4 ms·

Do you think "manipulation" and social engineering by our three-letter agencies is just a completely outlandish idea? These agencies have no problem overthrowin

Do you think "manipulation" and social engineering by our three-letter agencies is just a completely outlandish idea? These agencies have no problem overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries (See Iran, 1953). They have no problem kidnapping people and feeding them LSD (See MK-Ultra). Henry Makow explains one theory here - http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html - (Basically, "The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.") Say what you want about Henry; the guy is no dummy. And if you still think that the CIA and "the powers that be" don't want to influence society at large, then go look up Operation Mockingbird.

jacobolus 11y ago
I didn’t offer any judgement at all. I just asked poster 'eruditely' to elaborate, as I don’t really understand what he’s trying to say. I happen to find the notion that the CIA is responsible for the feminist movement rather implausible compared to alternative explanations, such as ordinary women being fed up at their lack of equal treatment or social status and genuinely wishing for social improvement. But again, that’s not what my prior comment was about. I’ve never heard of Henry Makow but based on this essay he seems like a crank. > The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati. Is this some kind of parody?
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Your questions and your tone already betrayed your judgement. Why use the scare quotes on "manipulation"? Also, you are aware that anytime someone asks a question that ends with "what is X supposed to do?" it sounds just a tad judgmental right?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Crank is generous. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    Yeah and RationalWiki is about as rational as the Catholic church - http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Your inability to point out any errors in the rational wiki page about Makow is noted.
      - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        And your inability to make an argument of any kind has also been duly noted. Did you actually read the RatWiki page? It lists a bunch of cherry picked facts about his views along with some snarky commentary. Wow! Really powerful stuff there.
        DanBC 11y ago
        I did read the rational Wiki page. It shows Makow has a bunch of beliefs - 911 was a conspiracy; THE JEWS DID IT; etc - that are a strong signal that he isn't worth any more of my time. Again, feel free to point out any particular errors.
        WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        And again - you haven't proven one thing wrong with Henry Makow by simply stating his views and saying that you don't like them. Sorry, but you don't win arguments by saying your opinion over and over. You can think so, but you'd be wrong...again. So the answer is basically: Mu. I don't need to point out errors in RatWiki. I already pointed out your own error - that you're not bringing anything to the table here other than your poorly formulated opinion.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  I'll put a separate response here since you added some things to your original response... > Is this some kind of parody? Is that the best critique that you have? What do you know about banking cartels, Satanism, Freemasonry, Communism or the other topics mentioned? Anything at all or nothing at all? Please be honest. I'm really not here to defend Henry or his theories, but you are not doing a very good job of criticizing him if that's all you have to say.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      Oh, you know some folks. Well, that really clears things up every single conspiracy theory that I've ever heard. There's no way that anything has been hidden from you. Nope. Because Satanists go around shouting their beliefs from the rooftop. They wouldn't ever think of hiding stuff. Are you kidding me with that bullshit argument? You know people?? That's rich dude. Yeah and I know a car mechanic who is a really nice guy - so there's just no way that the auto-repair industry generally rips off women and minorities whenever they can, right?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
viraptor 11y ago
From the link: > She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude. Or you know, he's just crazy. > Feminism has trained women to reject this model as "an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype" even though it reflects their natural instincts. Does he have another article explaining how we trained the slaves to reject the proper employment model even though it reflects their true desires to experience fulfilment through free work?
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  > Or you know, he's just crazy. Yeah, a women who devotes her life to her family is just a crazy, crazy idea man.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    That's not what I said. I said a man who claims that this is the only natural way is crazy. Or that forbidding that life is what feminism is about. (also illuminati, freemasonery, bankers, etc) The point of feminism is that everyone has a choice and shouldn't be forced by any stereotypes. It means that everyone can devote their life to their family and it's their own choice, not trying to fulfill the only-valid stereotype.
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      I'm not here to defend the theory, but c'mon - you're inventing a strawman here. The very first sentence says "...many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts." Nothing in that article says anything about the "only natural way". Nobody is arguing about the point of feminism either. Everybody knows what feminism is about, but how many people know who funded the first feminist groups and why?
      - viraptor 11y ago
        The whole article goes on and on about how this is the natural way. It goes on to define what the essence of a heterosexual contract is (exchange of power). That women shouldn't challenge men. How now the only thing women can provide is sex. ("Now that love and marriage have been "discredited,"") Sure it doesn't explicitly say it's the only way. But it's the only way it presents and doesn't leave space for any other way either, so this is the straightforward conclusion. The article doesn't have to present this any clearer.

jacobolus 11y ago

I didn’t offer any judgement at all. I just asked poster 'eruditely' to elaborate, as I don’t really understand what he’s trying to say. I happen to find the notion that the CIA is responsible for the feminist movement rather implausible compared to alternative explanations, such as ordinary women being fed up at their lack of equal treatment or social status and genuinely wishing for social improvement. But again, that’s not what my prior comment was about. I’ve never heard of Henry Makow but based on this essay he seems like a crank. > The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati. Is this some kind of parody?

WorldWideWayne 11y ago
Your questions and your tone already betrayed your judgement. Why use the scare quotes on "manipulation"? Also, you are aware that anytime someone asks a question that ends with "what is X supposed to do?" it sounds just a tad judgmental right?
DanBC 11y ago
Crank is generous. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Yeah and RationalWiki is about as rational as the Catholic church - http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/f5b/the_problem_with_rational_wiki/
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Your inability to point out any errors in the rational wiki page about Makow is noted.
    - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
      And your inability to make an argument of any kind has also been duly noted. Did you actually read the RatWiki page? It lists a bunch of cherry picked facts about his views along with some snarky commentary. Wow! Really powerful stuff there.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        I did read the rational Wiki page. It shows Makow has a bunch of beliefs - 911 was a conspiracy; THE JEWS DID IT; etc - that are a strong signal that he isn't worth any more of my time. Again, feel free to point out any particular errors.
        WorldWideWayne 11y ago
        And again - you haven't proven one thing wrong with Henry Makow by simply stating his views and saying that you don't like them. Sorry, but you don't win arguments by saying your opinion over and over. You can think so, but you'd be wrong...again. So the answer is basically: Mu. I don't need to point out errors in RatWiki. I already pointed out your own error - that you're not bringing anything to the table here other than your poorly formulated opinion.
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
I'll put a separate response here since you added some things to your original response... > Is this some kind of parody? Is that the best critique that you have? What do you know about banking cartels, Satanism, Freemasonry, Communism or the other topics mentioned? Anything at all or nothing at all? Please be honest. I'm really not here to defend Henry or his theories, but you are not doing a very good job of criticizing him if that's all you have to say.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    Oh, you know some folks. Well, that really clears things up every single conspiracy theory that I've ever heard. There's no way that anything has been hidden from you. Nope. Because Satanists go around shouting their beliefs from the rooftop. They wouldn't ever think of hiding stuff. Are you kidding me with that bullshit argument? You know people?? That's rich dude. Yeah and I know a car mechanic who is a really nice guy - so there's just no way that the auto-repair industry generally rips off women and minorities whenever they can, right?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

viraptor 11y ago

From the link: > She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude. Or you know, he's just crazy. > Feminism has trained women to reject this model as "an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype" even though it reflects their natural instincts. Does he have another article explaining how we trained the slaves to reject the proper employment model even though it reflects their true desires to experience fulfilment through free work?

WorldWideWayne 11y ago
> Or you know, he's just crazy. Yeah, a women who devotes her life to her family is just a crazy, crazy idea man.
- viraptor 11y ago
  That's not what I said. I said a man who claims that this is the only natural way is crazy. Or that forbidding that life is what feminism is about. (also illuminati, freemasonery, bankers, etc) The point of feminism is that everyone has a choice and shouldn't be forced by any stereotypes. It means that everyone can devote their life to their family and it's their own choice, not trying to fulfill the only-valid stereotype.
  - WorldWideWayne 11y ago
    I'm not here to defend the theory, but c'mon - you're inventing a strawman here. The very first sentence says "...many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts." Nothing in that article says anything about the "only natural way". Nobody is arguing about the point of feminism either. Everybody knows what feminism is about, but how many people know who funded the first feminist groups and why?
    - viraptor 11y ago
      The whole article goes on and on about how this is the natural way. It goes on to define what the essence of a heterosexual contract is (exchange of power). That women shouldn't challenge men. How now the only thing women can provide is sex. ("Now that love and marriage have been "discredited,"") Sure it doesn't explicitly say it's the only way. But it's the only way it presents and doesn't leave space for any other way either, so this is the straightforward conclusion. The article doesn't have to present this any clearer.