your articles [on relationships.] You hit the nail on the head, as far as I am concerned. My husband and I have had MANY discusions on this very topic. We are both 24 years of age (young - I know), but I think it is so sad that the male gender has been"emasculated," as you say. I've heard my husband say those exact words before. It happens in everyday life, in plitics, in families, even in TV commercials.

I was raised to be, and still am very much so, a strong woman. So is my mother, and my grandmother before that. However, my parents felt strongly that marriage, ordained of God, was designed to work a specific way, and anything other than that plan would be a feeble attempt at what a real marriage should be. As young as I am, I have NO problem accepting and rejoicing in the fact that I am a woman. My mind and emotions work differently than do my husband's.

My goal as his wife is to do whatever I can to help him be all that he has the potential to be. What kind of wife would I be if I did not place all my turst in him and enable him to live up to his fullest potential? On the flip-side, he has a responsibility to care for, love, and support me. That's what makes me a good wife (I hope) and him a wonderful husband.

I love the fact that you point out how a woman who trusts a man will be able to give him her power. I agree completely. I trust my husband so much that, in times when we may disagree in a course of action, I am able to trust him to have MY best intrest at heart and choose his way.

That is how a marriage should work. Likewise, he knows that I am devoted to him and heeds my opinion as sound advice.

Again, I cannot begin to tell you how true this rings in my heart. Knowing that there are others who see marriage and modern feminism in the way you described in your article, only deepens my determination to love my husband more and raise my children to value these same priciples.

Thank you,

martialThe horrid thing about living in a society under fascism is how it
distorts positive things, like friendships. It is around my friend that
I have to be most chameleon. It is emotionally taxing.
Fascist brainwashing makes such situations much more than mere
difference of opinion. The brainwashed part of that person's perception
of reality has been deliberately tied into a deep, territorial/defence
part of the brain. To disagree with such a mind, is to trigger a
primitive response. From that state of mind, the person is quite
capable of 'turning you in to the Gestapo', and hating you because their
mind is conditioned to see disagreement as 'the enemy', in black and white.

I do not understand the process by which he can see reality this way. I
can only guess. In his case, he has so many years invested in a right
wing, 'conservative' world view, that as it was progressively
infiltrated by neocon PysOps manipulators, he's been drawn further and
further in.

Now, this is a subtle aspect of what I see going on in the psychology of
citizens I know in the American environment. To have wanted Bush
president because of moral disgust at Clinton's sexual sleazyness, in
the belief that Bush is a Christian, 'God Fearing' and 'Bible based' man.
To learn to hate 'liberals and democrats', for crying foul over the 2000
election, delaying the precious leader's ascent to the White House,
where he would make America a great and moral nation again.
To learn to hate the entire muslim world of 'rag heads' for blowing up
the WTC.

To have totally supported invasion of the Middle East at any point of
entry, on any excuse, in order to fulfill America's Chritian destiny to
bring Jesus to the heathens. Onward Christian soldiers......
To finally feel strange feelings when reports from the front aren't
coming in as envisioned. But having gone so far, rationalizing and
agreeing with anything Rumsfeld or Rove spins on it. 'We are right, get
over it'.

I think it's a matter of long term emotional investment. Self identity
investment, too.

Very sad. Really. I can't risk challanging my best oldest friend on
the most important issues of our time, because in this area, he is
brainwashed and could be dangerous if triggered.

So this is what life in Germany felt like back in the 30's.
What's most disturbing to me about that fact, is that the Germans were
still behind Hitler until the very end. The only thing that stopped
fascism in Germany was overwhelming military force from the outside.
Short of Divine Intervention or the appearance of benevolent beings from
outer space, I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel, and it
depresses me. I really don't know what to do.


Remembering the Lessons of Germany's Past by Chuck Baldwin

Baldwin Chuck Baldwin
June 16, 2005

For years, I struggled to comprehend how the good people of Germany could allow someone such as Adolph Hitler to lead them into what became World War II. After all, before Hitler's rise to power, Germany had a rich Christian heritage. The Reformation out of the Dark Ages had its roots deeply imbedded in Germany and surrounding countries.

Furthermore, Germany has long produced some of the most intelligent and creative people on the planet! Many of the world's greatest engineers and scientists have come from Germany and Austria. When it comes to knowledge and education, the Germanic people take a back seat to no one.

How, then, could the good, intelligent people of Germany follow and support someone such as Hitler? For years I struggled to find the answer to that puzzle. Now, I believe I understand.

Obviously, one does not gain the trust and confidence of people by portraying himself as a monster. Does anyone truly believe that the German people would have supported Hitler if they had thought he was some kind of ogre? As with most leaders, Hitler preached faith, family, and patriotism. His speeches were laced with references to God. He personally claimed Christ to be his Savior. Even his adopted Nazi symbol was created around the Christian cross. As far as the German people were concerned, Adolph Hitler was loyal to historic, conservative Christian values. Why should they have thought otherwise?

However, it did not take long for Hitler to begin turning Germany from an independent, peaceful republic into an aggressive global empire. And it is at this point that the German people, and especially the German church, must share culpability for Hitler's sins.

First, On March 23, 1933, the newly elected members of the Reichstag (the German Parliament) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's "Erm䣨tigungsgesetz" or, The "Enabling Act." This Act was officially called the "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich."

Opponents of the "Enabling Act" rightly warned that, if adopted, the Act would make Hitler a de facto dictator. They worried that the Act would dismantle constitutional liberties. History would prove that their worries were valid.

At the time, however, it was anything but certain that Hitler would prevail in convincing German lawmakers to pass his "Enabling Act." Then, suddenly, terrorists struck the Reichstag building.

After the Reichstag was burned on February 28, 1933, President Hindenburg and Hitler invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permitted the suspension of civil liberties during national emergencies. As a result, freedom of the press, free expression of opinion, individual property rights, right of assembly and association, right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, states' rights of self-government, and protection against unlawful searches and seizures were suspended. Shortly afterward, the "Enabling Act" was passed, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Of course, historians have widely speculated that it was Nazis, themselves, that had set the fire in order to facilitate passage of the "Enabling Act" and ensconce Hitler as Germany's Fuhrer. No one knows for sure who burned the Reichstag, but what we do know is that Hitler used that act of terrorism to gain the support of the people as a "wartime president."

The German people were convinced that their country was under attack and that Hitler was the leader who could protect them. Consider the statement of one of Hitler's most trusted cabinet members, Hermann Goering, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." (Source: Transcript of Nuremberg Trials)

Compare Goering's statement to former Attorney General John Ashcroft who, in defending the USA Patriot Act (which does much the same thing as Hitler's "Enabling Act") said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." (Source: Press Report, Center for Public Integrity)

Is it only a coincidence (or a repeat of history) that Republicans have introduced a bill in Congress to nullify the 22nd Amendment thereby opening the door for President George W. Bush to become permanent president? (Source: U.S. House of Representatives, H.J. Res. 24 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution" introduced February 17, 2005.)

Add to H.J. Res. 24 the World Net Daily report that "A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and adjacent Building No. 7."

WND quotes Reynolds as stating further, "Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via "an inside job" or not, one thing is certain: the attacks of September 11, 2001 became the catalyst that propelled Congressmen to quickly pass the USA Patriot Act even though none of them had read it.

Much is being made over the fact that on Wednesday of this week, the House of Representatives removed some "sneak and peek" features regarding public libraries from the Patriot Act. Of course, President Bush is livid and is threatening to veto the bill without that segment of the Act included. However, what few people seem to notice is that a host of egregiously unconstitutional abridgments of freedom remain intact in the Patriot Act.

Under the Patriot Act, government agents can conduct searches in your home or business and search your belongings without informing you and without a court order. Government agents are permitted to arrest and detain individuals and to hold them indefinitely, without being charged with a crime, and without being allowed access to an attorney. In other words, the Patriot Act (like Hitler's "Enabling Act") expunges our Fourth Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures and our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Furthermore, the Patriot Act (like Hitler's "Enabling Act") destroys our Fifth Amendment right to be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, without an indictment of a grand jury. The Patriot Act also eviscerates a citizen's constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.

The point is, as with Hitler's Germany, so, too, the American people, and especially America's churches, are willingly and enthusiastically surrendering constitutional liberties in order to accommodate President Bush's desires for authoritarian power as a "wartime president."

Consider, too, Hitler's invasion of Germany's neighbors. People cheered as German troops attacked other nations. And even though those nations had not participated in any attack against Germany, Hitler had convinced people that preemptive attacks against those nations were necessary as they would make Germany "more secure." Does this or does this not sound just like President Bush's justification for invading Iraq?

Once again, please remember that the German people believed Hitler to be a patriotic, Christian man. As a result, Hitler had the unflinching support of Germany's conservative Christian ministers. How else would they be persuaded to follow Hitler into the nightmare of the Nazi regime?

Remember, also, that to most German ministers, the Nazi Party was "God's Party." They really believed they were being faithful to God by being faithful to Hitler. Therefore, should we not be concerned today when we hear of Christian ministers excommunicating church members who do not support President Bush or the Republican Party? Should not "red flags" go up in our minds when we hear Christian ministers excuse Bush's unconstitutional conduct by proclaiming, "Bush is God's man for America, therefore, we cannot criticize him!"?

Yes, my friends, it is now obvious to me how Adolph Hitler seized power in Germany, because the same principles that Hitler used in the 1930's are being used by America's leaders today.

Am I saying that I believe President Bush is another Hitler? Of course not. I am saying, however, that the same tactics and strategies being used by President Bush are eerily similar to those of the former German leader's. Certainly, we all pray for a fate far better than that of Hitler's Germany. But to obtain a better future for America, it is obligatory that we remember the lessons of Germany's past.

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985, the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

While he originally planned on a career in law enforcement, Chuck "answered the divine call to Gospel ministry" and decided instead to attend Bible school. He ultimately earned his Bachelor's and Master's degrees in theology, and was later awarded two honorary doctorates in the field.

He is the host of Chuck Baldwin Live, a daily, two hour long radio call-in show on the events of the day. In addition to writing two books of theology — "Subjects Seldom Spoken On" and "This Is The Life" — he has edited and produced "The Freedom Documents," a collection of fifty of the greatest documents of American history.

In 2004, Chuck was the vice presidential nominee for the Constitution Party. Chuck, 52, and his wife Connie are the parents of three children and grandparents of six.

© Copyright 2005 by Chuck Baldwin

Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story

June 27, 2005

dissentA former high-ranking Republican official, also a well-respected author, tells the American people to stop listening to Bush administration lies about Iraqi war and claims the mainstream media will not publish anything he writes
against Bush or his policies.

By Greg Szymanski

June 22, 2005: A former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan stepped back into the political spotlight this week, expressing doubt about the official 9/11 story and claiming "if they lied to us about Ruby Ridge, Waco and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why should we believe them now."

Paul Craig Roberts, listed by Who’s Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, has evolved over the years into a major Bush basher as well as neo con critic. Roberts said he hasn’t changed his political ideology or jumped from the Republican-conservative ship but "just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth."

He is another in the long list of "Republican faithful," including top-ranking government and military officials who have left or been pushed out Washington, since Bush’s neo con followers continue demonstrating a lack of desire and patience to compromise even with conservatives refusing "to toe the neo con line."

Expressing doubt about the government’s official version of 9/11 but deferring detailed criticism to the experts, Roberts concerns come on the heels of recent criticism leveled by Morgan Reynolds, a former chief economist in the Bush I administration.

Reynolds is the highest-ranking public official so far to step forward and criticize the government account of 9/11, calling the government story "bogus" and saying the WTC most likely fell from a controlled demolition.

Saying 9/11 is only a part of a mysterious but deadly neo- con puzzle, Roberts looked back at history for some answers

"They (neo cons) are making such fatalistic mistakes and are about as insane as Hitler and the Nazi Party when they invaded Russia in the dead of the winter," said Roberts who now, as a hobby, syndicates a national newspaper column, adding to his long and impressive list of academic, journalistic and political credentials.

Serving under President Reagan in 1981-82, Treasury Secretary Regan credited him with having a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. He was then awarded the Treasury Department’s Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy."

Roberts is given much of the credit for structuring and drafting a major portion of the famous Kemp-Roth bill as well as having a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy. In 1987, the French government recognized him as "the artisan of a renewal in economic science and policy after half a century of state interventionism," inducted him into the Legion of Honor.

Even with his impressive background, Roberts, once a former columnist for Business Week and a thorn in the side of liberals back then, said "the times have drastically changed," adding his views are no longer welcome in the mainstream media if they are critical of Bush or any of his policies.

" It's like the Nazis removing dissent without using the Gestapo," said Roberts, whose articles are circulated widely on the Internet and appear regularly in the American Free Press, an alternative publication. "Most publications, like the Washington Times, for example, will not print anything critical of Bush, his strategies and, definitely, anything seriously opposing the war is off base."

Although professing to know "a little about engineering" from his undergraduate days at Georgia Tech, Roberts deferred formulating any serious conclusions about the fall of the WTC, but expressed doubt as to the credibility of the entire official version based on past government lies uncovered at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the threat of WMD in Iraq.

Roberts said the recent statements made by Reynolds, however, reveals just how flimsy and unbelievable the government story comes across.

"This is not some kind of conspiracy nut or kook talking. He is a man with extremely qualified credentials, whose opinions I respect," said Roberts referring to Reynolds’ comments which have been highly publicized across the country.

"The real story is not Morgan Reynolds or myself, but why have so many former Republican conservatives and top ranking officials who disagree with the neo cons been systematically run out of Washington? And, also, why is the media so intent on covering up the Bush-neo con agenda and all the mistakes surrounding it?

"I guess the real story about 9/11 is about what the people are actually saying. I’ve gotten hundreds of emails in response to my columns and many of them talk about not getting the truth from the government or the media about what really happened at the World Trade Center. I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."

Besides 9/11 and blasting the neo con economic agenda as suicide for America, Roberts in his latest column seriously attacks the Bush Iraq war policy. Without mincing words, he wrote:

" The reasons they (the American people) were given by their president, vice president, secretary of defense, national security adviser, secretary of state, and the sycophantic media were nothing but a pack of lies."

Accusing Bush of also lying to the American people in his recent June 18 radio address, he added:

"Bush again lied to the American people when he told them that the U.S. was forced into invading Iraq because of the Sept. 11 attack on the WTC.

"Bush, the greatest disgrace that America has ever had to suffer, actually repeated at this late date the monstrous lie for which he is infamous throughout the world: ‘We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens.’"

Roberts' other impressive credentials include being awarded a John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute.

In 1992, he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism and, a year later, the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the country. He was also Distinguished Fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996 while also from 1982 through 1993, holding the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Was Hitler a Sabbatean? David Livingstone reflects on Rabbi Antelman

June 26, 2005

Eliminate Well, I finally received my copy of the second half of Rabbi Antelman's

Again, it's a disappointment.

The one thing that is good is the premise. For that reason alone, his books
are important. That is, of identifying the Illuminati as rooted in the
Shabbatean heresy. It explains a lot. Particularly how Lurianic Kabbalah
would be introduced to the Illuminati, in the likes of Hegel and Marx.

It also explains their hatred towards Jews, as they reject the Torah in
favor of the Kabbalistic Zohar. This also helps to explain how the
Illuminati could consider themselves Aryans, though they are largely
composed of Jewish families, like the Rothschilds, Warbugs, Schiffs, and so
on. Because it is they who were responsible for, along with Rockefeller,
who were Marrano Jews, for financing Hitler and bringing him to power.

Other than that, wherever Antelman pores into ancient history, his evidence
is spurious at best. For instance, he provides an entire discussion of
Sufism, by relying on Idris Shah. That's like relying on Lawrence Gardner
on British genealogy, or Sitchin on Sumerian mythology.

There were too points that I found interesting though.

First is that Marx was a Shabbatean, his father Heinrich having been
inducted into the heresy.

Also, there is a common rumour that Hitler was an illegitimate Rothschild.

Antelman instead says he was a Shabbatean. Here is the entire text:

"Now there are some rumblings that Adolf Hitler may have had some Jewish
blood imparted to him by a Jew named Frankenberger, who supposedly had a
liaison with his grandmother Maria Anna Schicklgruber (1795-1847). Indeed,
a prominent attorney in New York City, Jerold Morgulas, wrote a book called
The Torquemada Principle (Wade Rawson, 1980) which advocates this thesis.
There is no truth to it. Rather, Hitler was really the product of an
adulterous relationship between his mother, Klara Polzl, and a Sabbatian
Frankist (1861-September 21, 1928), who was Hitler's real father.

The Frankist Shabbatians had a ritual on the 9th of Av, which is observed by
Jews as a fast day commemorating the destruction of the First and Second
Temples [it's also the birthday of Shabbatai Zevi]. This night, the
Sabbatians secretly observed as incest and adultery night. However, there
is a persistent rumor that Klara was artificially inseminated that night.

Since the Jewish calendar is lunar, the 9th of Av can occur in July or
August. Checking the calendar, the 9th of Av, 1988, -- the date of Hitler's
probable conception -- fell on July 20, 1888, approximately nine months
prior to April 20, 1889, the birthday of Adolf Hitler.

A 1933 New York Times article dealing with Hitler's alleged Jewish
origins maintained that there was Jewish blood on the Stronnes side --
Hitler's maternal grandmother -- a family which converted to Catholicism
from Judaism in Vienna in the 1850's. Rabbinic Court testimony claims that
not only Hitler's real father was a Sabbatian, but his material great
grandfather as well; ie. Klara's material grandfather, who fathered her out
of wedlock.

There is evidence that Hitler maintained close contact with Sabbatians
throughout his lifetime. In fact, his personal astrologer Erik J. Hanussen
(murdered in the woods outside of Berlin in February 1933) was a Sabbatian
who was called "the prophet of the Third Reich" and "magician of Berlin".
His real name was Hershel Steinschneider, born in Vienna in 1889, and he was
the first cousin of Moritz Steinschneider (1816-1907), discussed in chapter

Despite Upsurge in Men's Suicides, Men's Centres Get NO Gov't Funding

June 23, 2005

Check out Ottawa Men's Center

While women get millions, Ottawa Men's Center director John Bennett pinpoints why men aren't funded:

"Unfortunately, at present we get no government funding or directions on
how we could operate. Basically, funding would remove almost all ability to advocate."

In other words, womyn's centers are political indoctrination centers.