Direct Link to Latest News


"Homophobic" Panic Grips Canada

April 5, 2008

hetero1.jpegBy Henry Makow Ph.D.

Last week, Canadians reaffirmed their collective death-wish by castigating a Member of Parliament for an anti-gay statement he made 17-years ago when he was a  political organizer in Saskatchewan.

When Saskatchewan socialists recently exchanged office space with provincial conservatives, they found some discarded videotapes of a private party held in 1991. On one tape, the drunken conservative said, "There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual fagots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases."

The tasteless remark caused a media uproar and calls for the resignation of the hack, who is now a federal Parliamentary Secretary to a Cabinet Minister. To its credit, the Harper government agreed the remark was repugnant, accepted the MP's abject apology and told the socialists to buzz off.

It is wrong to refer to any group as inferior and condemn all members whether they are deficient or not. However, it is important to see this uproar in context.

Aggression is always portrayed as self-defense. But it is not homosexuals who are under relentless psychological attack by elite social engineers. Rather the target is heterosexual society, and its institutions of masculinity, femininity, marriage and family.  

Heterosexuals are being re-engineered as homosexuals to make us more docile and barren.  Thus schools tell heterosexual children to experiment with homosexuality. Feminists encourage women to deny their femininity. The media and the law routinely emasculate and denigrate men. The media and schools foster pre- and extra marital sex, promiscuity and porn. As result, marriage is in decline and the birthrate has cratered.

"Tolerance" for homosexuals actually disguises an insidious and hateful attack on heterosexuals. Rockefeller-sponsored homosexual activists admit their goal is to wipe out heterosexual behavior. Why isn't this considered hate?

In even larger context, the goal of the Illuminati (i.e. Communist) central bankers to recast the human race requires eliminating all "collective forces (i.e. groups) except our own." This includes race, religion, nation and family. Pushing homosexuality is about the elimination of the family, a plank in the 1848 Communist Manifesto.

It is healthy and natural for groups to promote an IN-GROUP and OUT-GROUP ethos in order to maintain their values and solidarity. This is usually not intended to foster aggression against the out-group.

Freedom is meaningless (and evil will triumph) if we cannot oppose what we find aberrant and disgusting. We should be tolerant of some group-bolstering behavior while remaining mindful that we all share a common Creator.

Thus when teenagers disparage certain behavior as "gay" it is a healthy sign. However it would be wrong to harm a gay teenager whose only fault is s/he is gay, which  often is beyond their control.

I wonder if these remarks would have seen the light of day if they were uttered by a homosexual and targeted at "breeders" as they call us.

I'm all for live-and-let-live. But this media-driven outcry against a 17-year-old remark is really about putting all heterosexuals on notice. It's about making us all feel guilty and afraid and breaking down our cohesion. It's about  getting us to adopt homosexuals values and even engage in gay sex.

It's no surprise then that I'm not joining this heterophobic frenzy to be (in Communist Party terminology) "politically correct."


See "Uncle Sam Wants You Gay-(Your Children Too)"

and "Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

and "Tolerance-A Sneaky Attack on Your Identity"

and  "The Truth About Diversity"

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for ""Homophobic" Panic Grips Canada"

Stephen3 said (April 9, 2008):

Dan seems like a decent and honourable individual with cohesive and intelligent comments concerning the NWO, the NWR, the World Government, Mass Mind Control, and the complex network of Global Occultism and Secret Societies. The whole 'Reptilian' angle is massively misinterpreted and although David Icke has got probably 80% of his information correct, the 'Reptilian Agenda' is simply a reworking of the presence created from 'Masonic Rituals' of summoning through invocation powerful Astral Demonic Entities, from other 'planes' or 'dimensions' into the genetic structure and DNA Genetic Codes of the recipient Freemason or Occultist.

These 'Astral Demonic Entities' are in some fashion I suppose kind of 'Reptilian' or 'Lizard-like' in their non-physical appearance, but it is ludicrous to assume and formulate that those Demons are actually some kind of 'Extraterrestrials'. The Elites are ALL basically sociopathic, psychopathic and extremely mentally unhinged, as well as being ALL programmed and controlled since birth, brought up through the ranks of the Blue Blood Families of 'Global Manipulation' of Human Consciousness. Freemasonry is the 'Outer Circle' of the Illuminati and their belief system of Illuminism, the right to enslave and control Humanity through ancient, occultic knowledge going back to the days of Sumer and then after that civilization, Babylon.

There is an energetic process however, that is beyond Planet Earth, created through Occultism and Esotericism by the Illuminists, where many kinds of Astral Demonic Entities, and yes, there are billions and billions of 'Entities' beyond the frequencies of this apparent '3D Physical Reality', that Humans are so intensively conditioned to believe is 'all that there is' and 'nothing more'. Freemasons are within the higher Masonic Degrees, would you could call 'progressive psychopaths', becoming less and less Human as they progress, acquiring more and more financial wealth and material power. A pointless exercise, but one that serves Lucifer, a powerful Demonic Entity, well indeed.

Stephen in Uk (2) said (April 8, 2008):

I would like to comment briefly about Dan2's reply to my initial comment to your excellent article '"Homophobic" Panic Grips Canada'. He mentions I had read the books of Alan Watt? I have NEVER read any of the books of such an individual. I live in the UK, and had many friends who were involved in Freemasonry, as well as the fact I studied social and behavioural psychology for many years. So my opinions are actually formulated by my own direct interactions with Freemasons and Occultists. 'Predictive Programming' is well known about as well, and lots of information exists on the Internet about it.

Aleister Crowley was a British Agent for MI6, and Winston Churchill, a High Freemason tasked him with establishing the American Film Industry within Hollywood after WW2, by creating the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) for actors, actresses and musicians. This in turn was ALL linked to Operation Hollywood, created by the CIA, and the control mechanisms of progressively homosexualizing and androgynizing Americans, and eventually the World Population, albeit it being more difficult in Muslim Islamic Countries.

In many ways, homosexuality is not the problem anyway, simply another X-Factor of the Illuminists (High Freemasons) to create a NEW WORLD ORDER of Total Enslavement and where Humanity is fragmented, fearful, terrified and will give up their Human Liberties.

Human Consciousness is an incredible thing and what has happened, especially since the end of WW2 in 1945, is the development of "DEHUMANIZATION", by degrading, demoralizing and destroying the heterosexual family, morality, ethics, community spirit, neighbourly relations and replacing it ALL with barbarism, pornography, computer games and general toxic "Mental Pollution" to continually condition Human Consciousness.

People should research further "Psychotronic Mind Control", "ELF Transmissions", "Scalar Weaponry" and also perhaps watch films again like 'Telefon' with Donald Pleasance and Charles Bronson. If the KGB had that level of "Trigger Word Mind Control" in the 1970's, then the usage of 'Predictive Programming', whether for an 'Androgynistic Agenda' by the Satanic Elites, or generally to keep enslaved and subdued Human Consciousness, is now extremely technologically and psychotronically advanced.

Dan2 said (April 7, 2008):

I just read Stephen in UK's comments [below]. (Somebody's been reading Alan Watt's 3 mail order books...)

I'm not sure Stephen fully understood what Alan was showing of the mystery religion's paradigm of their androgyny ideal. While there's no doubt that it came from the minds of homosexual psychopaths, applying their reverence for hermaphroditic godhood to the social engineering evidence of the 20th century is simplistic. The deployment of the gay/feminist/hedonist agenda was designed strictly as a strategic expedient to inhibit natural, heterosexual male/female bonding. Once that's fully achieved, they'll throw gays and women back down the sacrificial pit, so to speak. On one level their promotion of gay/feminist/hedonism amongst the 'profane' smacks of mocking the victim. Like a mob hit man who dresses his male victims up in women's lingerie before blowing their brains out.

Certainly the project of turning everybody homosexual and hedonistic has personal sex appeal to the more extreme gay activists (see: The Rocky Horror Picture Show for an example of this kind of enthusiasm), and they actually believe what they will tell you privately, 'everybody's gay, their just in denial', since that's how it actually looks through their lenses. But few if any gay activists - writers, movie directors, denizens of such organizations as 'Manlove' or 'Act up' are in on the endgame. They're just useful Bolsheviks, not the inner circle.

The mystery religion inverts the spiritual significance of male and female. In their religion, sperm is everything. They believe only the male has Spirit, the female is nothing more than fecund soil (dirt) for planting seed. And because man has Spirit, he's essentially his own god, man above nature.

Native American (first people's) religion is the opposite in this sense. Women are considered closer to Spirit. Men must go on vision quests to reach Spirit, while women are in constant communication with it.

But it's not really a matter of 'who's on top'. The native paradigm engendered a culture in which men honored women, respected themselves, and women honored and respected men, and themselves. Men dealt with the material reality as providers and protectors, women tended the domestic needs and children. And elderly, incidentally.

MUST READ: Stephen in UK said (April 7, 2008):

I read your latest brilliant article with much interest. As you know, within Scottish Rite Freemasonry there is the Androgynistic Agenda, that is to say within the Magnum Opus (Great Work), as part of the Novus Ordo Mundi (New World Order), the need to completely sexually castrate heterosexual men and women, and to impose a "Fascist" homosexual agenda, that is essentially Demonic, Satanic, Luciferic and ultimately completely destructive to Western Countries.

There is much, much more going on than simply a "Homosexual Agenda". It is all linked to the Babylonian Mystery Schools, the Satanic Works of Aleister Crowley and the O.T.O., Jack Parsons and the JPL, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard and the Church of Scientology and MOST of all currently, the drug-funded sick Pornographic Industry in America and Europe.

The Illuminists and their High Freemasons, believe in merging eventually the masculine and feminine together, and to see this, look at the haircuts, the clothing and fashions that men and women are given as forms of "Predictive Programming" and "Cultural Conditioning" from the Tavistock Institute in the Old Street and Hoxton areas just behind the City of London in Britain.

Homosexuality is the reversal of the "Standard Masculine-Feminine Principles" that clearly defined families, marriages and sexuality for well over 10,000 years. For the Satanic Illuminists, ALL of whom who are sodomite homosexuals behind public view, dislike heterosexuals immensely.

It is time that Humanity awoke from its long-term collective sleep and began seriously questioning the "Homosexual Agenda" because ultimately it will result in the completion of a Global Fascist Police State under Lucifer.

Dan said (April 7, 2008):

Listened to Male mentoring tonight, Henry.

GREAT point - males of all cultures never competed with women. On the contrary, they deferred to women, rendered them assistance. Western culture well into the 20th century preserved what's been misnamed 'chivalry'. Tipping the hat, giving up a place in line, opening doors for any woman as a matter of courtesy. Feminists paint a picture of men of the past having been brutes, rapists, wife beaters and daughter rapers. Yet they handle the contradiction of well known social deferment and utter lack of competitive aggression toward women by saying men were keeping women helpless and weak, a form of mockery.

HOW did they get away with foisting that messed up logic on young women within one generation between 1966 and 1978?

I mentioned a couple of years ago that a woman fainted at a crowded art opening I attended. A friend and I moved closer to offer help, but a man in front of us who had bent down to help the woman was aggressively told to back off by three of her friends (presumably), who literally bared their teeth and looked fierce. The man had had nothing to do with her fainting; he was just a bystander. For all they knew he may have been a physician.

Some women retain a sense of feeling flattered to have a door opened for them in a dating situation, though a man opening a door for a woman he doesn't know could become socially awkward. The woman would think he was making advances, and be distrustful. Possibly even fearful.

Horst said (April 7, 2008):

"It is wrong to refer to any group as inferior and
condemn all members whether they are deficient or not. However, it is important to see this uproar in context."

They are not inferior. They are sick!
Their affliction is a curable psychological disorder,
which can be treated (successfully) by certain
psychotherapies. As always in such cases they have
a chance only if they really want it.

Regarding their treatment within society i would
say they should be treated like everybody who has
a serious contagious disease. i.e. keep them away
from other people that might be infected through
contact with them. Especially keep them away
from the children!!!

Mike said (April 6, 2008):

I am a gay male living in the UK, i totally agree that heterosexuals should not be beaten back(we are all born from heterosexual relationships) .
I get on with my life and don't give a fuk what politicians think and do, or what vigilante homosexuals get up.

They can all go to hell, but i believe that everyone should be left to get on with their own lives and not all gay men agree with the crap that goes on in the world.


Brother Nathaniel said (April 6, 2008):

Dear Dr Makow: You wrote: "But it is not homosexuals who are under attack... Rather the target is heterosexual society, and its institutions of masculinity, femininity, marriage and family. "

Indeed dear Dr Makow, it is the "family" that is under attack. For the "family" is the essential unit of any society, with its emphasis on loyalty, ethical conduct, responsibility, and community obligations. None of these virtues can be found in the "homosexual" scenario.

It is my hope that historic "Christian" nations, such as Canada & America, will rediscover its roots, and affirm the need to support the basic componenent of society, the "family."

Brother Nathanael Kapner @

Dawn said (April 6, 2008):

This just shows how differently we, as a society, have come to view (at least publicly) homosexual behavior.

I would like to know if that film showed anyone at the party "admonishing" him for his remarks. Probably not. This shows the great ground that homosexual groups have covered in only 17 years--to convert public opinion from being disgusted by homosexual acts to thinking homosexuality is a normal behavior that should be protected by special rights.

I have to disagree with Derek,[below] as he makes his points about this with the typical error--comparing groups truly "born" into their group by genetics (male, female, white, black, etc.) with those who have adopted aberrant behavior and then gone so far as to define themselves by it. Gay people call themselves gay and would have us believe they are proud of it, so I'm not sure why it would bother them that a particular gay behavior was referred to as gay. I don't know of any blacks who call themselves negroid.

I'm not sure about the "girly" reference--I don't find it offensive. The same society that would have me embrace homosexuality would have me believe it's bad for a woman to be "girly"? It should (but doesn't) go without saying that women are different than men.

When women call each other "girls", it makes them feel young--feminine women, that is. Masculine women would be offended, but then, they probably wouldn't be called "girly" anyway. Men don't often call each other "boys", except in lighthearted joking, probably because strength is an important masculine characteristic--"boy" might connote weakness or immaturity. Then again, as a woman, I don't speak for men. Are we then to just get rid of adjectives so that no one is offended?

It seems fundamental to me, but the reason it is a healthy sign for teens to distinguish what is gay behavior is so that they continue to know the
difference between normal and aberrant behavior, despite societal attempts to blur the lines and undermine the "family", the basic unit of organization of our society.

As I was growing up, I never knew there were homosexuals and, in fact, was not taught about the sexual act until a couple years after the usual bodily function discussions. I remember agreeing with my best, same-gender friend that boys had cooties and she and I would get married. I even remember thinking at the time that it was a novel idea! I wonder now,though, if I had been brought up nowadays, if perhaps we would have assumed we were, therefore, homosexual.

My friend and I were passing through a normal stage around puberty, one that boys pass through as well. Except that nowadays, young children have been made aware of this "choice" of lifestyles. Unfortunately,because of this, and because the myth of being "born" gay is so prevalent, they often come to believe near
puberty that they are "gay", and aren't given a chance to pass through this normal developmental stage into heterosexual relationships. They are given the impression in our modern culture that since their closest friend at age 12 is their same gender, they "were born" homosexual. At a time when they are on the brink of interest and early experimentation with the opposite sex, they are hijacked into believing that a natural stage is a sign of homosexuality.

Proceeding with their first sexual experiment then ties pleasure to a same sex experience.

I had the unique experience during a Psychopathology course at University of Michigan in the mid-70s (when the APA was getting political pressure to reclassify
homosexuality) to attend a comprehensive lecture on homosexuality. As you can imagine at this large institution, there were many homosexuals who showed up
who were not enrolled in the class. The instructor made sure that enrolled students were seated, but allowed the others to sit in and even ask their own
questions as he made a thorough presentation. Attendees included an entire spectrum, from "converted" lesbians who had been previously married
to the extreme of men in full "queen" attire. I had expected outbursts and arguments, but it turned out quite to the contrary. By the end of the lecture, the
instructor had TO THEIR SATISFACTION explained the origins of their homosexual "choice" through a description and explanation of parental
characteristics, family composition/birth order, and family interactions.

I am for respecting people, but I don't necessarily respect what they think or what they do. That doesn't make me intolerant or evil. It simply means that I
have taken the time to weigh various aspects of an issue to form an opinion, rather than to mindlessly adopt opinions handed to me by an ever-more-mentally-ill society.

Rick said (April 6, 2008):

Once again, you are 100% right on target. Being a real male today, has become a "federal crime".This nonsense about PC and tolerance has gone way beyond it's limits. As someone once said and I think it was here:"Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society".

Finally, homosexuality, is an abomination to God. It's wrong, unnatural and a perversion. Accepting it, is like accepting "bank robbers, drug dealers" and the likes. Sadly, their agenda is marching on right on time and will, most likely, reach it's goals. May God have mercy on this fallen world.

Derek said (April 6, 2008):

I agree with you that it's excessive for opposition members of parliament to be calling for an MP's head based on insensitive anti-gay comments he made 17 years ago! Talk about self-righteous....

I fail to understand, though, how a compassionate person can say 'when teenagers disparage certain behavior as "gay" it is a healthy sign'.
It is in fact an insecure and unpleasant sign! Are kids who are born gay supposed to just sit there and take the endless verbal abuse sent their way by thoughtless speakers? I think not! Would omnipresent put-downs such as "That's so girly!" or "That's so negroid!"concerning women or blacks be acceptable - or immature and insulting?

It's true that movements for women's rights, black rights, gay rights have been co-opted in many cases by the Illuminati (as has the
environmental movement). Does that mean we ought to turn a blind eye to the very real concerns about power imbalances and abuses raised by
people within these groups? Or should we be judicious about separating the issues of value from the agenda of the infiltrators of these groups? Conservative organizations have also been infiltrated by Illuminati agents: does this discredit any and all issues raised
within right-wing forums?

Although I'm a big fan of your columns, and will continue to follow your thoughtful and probing work with interest, I'm afraid I don't agree with some of your generalizations here. The Illuminati would love us to throw fuel on the cultural fires they've stirred up: I feel we ought to avoid this temptation.

Straight white male dominated culture represents a millennial imbalance that's had its day historically. Rather than resist the inevitable metaphysical shift toward balance - and thus provoke the pendulum to swing radically to the opposite pole of pagan hyper-feminism... for millennia, it would be wise to establish a
sensible "middle way", as Gautama Buddha might put it. There's no need to polarize. There is a need to gracefully surrender cultural privileges too long taken for granted. It's all about embodying mutual respect, working through our insecurities, and rejecting any form of supremacist. This will require a change of attitude on all "sides".


Thanks for this criticism. Let's see: straight teenagers can be psychologically molested but they're not allowed to take exception for fear of offending gays? Sounds like you've taken the kool-aid.

I don't see society as ever being dominated by white males. It has been dominated by Illuminati financiers and their agents who have sent white males to fates dictated by Illuminati interests, including two world wars.

Nor do I understand why Chinese or Jewish or Japanese or Indian males can dominate their respective countries, but white males should be country-less. Minorities want to earn their position fairly by virtue of their ability and work. They don't want to be handed it by a financial colonial power as a way of dispossessing or weakening the majority.

Finally I don't think we should take immigration for granted. Most immigrants would prefer to remain in their native countries and are only here because of the imperialist policies practiced by the central bankers.


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