Illuminati Use Women to Destroy Men

“You’re not dangerous,” I told Garry. “A man has a right to be master of his domain. Quit beating yourself up.”

by Henry Makow, Ph.D.

“The mutual relations between the two sexes seems to us to be at least as important as the mutual relations of any two governments in the world.” – Thomas Babington Macaulay – Historian & British Secretary of State for War, 1840

When I was young, there was a saying: “Behind every successful man is a woman.”

Women used to empower men. How? By accepting their leadership. By being First Mate to their Captain.

Women benefited from this arrangement. In marriage, they shared in the fruits of a man’s achievements.

The Illuminati realized that this process can work both ways. Instead of empowering men, women can emasculate them by challenging their power. By teaching women to usurp male power, the Illuminati created a new breed of feckless males incapable of concerted political action. Divide and Conquer.

Recently, I saw close up how this process works. A friend, “Garry,” is broken up because his common-law wife left him. The split came after a “domestic assault.” He pushed her. She wasn’t hurt but she might have been scared. She called the police.

As a result, they were physically separated by law, and the relationship ended. I don’t like this policy but it does end a lot of dysfunctional relationships.

A DYSFUNCTIONAL COUPLE

She had the power. He felt guilty for being resentful and angry about it. He was sorry for pushing her and thought his anger was a terrible thing. This reflects his indoctrination. His striking out was a natural result of an untenable situation.

He related a Jane Goodall documentary about chimpanzees. The male chimps sometime go haywire, screaming and yelling and throwing things. The women and children cower in fear. Then the storm passes and they’re all nurturing and welcoming again. He felt that as a male, he was like the chimps. He had this evil demon within him.

“You’ve got it all wrong,” I said. “Those male chimps were asserting their dominance. Once they did that, they could go back to being loving husbands and fathers. Don’t believe what the counselors tell you. You’re not dangerous. A man has a right to be master of his domain. Quit beating yourself up.”

Garry had felt he had no home. His ex insisted that her 20-something daughter live with them. She had her way in spite of Garry’s objections. This daughter made sure everyone was miserable if she was, which was most of the time. It was Garry’s house. The woman and daughter lived rent-free.

Garry had needed to be firm at the outset. “Neither of you will live here.” Instead he went to a men’s group called “Evolve” to learn to “deal with his anger.” There it was all “shame and blame” the man. He needed to control his anger and be more accommodating.

He was so impressed that he got his ex to attend the women’s chapter of the same government-funded agency. There the message was designed to empower women. “Women are an oppressed minority. Rise up against those evil males.” (This is typical Communist ‘consciousness raising’ i.e. indoctrination.)

His ex became very argumentative, especially when drinking. After their enforced separation, she had him arrested for driving by to look at his house.

To her credit, she eventually moved out. But all the furniture was hers. She had forced him to get rid of his. Now he’s rattling around an empty house trying to rebuild his life. He let his friendships lapse.

Garry is a mild mannered and capable 55-year-old man. But when he related what his ex had done, his body language was that of a child. Any man who is ruled by a woman becomes a child or a woman.

CONCLUSION

You probably know someone like Garry. If you don’t, get a movie called “Flannel Pajamas.” The writer-director Jeff Lipsky tells the story of his marriage. Compare Jeff at the beginning and the end. At the beginning, he is powerful and generous. At the end, he is a mouse. He gave away his power and now she didn’t love him any more. Women lose interest in men who try to buy their love, or love in a self-negating way.

Heterosexual relationships are about the exchange of female (worldly) power for male power expressed as love. Men want power. Women want love. Marriage is the exchange of the two, sealed by exclusive sex.

The Illuminati have sabotaged this exchange by exaggerating woman’s power and diminishing man’s. Men are brainwashed to think romance and sex are the sin qua non for happiness. Many become paralyzed, unable to approach a desirable woman. Too late they learn the real benefit to a man of a woman is exaggerated by a factor of five.

Paradoxically, this return to reality enables a man to secure female companionship. To their credit, woman are attracted to men with self respect.

Heterosexual relationships are about a man getting a woman to do what he wants. This is called “courtship” i.e. proving that his aims are worth supporting and he will protect and nurture her.

When he earns this trust (tantamount to her love,) she surrenders her worldly power to him. This is the heterosexual contract: power for love. (Of course, the contract is voided if he doesn’t keep his end of the bargain. i.e. love. Thus he will consult her. Depending on mutual rapport and competence, power might be divided or delegated.)

Men should project power and never show weakness. They should establish their authority from the get-go. A woman can have power or love. But she can’t have both. This is the litmus test. If she doesn’t agree, move on. You’ll save yourself a lifetime of grief.

–
See my book “Cruel Hoax” for more on feminism and heterosexuality. It has been published in Japan and is being published in Germany, South Korea and Croatia.

Favorite

0 members favorited this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Burbia on May 16, 2011 at 3:15pm

Permalink Reply by Joel on May 17, 2011 at 5:56am

I'd say I'm more than half in agreement with this article. But I would say there are some finer distinctions to be drawn here.

I guess I am a post feminist or recovering feminist man in the sense that I think it's ok and, at least for many people, natural, for a man to want to be "the man," and take the lead in a relationship. And I agree many women respond positively to that stance, consciously and/or subconsciously, and whatever the "illuminati" do to muddy the waters, a lot of that psychology is embedded in our DNA, evolutionary history, and perhaps in our stars.But I think ideally a man who would take the lead has to be WORTHY of that role, which in my book means being as honorable, honest, conscious, and confident as possible about it.

When it breaks down into the man using actual violence / coercion / intimidation and other such chimp-level behavior in ways that are out of control and raise the possibility of domestic violence charges and intervention by outside authorities, I see those more as symptoms of fear, weakness, and ignorance/incivility. Such behavior may work for chimps, and may succeed in establishing a cheap kind of dominance, but I would say it is not an ideal situation for more sentient people. Those tactics are not so loving nor do they promote what I would call real understanding between people. (It's hard to know what someone really thinks or feels when they are afraid to speak honestly for fear of a violent reaction.)

I agree with the article that the man in this relationship probably took a wrong turn at the start. If I were the man in that story, I hope I would look first at my own part in letting things get out of hand. I hope I would see that I failed to set the proper boundaries, expectations and understandings about what I would and would not accept and what I wanted. It sounds like this fellow let the women in his life walk all over him for a good while, and the male-dominant behavior didn't come out until he was at the end of his rope and angry (and again, IMO, if you dig under the anger you will find insecurity/fear). It sounds like it came out in a somewhat aggressive, out-of-control way that may or may not have genuinely traumatized the women in his life, but certainly exposed him to unwanted criticism and consequences.

I do agree that the confusion and blurring of gender roles is one way that the populace is divided and conquered at present. But to say, "a woman can have power or love, but she can’t have both" to me is simplistic and can be used to justify what I would call thuggish dominance, or fear/intolerance of a woman who has a voice and her own mind. A man who is strong, confident, honest with himself and others, and clear about what he wants and what he will and won't tolerate can be secure enough to engage with a woman who has personal power of her own without surrendering his own power or letting her walk all over him.

I have actually been in relationships where the male-dominant aspect went to the degree of both of us understanding that I had the right to correct and discipline my girl. But, being secure in that understanding, there was never and IMO should never be any "shoving," which to me is an out-of-control, fear-based, frightening, reactive, and overly aggressive behavior. Ideally any disciplining that I do, especially if it's physical, should be purposeful and measured. In my experience, surprising as it may seem from a feminist standpoint, that flavor of taking charge has never failed to build intimacy and passion.

Permalink Reply by giselle alice wilding on May 20, 2011 at 4:53am

Shoving; how mild! If only people could hear what really goes on in many homes.

Permalink Reply by giselle alice wilding on May 20, 2011 at 4:47am

I grew up with a controlling and abusive mother (of course she denies this and the beatings but my siblings are witnesses). My father is a retired professor so this goes on at all levels ( my father was not or is controlling or abusive ). I then thought it was normal to be abused by people and received the most violent of abuse by my ex. Of course he having money was able to get me labelled a liar and crazy (now changed as my daughter wants justice for abuse of the worst kind yet to be charged or go to court due to him being overseas most of the time. But it will happen as my daughter is now 17 and she has her friends she confided in even if I cannot get justice for what happened to me)So yes I know how one is conditiioned.But I did not repeat the abuse to my children even though I took it.

Now we have the Child Support Agency to help destroy many men and families.Women have this power and if they do not use it, as in my case, you will be forced to apply. This then was used to destroy my career and assets by lies by my ex to the CSA so I was left after fleeing with almost nothing to support my very abused daughters.Long long story.

Now if anyone does not believe the power of abused children being controlled to do terrible things to people you should hear what I had to go through. One daughter was eventually protected from this man who went to school with the reptile Prince Charles. She does not remember what she did to me and seems almost normal now.I could not keep a broom in the house or it would be broken on me (the bruises but I was used to bruises).I could not retaliate ; this is what was wanted as I would be charged.I had one day to just sit there as acetone was tipped over me and a match lit. I could do nothing. Fortunately it was not thrown on me. People are burnt with the most horrific injuries with this.

I once came down straight onto ceramic tiles after my legs were hit in a certain way which would often kill people; where did she learn these things (of course I know). The police and others would say my injuries were self inflicted until they could not deny my daughter injuries and then DHS protected both daughters.

But as he had money the police , I allege were paid off. The charges on assault on a minor were dropped.

Not dropped on me and I faced ten years jail for yelling at this man as he stalked me or for when I rescued my daughters from him.

I know both how women can manipulate and control (parents) and how children can be so brainwashed and traumatised to do almost murder.It is not nice.