Brandon said (October 5, 2009):

This article is great. I think articles similar to this are some of your best work, like food for the soul, plus a nice break from the negativity and insanity.

In reply to "Lauren" [below] in her comment: As a male member of the Millenial Generation, I do not share your enthusiasm for so called "human evolution", western society is more dysfunctional than ever and most people have trouble with simple relationships. It is philosophically sloppy and pretentious to simply blame religion as an explanation for Mr. Makow's views. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and "be open to the perspectives of others". Hey, you might learn something. Henry "tells people how they should lead their lives" Haha thats rich. No, he simply believes there exists an ultimate reality in which some things are functional and somethings dysfunctional. You regurgitate the same old Luciferianian philosophy that deifies Human desires and makes them into an Absolute, prattling on about "freedom" and whatnot.

I think if you would view reality in an objective manner you would find that subjective human desires are far from all that matters and are pitifully insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Overall, Lauren, our generation is painfully misguided, you could look better if you would think outside of the controlled paradigm for a change and quit following the "in crowd".

Jay said (October 4, 2009):

My chief quarrel with atheists is that they place enormous faith (ironically enough) in enormously imperfect science. For instance (among many possible examples):

1. Science cannot truly understand gravity. I think Einstein died despairing of finding a "unified field theory". Now since gravity is an important subject within the realm of physics, and since physics is important to understanding the creation of the universe, why wager one's soul (or the possibility of having a soul) on incomplete and poorly understood physics?

2. Science has no answer for why I am experiencing my life in my body at this time and not someone else's life in another body at another time. What determined that I should be me? Or that you should be you?

3. Why would evolution - if one hypothesizes that it's actually true - conduce to the development through "natural selection" of creatures that require an ever more intelligent conscious mind in order to function? That this theoretical biological process should have such a metaphysical goal should greatly trouble atheists.

Besides scientific considerations, how can atheists conceive of morality if we are all developed from the same origins and in the same manner as the beasts of the field we slay for food? Without God as Absolute Setter of moral standards, morality becomes subjective rather than objective, and can be defined along national or even personal lines. Thus a pedophile may argue that in his eyes his desires are natural and therefore lawful, or a nation might argue that it is good and right to murder large numbers of its citizens through a eugenics programme. Therefore absence of God tends to moral chaos, and since chaos is the antithesis of order... Well, you can see where that is leading and so should any atheistic scientist.

In short, to me it requires a level of faith in a fragmented, speculative, disjointed, man-made theories masquerading as "science" that I for one could never attain to. It's much easier to accept the simpler, more plausible explanation, namely, that God did it all Himself, and that our self-aware minds are the work of more than a mere Mind.

Robert said (October 4, 2009):

Greetings and Salutations Henry, PEACE and Blessings upon you.,

Anyone not believing in "GOD" is ill-informed or delusional. Science has driven a cyclotron through the heart of "randomness produced existence". The logic and power of science has proved that the existence of even one particle (of anything) is completely impossible as commonly accepted by science ( odds of 10 to the 50th against, means it will never happen).

Roger Penrose, the physicist’s physicist, states that the odds of our existence is so unlikely that if the universe were a sheet of paper it would not be large enough to write the exponent in the odds against it; in 12 point type.

If any of the known universal constants were even slightly different, there would be no existence of anything. That one particle exists is a miracle. A self replicating and self-reflecting live form is out of this universe in scientific comprehension, ergo GOD.

Ian said (October 4, 2009):

Hi Henry, I feel that sometimes you write just see the response. As an atheist who has been happily married for most of 36 years, and only thinks about atheism when someone else mentions it, I think you'll tire trying to justify your religiousness to others. If you want religion then fine, whether it is the one you have now, or some other faith it matters not to me nor should it to anyone else. You were fed the information about your religion in childhood as were believers in other faiths, and you like the sensation of having some benevolent mystical being watching over you. I acknowledge that the sensation is pleasant and I've used psychological tricks on myself to calm me down as a substitute for what perhaps could be prayer.

Ask yourself this. If I had not been taught that there was a God, what would indicate that there might be one.

Love your articles Henry, rarely agree with them, yet am only occasionally driven to respond. Your commentors are worth reading too. take care, ian

Forget the rest, get the best - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/music

---

Ian,

Answer: The fact that you have a sense of right and wrong which transcends your self-interest. The fact that you crave order, peace, goodness, beauty, truth and love.

henry

David said (October 4, 2009):

n a world that has lost it's respect for what is right.

Ladies who dare to challenge the status quo.

Take heart: feminine defenders are on the rise, and they need your help. This week marks the fifth anniversary of a new voice of reason sweeping America's college campuses: Network of Enlightened Women (NeW).

Started by a University of Virginia co-ed, Karin Agness, NEW seeks to "encourage women to embrace their femininity and traditional values in order to ultimately reclaim their happiness." Agness says that already in over a dozen states, "New's success is largely due to the empty claims of feminism and the need for a positive woman's voice to rise up."

Discover the beautiful joy and keen minds of NeW members. You will delighted to find smart, feminine, happy college women who celebrate the uniqueness and strength of their gender--and also admire and value men and chivalry.

Anyone concerned about the oppression of women should visit www.EnlightenedWomen.org. Their blogs, articles, activities and positive outlook are enough to make you smile, and to encourage and equip you to fight feminist oppression wherever you encounter it.

A link to the article that pointed me to the website: http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/431491/2da0c8a1e2/1637000865/1b6f65fc2a/

K said (October 3, 2009):

I also must agree to disagree with you on this point Henry "A religion satisfies our hunger for Love, Order and Purpose. I don't care what the particular storyline is any more than I care if I have spaghetti or salmon for supper. The religion satisfies the spiritual hunger. It makes us better, happier, stronger. It helps us sleep at night and face the new day." Even though you are correct in saying that any religion at least partially satisfies our hunger for love, order and purpose and that some religions are better than others, I have come to the dogmatic conclusion in my life and experience Henry, that trying any God or religion other than Jesus/Yahshua/Yahweh and His teaching is like eating spaghetti or salmon with a little of deadly poison it (Jesus said I am the (only) way, the (only) truth, and the (life). He never said that He was one of the many ways, or one of the many truths, or eternal life could be achieved through anyone. He further refers to himself as the "door" or the "narrow gate" and goes on to say that few will enter through this "narrow gate". He then encourages truth seekers like you and I to strive to make it through the "narrow gate", " for broad is the way to destruction and many their be that are on it."

I understand Henry that you reach a very broad audience and I appreciate your apologetics for God and faith, "I get a kick from atheists and agnostics who reject God. That's like saying they don't believe in oxygen. They have this storybook image of God and they can see through it.

With your permission I will use your apologetics on God and faith, but I continue to refuse and reject ecumenicism which is part of Satan's plan to deceive the masses who are on the "highway to hell" (remember the lyrics of the AC/DC song).

I pray God will bless you as you follow Messiah and continue to share the truth.

Tony said (October 3, 2009):

Hi Henry,just a word of encouragement. Keep up the good work.

As you state in your article God is greater than any earthly love.

Your position on headship is spot on. In a marriage sacrifice and commitment are the proof of true love on both sides. Its good to read
your many Gospel quotes, if you're a believer you'll know that when you quote the masters words or uphold his truth the devil stirs up a hornets nest of opposition. {Luke 21;17}

David said (October 3, 2009):

he way articles like this one rub most people the wrong way demonstrates what I like to refer to as "the gap". The gap represents the difference between those who have discovered what has already been done to our culture and why (via tax-exempt foundations, and dominating elements of the mass media) and those who are half-way intellectuals (unknowing Marxist dupes, quasi-believers in certain leftist television personalities) or just casual Internet browsers.

ANNOUNCEMENT: If you do not understand ideological subversion, as explained by Yuri Bezmenov, or if you don't understand that there was NOTHING Russian about the Soviet Union, or if you don't yet get that Marxist-Leninist ideology is in itself a system of destruction by steady cultural division and erosion, you CANNOT have a complete perspective on the state of our culture in 2009. You just can't. Sorry.

Now we all know that women have been trained (in animal behavioral control techniques, brought to you by Pavlov, Skinner, etc.) to react negatively to anything that threatens their personal 'freedom' - especially wholly giving themselves to a man, and making themselves vulnerable to the possibility of someday playing the fool, or worse yet, eventually being a (made-)bored housewife that's jealous of her single 35 year-old friends fucking college guys. Unfortunately, freedom is more complicated than that.

Complete focus on individual freedom leads directly to order out of chaos, societal collapse and total state control. Argue all you want; it won't change the outcome. People say "it would never happen in America...we wouldn't let that happen." Ok, you fools.

In reality, freedom can only exist within the confines of tightly-knit communities with a strong emphasis on family and the future. Because most people today either come from broken families or have a homosexual relative, how can they have strong beliefs about the importance of marriage and family? How can they even strongly believe that there is a purpose to life on earth? It's difficult.

Women who still believe that the women's liberation movements were spontaneous and grass-roots in nature - will not understand. It is too easy to point to the great 'gains' women have made (against men of course, not in any other way) and therefore prove that things are getting better for women. Never mind the fact that the average 2 income family in 2000 had a lower standard of living than the average single income family of 1960. Never mind that. Things are getting better. Hillary! Oprah! Beyonce! Girls kicking boys asses in math tests! Yay! Ladies and Gents....progress!

I had an intelligent friend of mine tell me yesterday "God is just an illusion that some people need to escape the obvious truths that life is meaningless and there is nothing else." Philosophy major at a top liberal arts school of course. I'm thinking to myself, "are we looking at the same thing?"

"We are all in love with Perfection: God. But we sublimate it to other people. Very few people are perfect and worthy of this "love." We get disappointed and break up. Mature love is really based on mutual dependence not idealization. Idealization weakens and makes you vulnerable. You become love's slave.
Young people have been psychologically neutered and have trouble finding mates. Males and females are too much alike. They are friends. Friends come and go."

The real obvious truths.

Manuel said (October 3, 2009):

For all people that are angry or dissapointed with God I recommend to read this text from a book called The Kolbrin http://www.thekolbrin.com/kolbrin_b2c15.html. This is an excerpt from it:

"Though men may despair because I am veiled from them, though they may seek without finding, I am not indifferent to their needs and desires. Doubt and uncertainty are essential earthly conditions serving a definite end. I have not surrounded men with perplexities and obscurities unnecessarily. The climate of unbelief and materialism, strange though it may seem to men, is best for their spiritual health. I know better than men themselves what is best for them, for I alone can see the broad design spread over the ages, I alone see the end and objective. Though unenlightened men expect it, it is not meet for Me to interfere unduly in the affairs of Earth".

Raymond said (October 3, 2009):

When we put our own romantic aspirations above the welfare of our kids we are being selfish and insensitive and not practicing the sacrificial love we need to for their sakes. I know just such a woman who left her husband when her kids were teens because she needed more fulfillment from a more sensitive, caring man. Well that fling fell through and now her kids are disenchanted with her and she is bankrupt and alone. Guess what? That was a "bad marriage" she regrets leaving! Also, bad marriages can change and become good marriages. the strife or boredom can be temporary. All marriages have difficult periods. We must NOT bail when things get tough, but rather remember the better or worse promise. Honoring promises is another thing we fail at in these selfish times. I was shocked at your response given the arguments you made in your piece about putting our loved ones first. It seemed so contradictory as to make me wonder if you meant what you said in the first place. The liberals whom you revile have advocated leaving bad marriages and the result is an epidemic of divorce and neurotic children. People do not find happiness by seeking their own perfect mate or leaving their spouse when they become smitten by someone on the elevator.

--

Raymond,

I divorced my first wife when my son was four. I moved to the next block. Both my ex and myself are glad we separated and my son did not suffer at all. Children suffer more when exposed to miserable fighting parents.

henry

Sarah in Scotland said (October 3, 2009):

I have been reading your articles for a long time, and enjoy and agree with most of what you say.

I do think, however, you are quite unfair to women and the situations they can find themselves in.

I am a third generation single parent and in each case it was the man's decision to split the family up (my grandfather, my father and my ex) each man had their own reasons and were subject to different eras 1940s, 1970s, 1990s.

In each case the women were left with the entire childcare load and financially struggling, we have, however, all enjoyed being mothers, doing the domestic side of things and raising some quite remarkable people, as well as working, sometimes part time sometimes full time.

By using my own experiences as an example I wish to make some points

1. I have seen many relationships where the women 'gives up her power' to the man and gets badly burned. I don't think this is anything new, but why expect women to keep on doing it when they now have some means of providing for their families themselves?

It is quite common place now to see the male of a couple assuming the role of the child, into his 40s, refusing to give her a baby (cut into his lifestyle too much) while she sublimates her maternal instincts by waiting on him hand and foot! Ha! Why not, then, raise and train your own kids rather than tend to some other woman's spoilt brat? (I know not all men are spoilt but a certain amount are, I have no male children and cannot really comment on raising males.)

2.I have heard it said that women are much more susceptible to programming/brainwashing by the illuminati, meh, perhaps, but I think the hardwired programming of motherhood can override this.

The universal themes of motherhood have the same effect all over the world - the female doctor in Edinburgh, the tribeswoman in Uganda and the she-wolf in Alaska all think the same about their offspring - feed them, shelter them, educate them! This is very strong programming, stronger perhaps than the bonds between man and woman, stronger certainly than the kicks one gets from shoe and handbag shopping. Career? I don't know... maybe a really amazing career may compare with raising a family.

3. I suspect the 'nuclear family' model doesn't work, it creates far too much stress for the man and woman to be 'everything' for each other. Living in a tribe, extended family, extended farming community is probably much more natural and helpful to both men and women who are raising children. Perhaps it is the nuclear family rather than feminism that has caused more damage.

In conclusion I agree men and women have unrealistic expectations of relationships, too much onus is put on the man/woman. I have constant feelings of love for my friends, family, nature, pets, humanity - it's just not written into love songs as frequently!
---

Sarah,

If women demanded patient courtship, they might make better choices in marriage,

henry

William said (October 3, 2009):

I recently read your article. Your view of atheists and agnostics seem really narrowly minded. You easily forget the evils that religious people's of all faiths have done. While atheists have done evil we simply don't have the belief that a higher power can that can provide forgiveness or justify my actions. (At least in my case.)

I recently admitted my disbelief to one of my coworkers. I then gave some examples of some lessons I've learned from the Bible. For instance how King Davids and Solomon respected the sanctity of marriage with affairs and multiple wives, the Lot and his daughters, how Abraham put god before the life of his son Isaac (ignore the conclusion of the myth) and the last one I didn't mention was how Job was so devoted to god and how long his friends and family lived because of it.
The new testament is a good book and all, but not everyone believes like you or like they should.

Joseph said (October 3, 2009):

Henry, I wouldn't condemn all atheists, nor paint them with broad strokes: Has it occurred to you that many atheists are actually disappointed in 'God'?

As to love: Being married to one woman for 56 years, I can truly say that if liking someone for that long qualifies, then I am still in love with my wife. Otherwise, I don't know what love is.

Tim said (October 3, 2009):

I have a handy little mental trick I’d like to share with you. It will save all these questions in your Thoughts On Religion & Love article:

“Are they good, industrious and honest? Are they happy and generous? Do they have strong marriages and families? Do they care about others? Are they independent? Do they enjoy life? Are they interesting or boring?”

If I’m trying to judge a mans worth, I imagine the whole world populated by him, and what sort of world would that be?

Pat said (October 3, 2009):

The last line reminds me of a NYC couple I knew. I heard that the young wife walked into an elevator and fell in love with a perfect stranger. She got to know and eventually left her husband and two kids for this man! The husband was a nice man, but perhaps a little boring for her. You would have had her stay in her marriage and look after the kids I suppose.

It's a tough choice. I don't know what happened to her. I know he looked after the kids. The son is all messed up and like his mother made an unsuitable choice. From an outsider's point of view. You're not too hot on love and marriage, my dear. Stick to your usual subject.

I saw a Japanese movie on this theme. A married man fell in love with a younger woman and left his wife and young son. He was so ashamed of what he had done, he never got up the courage to visit the son. He had promised to send him pebbles as messages. He never did. When he died, the son who had become an undertaker's assistant was called upon to attend to the body (they clean and put make-up on the corpse before burying it). He discovered a pebble in his father's clenched fist. It was very touching. The Japanese make wonderful films.

--

Thanks Pat,

I just think peoples' expectations of love are pretty unrealistic but I don't advocate staying in a bad marriage for any reason.

Henry

Mitch said (October 3, 2009):

Your most recent article contained the following ground breaking statements:

"I get a kick from atheists and agnostics who reject God. That's like saying they don't believe in oxygen. They have this storybook image of God and they can see through it.

These atheists have a strong sense of Absolute Truth, Goodness and Justice. What do they think God is? "God is a Spirit and we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth," (John 4:24) "Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," (Mathew 5:48) "

I too, find it highly hypocritical that those fomenting the 'New order' (with an old odor) borrow so deeply from the Laws of Yahweh, while acting as if they discovered them.....albeit with an adventurous twist....Do as thou wilt is ok too!

At the end of this age, ALL will be revealed. Sadly, so many who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit in many ways, and by propagating intellectual cowardice, such as the 'evolution' doctrine, will glimpse what could have been, before meeting oblivion.

Yahweh bless your work in Christ,

Dave said (October 3, 2009):

It amazes me that mankind has been so hypnotized to think of themselves as merely protoplasm. The human body is merely a robot, albeit the best ever created. What powers this robot is the energy of the Soul, or of the dark side in the flesh. Male/female is only a cosmetic/functional difference. The invisible life-giver of the body is the soul. If it exits the body dies. The converse is true. The dark side is Satan within. People attached to physical differences in sexuality are not soul but dark side....with the corresponding ego thrusts. The deception propagated by the elites goes on!

Lauren said (October 3, 2009):

While many articles of yours online have intrigued me, (including stories of 9/11 and somewhat the NWO), your articles about feminism seem way off target compared to many other topics you cover.

As a typical female of the Millennial generation, I have a great perspective to share with you:

Progression towards freedom has been a natural part of human history. From the civil rights movement to women's suffrage, from the liberation of monks in Vietnam (so we hope) to the freedom of women in Afghanistan under communism... freedom is natural for the development of the species. More restrictions hinder our evolution.
So to hear you promote the "sacrifice" women should always give to men sounds very unnatural, and counter to the direction of our species. There are women who desire more power over their lover, be they man or woman, and there are men who desire less power and more submission - be they man or woman. Homosexuality has been around since the most ancient of texts, and our openness to it in this century is the main reason we see more homosexuality than before - but there has always been it, beforehand.

I'm not homosexual, nor am I much of a "feminist", as you see the term. But I am very affronted by your claims of the role of women. To try to tell over half of the population of the species exactly how their love life should be lived is presumptuous and controlling, and women all over the world will rebel against your demands just as they rebelled against them back in the 40s and 50s, and as they rebel against them today in the Middle East.

These lessons should have been apparent to you, but I suspect that your view of women comes from a more religious source than you would like to admit. This is a tragedy, but I can only hope that you might discover the roots of your seriously flawed perspective of the female half of your species, and enlighten your idea of women.

Above all, I hope you learn that trying to tell other people how they should live their life will get you more resentment than praise. Being open to the perspectives of others could teach you many things.

Good luck,
Lauren.

PS: Very surprised you live in California. I thought Californians were a little more progressive than this?

---

Lauren

I live in Canada. So it's alright for feminists in university and media to tell women how to live, but to oppose their destructive vision is controlling?

You seem oblivious to the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation is behind feminism. Your cherished beliefs have all been spoon fed to you by some very dubious characters.

http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html

If you can make feminism work, good for you. But it doesn't work for the majority of women who end up alone, or as single mothers.