Domestic Violence Hysteria is Political
June 17, 2011
Just as the Illuminati bankers enlisted workers, Blacks and Jews to do their bidding, they used feminism to harness the political power of women who couldn't get a date on Saturday night.
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
(from May 2008)
Imagine if every time there was a case of food poisoning at McDonald's, it made the evening news. But food poisoning at Burger King got no mention at all. What would you conclude?
The same applies to domestic violence. Even though women initiate violence against men in almost equal numbers, most of the publicity is devoted to women as victims.
This is because feminist activists, funded and empowered by Rockefeller social engineers, want to stigmatize men and marriage in the eyes of young women. They want young women to Eat at Lesbian Jill's or Single Jane's but definitely not at Joe's. This is how mass behavior modification works.
Just as the Illuminati banksters enlisted workers, Blacks and Jews to do their bidding,they used feminism to harness the political power of women who couldn't get a date Saturday night.
The banksters gave them positions of power in government and media. So periodically we get a dose of propaganda about how domestic violence stalks married women.
I do not condone domestic violence of any kind. But I resent that this problem is exploited for an evil political agenda: to destroy marriage and family and so render us more vulnerable to totalitarian control.
In Canada for example, 646,000 men (6%) reported being the victim of spousal violence at least once in the previous five years (compared to 654,000 women or 7%); yet absolutely nothing is done for them. There are 300 women's shelters and not one for men. When a man is being abused, he needs a place to go.
Researchers who document violence against men are ignored, censored, slandered and threatened by government funded feminist activists. (See Murray Strauss article at very bottom of this page.)
Feminist activists use domestic violence as a Symbol of Male Oppression. Violence perpetrated by women would blur this politically charged message.
GAY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Domestic violence by gays and lesbians also would blur this message. We never hear that "Spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples. Fifteen percent of gay and lesbian relationships experienced violence." (Statistics Canada, Oct 2006)
This is because they want the homosexual "lifestyle alternative" to appear as attractive as possible. Homosexuality is the inability to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex due to confusion over gender identity. The goal of social engineers is to spread this disorder which results in arrested development to society at large.
Also, social engineers want homosexuals to have the glamor of being "victims" of straight violence.
In her excellent "Crafting Gay Bisexual Children" (p. 291) Judith Reisman cites gay authors David Island and Patrick Latellier who estimate 650,000 gay men are battered by a partner every year. They estimate the rate of gay-on-gay violence is three times straight-on-gay intimidation or assault. They estimate 20% of gay relationships are poisoned by domestic violence." ("Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them")
Women who have been to a woman's shelter will tell you how callously they are treated by the hags employed there. Distressed women are pressured to end their marriages, and are offered help and resources to do so. Feminists are not interested in the welfare of women. They rely on domestic violence for their cushy jobs and to emasculate men (by portraying them as abusers.)
The publicity given to male domestic violence,as opposed to the other equal or more prevalent kinds, illustrates how elite social engineers select information to shape mass perception and behavior according to the New World Order agenda.
See also my "The Dawn of the Feminist Police State"
This column is indebted to this article by "Real Women of Canada."
Comments for "Domestic Violence Hysteria is Political"
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at