Manly no more

Manly no more

Posted: November 03, 2006
1:00 am Eastern

By Ilana Mercer
© 2011

I was stocking up on groceries at Fred Meyer when I heard this fretful falsetto. “Honey, look at these ingredients. Oh my God. Check the percentage of trans fats. It’s outrageous!” The fussing, believe it or not, was coming from a man. He was hopping up and down on spindly legs, beckoning his wife excitedly. I quickly moved on, thanking my lucky stars that the spouse had gravitated automatically to the hardware section of the store and was itching to move on to Home Depot.

Whenever I venture out, I encounter this not-so-new breed of man. Typically, he’ll have a few spoiled, cranky kids in tow and a papoose strapped to a sunken chest. He’ll be laboring to make the outing to Trader Joe’s a “learning experience” for the brats – one that every other store patron is forced to endure. This generic guy oozes psychological correctness and zero manliness. He’s not necessarily effeminate, mind you. Rather, he’s safely androgynous and most certainly not guy-like in the traditional sense. As personalities go, he and the wife are indistinguishable.

I’ve often wondered whether decades of emasculation – legal and cultural – have bred these men. It would seem my hunch may have more merit than I imagined. On Halloween, Dr. Thomas Travison and colleagues at the New England Research Institutes in Watertown, Mass., released this hormonal horror story: American men are indeed losing the stuff that makes them mucho.

“A new study has found a ‘substantial’ drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s.” The average levels of the male hormone have been dropping by an astounding 1 percent a year. A 65-year-old in 1987 would have had testosterone levels 15 percent higher than those of a 65-year-old in 2002. Aging, slouched, pony-tailed hippies, everywhere apparent, look more flaccid, because they are more flaccid.

The reasons for the reduction in testosterone levels remain unclear. A rise in obesity and a decline in smoking have been suggested, since “testosterone levels are lower among overweight people and smoking increases testosterone levels.” The Marlboro Man was certainly manly and fit-looking. Other researchers have implicated estrogen-mimicking chemicals, ubiquitous in the environment.

Conspicuously absent from the report are changes in life experiences over time. These trends are, however, routinely referenced when discussing incidence of this or the other disease or deficiency in women. Breast cancer is said to be associated with the modern woman’s propensity to delay or forfeit childbearing. Osteoporosis is exacerbated by women’s sedentary routines – they do less weight-bearing work than they used to (although in Kazakhstan, women still do plenty of plowing).

Boyhood today, for example, means BB guns and “bang-bang you’re dead” are banned. Tykes are required to hack their way through a page-turner like “One Dad Two Dads Brown Dad Blue Dads.”

The smashing success of politically incorrect books such as “The Dangerous Book for Boys” proves how desperate little boys are to be boys again – the book reintroduces a new generation of youngsters to the joys of catapult-making, knot-tying, stone skimming, astronomy and much more. (Concocting rocket fuel from saltpeter and sugar is not in the book, but is a lot of fun – or so my husband tells me.)

Boys are hardwired for competition; the contemporary school enforces cooperation. Boys like to stand out; team-work obsessed, mediocre school teachers teach them to fade into the crowd. Boys thrive in more disciplined, structured learning environments; the American school system is synonymous with letting it all hang out.

Sons are more likely to be raised without male mentors, since moms, in the last few decades, are more likely to divorce (and get custody), never marry or bear children out of wedlock. The schools have been emptied of manly men and staffed by feminists, mostly lacking in the Y chromosome. Although boys (and girls) require discipline, the rare disciplinarian risks litigation.

Then there are the effects of years of Ritalin. Teachers prefer girls (many narcissistic, feral, female “pedagogues” have even taken to sexually preying on boys). To make boys more like girls, they’ll often insist that they be plied with “Kiddie Cocaine.” Children as young as two are being medicated with a substance whose side effects include liver damage, cardiac arrhythmia and death. Writing for the PBS’ “Frontline,” Dr. Lawrence Diller, who favors Ritalin, cautions that “despite 60 years of stimulant use with children … some as-yet-undiscovered negative effect of Ritalin still could be found.” (Hampered hormonal levels later in life, perhaps?)

When boys leave secondary school, they discover that society privileges girls in tertiary schools and in the workplace. Why, even girls favor girls. Most swoon over the washed-out, asexual anchor, Anderson Cooper. In TV newsrooms, cherubic-looking, soft-spoken “girlie-men,” such as Bill Hemmer and Don Lemon have replaced deep-voiced, macho men. Tom Brokaw, for example. Women say they look for partners who are “sweet and sensitive.” If they’re having children with men who grow bum-fluff for stubble, then perhaps they’re breeding out testosterone.

Is it at all possible that the feminization of society over the past 20 to 30 years is changing males, body and mind? Could the subliminal stress involved in sublimating one’s essential nature be producing less manly men?

The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is a delicate homeostatic feedback system, intricately involved in regulating hormones and stress. Has it become the axis of evil in the war on men?

Just asking …

Read more: Manly no more

Betty Friedan: “Mommy” was a Commie
July 27, 2003

(Reader’s Note: This summer I am revising important articles that predated my web site.)

“Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy … The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp.”

–George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.

Betty Friedan, the “founder of modern feminism” pretended to be a typical 1950’s American mother who had a “revelation” that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.

What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn’t say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See “The Communist Manifesto” (1848).

Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) “the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States.” In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.

Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority “seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals.”

Betty Frieden doesn’t want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her “revelation.” She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of “Red-baiting.”

Why? Because her book “The Feminist Mystique” (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge — pretending to be just like us. This is the “Popular Front” strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.

Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920’s and 1930’s and referred to them as “my innocents clubs”. He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities (“fellow travellers.”)

In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg “was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the ‘enlightened’ moral agenda of his era.” (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)

In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:

“You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don’t really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break.” (Koch, p. 220)

Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic “Popular Front.” The very name, “the woman’s movement” and claim to be for “equality” are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family “a cornerstone of women’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” (“Feminist Politics and Human Nature,” 1988)

The “Congress of American Women,” a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a “foreign agent” by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the “CAW’s agenda prefigured much of the modern women’s movement that emerged in the sixties.” (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)

The FBI kept tabs on the “Women’s movement” but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.

“Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women’s movement but couldn’t recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women’s movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive.” (260)

By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, “The Broken Hearth” p.13)

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?

The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.

Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a “new world order” (a.k.a. “globalization”) in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.

Betty Friedan, take a bow.



2 responses to “Manly no more

  1. Hidden truth about Israeli control of American Media – part (3/10)

    zionist NWO

    When your media isn’t free-neither are you!

    The word “freedom” which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows:

    Freedom is the right to do what the law allows. This interpretation of the word will, at the proper time, be of service to us because all freedom will then be in our hands; since the laws will abolish or create only what is desirable for us according to the above-mentioned program.

    We shall deal with the media in the following way: What is the role played by the media today? It sometimes serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose, and at other times it serves the selfish desires of other parties.

    It is often bland, unjust, dishonest, and the majority of the public haven’t the slightest idea what purpose the media really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight chain. We shall also do the same with all other productions of the printing press; for what would be the sense of getting rid of attacks from newspapers if we remain targets via pamphlets and books?

    The output of the media is nowadays a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it. We will turn it into a very lucrative source of income to our State by laying a special stamp tax on it and requiring deposits of caution-money before permitting any new media companies from being established. They will then be required to guarantee our government against any kind of attack from their media.

    For any attempt to attack us (if that’s still possible) we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government.

    It is true that political groups which have money to spare might still attack us for the sake of publicity regardless of these fines. But these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall lay a finger on the aura of our government infallibility without being punished.

    The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without good reason or at an inappropriate time. I beg you to note that among those making attacks upon us will also be entities established by us; but they will only attack points of our plan which we have already decided to alter.

    We Control the Media

    Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control.

    Even now this is being achieved by us due to the fact that all news items are received by only a few agencies, and their offices are a focal point for news coming in from all parts of the world.

    These agencies will already be entirely owned by us and will only publish what we dictate to them.

    We have effectively taken possession of the minds of the Goy communities to such an extent that they have all come to look upon the events of the world through the colored glasses which we have placed on their noses.

    Already now there is not a single State which has barriers preventing us from gaining access to what Goyim stupidity call “State secrets”. What will our positions be when we are acknowledged as supreme lords of the world, and have one of our persons as the king of all the world…

    Let’s turn again to the future of the printing press.

    Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to first acquire a special license for that purpose, which in case of any fault, will be immediately suspended.

    With such measures the thoughts of the people will be under the control of our government, who will educate them appropriately, and won’t allow the masses to be led along different paths and by fantasies about the blessings of progress.

    All of us here know that these delusional blessings give rise to fanciful dreaming which leads to anarchy among the people and towards authority. This is a bad thing because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has brought forth all sorts of ideas about gaining freedom, but has failed to establish its limits…

    All the so-called libertarians are anarchists, either in thought or in reality. Every one of them, in hunting for the phantoms of freedom, ends up involved in anarchy, and protests for the sake of protesting…

    Free Press Destroyed

    We turn now to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, and on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money.

    Books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall classify them as pamphlets for two reasons: firstly to reduce the number of magazines, because these are the worst form of printed poison, and secondly, to force writers to make such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially seeing that they will also be costly.

    At the same time what we shall publish pamphlets ourselves to influence mental development in the desired direction. Our publications will be cheap and eagerly read. This will also bring us some profits.

    The tax will bring uninteresting literary ambitions within reach and the risk of possible penalties will make literary men dependent upon us.

    And if anyone is desirous of writing against us – they will not find any person eager to put their productions in print because the publisher or printer will first have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so.

    Thus we shall have advanced knowledge of all tricks being preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting in ahead with our explanations on the subject being discussed.

    Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals.

    This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind… If we give permits for ten privately-owned journals, we shall establish thirty journals of our own, and so forth in the same proportion.

    This, however, must in no way be suspected by the public. For this reason all journals published by us will be very opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions to our official stance. This will create confidence in our journals, bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

    We will divide our media components into three layers or ranks…

    In the front rank will be publications of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

    In the second rank will be the semi-official publications, whose part it will be to normally support us and sometimes criticize us, but only over issues of lukewarm importance.

    In the third rank we shall set up what looks like our own opposing camp, which, in at least one of its publications, will present what looks like the very enemy of us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will reveal their identities and plans to us.

    Our newspapers will be of all possible complexions – aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical – for only as long, of course, as the constitution exists… Like the Indian idol “Vishnu” they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required.

    When an emotive issue arises, these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims; for an excited person loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will actually be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us.

    In the vain belief that they are following the ideology of their party they will, in fact, be following the flag that we have hang out for them.

    In order to direct our newspaper militia in this way we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of Central Department of the Media we shall arrange literary gatherings at which our agents will, without attracting attention, issue the orders and specify the ‘important issues’ of the day which journalists need to cover.

    By superficially discussing and opposing, but without touching the essence of the matter, our appointed people will carry on sham fights and arguments with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving us a reason to express ourselves more fully than we could have done from the outset in official announcements, whenever of course that is to our advantage.

    These attacks upon us will also serve another purpose, namely, that our subjects will be convinced of the existence of full freedom of speech and this gives our agents an occasion to claim that all publications which oppose us are empty babblers, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.

    Only Lies Printed

    Methods of organization like these, which are imperceptible to the public eye but are sure to work, are calculated as being the best way to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government.

    Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position, as may be required from time to time, to excite or calm the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, sometimes printing truth, sometimes lies, facts or their contradictions. We will do this according to how well these messages are received, and always very cautiously feeling the ground before stepping upon it…

    We shall have an assured victory over our opponents since they will not have the appropriate access to the media in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the above-mentioned methods of dealing with the media.

    We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

    Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, will, when necessary, be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official publications.

    Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press as an example, there are groups which reveal Masonic-like solidarity in acting together on the ‘important issues’: all people of the media are bound together by professional secrecy; and like the priests of ancient Rome, not one of them will give away the secret of his sources of information unless the group agrees upon it.

    Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice journalism unless his whole past has some dark and disgraceful secret in it… For if he did, these secrets would be immediately revealed.

    So long as they remain the secret of a few, the prestige of the journalist allows him to attack the majority of the country – and the mob will follow after him with enthusiasm.

    Our mischievous plans are also designed to apply to the rural areas. It is essential for us to stir up there, those hopes and impulses which, at any moment, we could also stir up in the major cities. We shall tell the people of those cities that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the rural people.

    Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same – ours. What we need is that, until such time as we have the majority of power, the cities should find themselves stifled by the provincial opinion of the nations, i.e., of a majority arranged by our agents.

    What we need at that psychological moment is that the city-capitals should not discuss our position of majority power for no other reason than it has already been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the rural-provinces.

    When we are in the period of the new regime, but prior to the assumption of our full sovereignty, we must not allow any revelation by the media to admit to any form of public dishonesty. It is necessary that the new regime should be thought to have so perfectly contended everybody that even criminality has disappeared…

    Occurrences of criminality should remain known only to the victims and to chance witnesses – no one else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s