Sorry, you need to update your flash player to view this flash animation. You may download the flash player from here. However, you should still be able to view the rest of this page.

Below- Feminists Don't Realize They've Mutated (scroll down)

Oz Foreign Minister Lifts Veil on Jewish Control

April 15, 2014

carr.jpg(left, Bob Carr)

WORLD DOMINATION LITE


Do our governments represent us, or political party donors? Bob Carr,
Australian Foreign Minister, (Mar. 2012-Sept. 2013) under Labour PMs
Gillard & Rudd reveals that
organized Jewry buys Australian foreign policy.
This is typical of all Western nations.
Guess who is dictating Western policy
in Ukraine, and ratcheting up war tensions?





(Editor's Note: Just as our governments do not represent us, organized Jewry does not represent Jews. It represents the Illuminati bankers.)





by Brenton Sanderson
The Occidental Observer
(Abridged by henrymakow.com)


Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr recently confirmed that Australia's foreign policy (particularly with regard to the Middle East) was being virtually dictated by organized Jewry. Carr, Australia's Labor Party foreign minister from March 2012 to September 2013, made his comments while promoting his new book Bob Carr: Diary of a Foreign Minister. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr hit out at the "pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne," saying it wielded "extraordinary influence" on Australia's foreign policy during his time in Julia Gillard's cabinet.  As The Guardian reported:

Asked about the comments by the ABC's 7.30 he said: "Certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance. ... It needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level."

Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: "I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that's not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.

Following Carr's comments The Jerusalem Post sourly noted that: "John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote a 2007 book alleging that the 'Israel lobby' has a stranglehold on US Foreign policy, have an Australian cousin: former foreign minister Bob Carr."

In his book Carr chronicles a bitter political fight in late 2012 with then-prime minister Julia Gillard over how Australia would vote in the 2012 UN General Assembly vote to recognize the Palestinians as a non-member state.


GillardPeres.jpg(left, Julia Gillard poses with Israeli President Shimon Peres)

Gillard [was] opposed, while her political rival at the time Kevin Rudd, and Carr himself, were in favor. Rudd, according to a report of the book in The Guardian, went to Carr to talk about the vote.

"How much of this is about money, I asked him," Carr wrote. "He said about one-fifth of the money he had raised in the 2007 election campaign had come from the Jewish community."

Carr concluded that "subcontracting our foreign policy to party donors is what this involves. Or appears to involve."

As in the United States (where Jews contribute much larger percentages of money in federal elections), Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which practically guarantees that both sides of politics are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg notes that: "The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics."[i]

In his book Carr describes Israel's former ambassador to Australia as "cunning" and reveals his fights with the self-described pro-Israel "falafel faction" in Labor's caucus that includes Jewish MPs Mark Dreyfus and Michael Danby. Carr makes the point that: "The public should know how foreign policy gets made, especially when it appears the prime minister is being heavily lobbied by one interest group with a stake in Middle East policy." The Sydney Morning Herald noted that:


HARPER8.jpg
(Left, Canadian PM Harper. Australia is typical of all Western nations.)

"During his 18 months as foreign minister, Mr Carr orchestrated a significant shift in the Australian government's Middle East policy, swinging support behind Palestine at the United Nations. Standing up to Ms Gillard, who was staunchly pro-Israel, Mr Carr succeeded in forcing her to abandon her determination to oppose Palestine's attempts to gain observer status at the UN. Ms Gillard's leadership wobbled in the process."

Mr Carr's pro-Palestinian advocacy alienated many in Australia's Jewish community, and some within his own party; and the publishing of his personal diaries is likely to inflame both the Australian Israel lobby and senior Israeli officials.

Mr Carr's criticisms of Israel touch the highest levels of the Israeli government. Mr Carr describes Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman as "gloomy, taciturn", and the former Israeli ambassador Yuval Rotem as "the cunning Yuval."

In diary entries Mr Carr reveals just how deep his division with Ms Gillard went. He complains that Ms Gillard would not even let him criticize Israeli West Bank settlements due to her fear it would anger Australia's pro-Israel lobby -- a reference to the Melbourne-based Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council -- which Mr Carr says had a direct line into the prime minister's office.

"So, we can't even 'express concern' without complaint," Mr Carr writes. "This lobby must fight every inch."

Particularly influential with regard to shaping Australian policy towards the Middle East is the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. The AIJAC aggressively lobbies politicians, funds study tours to Israel for journalists and politicians, publishes a monthly magazine and highlights examples of what it calls "anti-Israel bias" in the media....


HOWARD.jpg(left, John Howard)

Jewish control over Australia's foreign policy is nothing new. The support of Australian Jews for multiculturalism and mass non-White immigration sits hypocritically alongside a staunch Zionism and, consequently, strong support for Australia's military involvement in the disastrous wars in the Middle East. The man who agreed to Australia's shameful involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, former Prime Minister John Howard (1996-2007), was possibly the most compliant prime minister the Jewish lobby ever had the pleasure of dealing with...

Colin Rubenstein, the executive director of the AIJAC, slammed Carr for his comments, saying his organization was "puzzled and disappointed" by his "strange claims" that Australian foreign policy was under the sway of the pro-Israel lobby, apparently a reference to AIJAC. Rubinstein declared: "It is frankly sad when an elected official imagines that disagreement with their policy position must stem from malicious influences," he said. Rubenstein said the allegations that the lobby held unhealthy sway over Gillard "show her a distinct lack of respect."

Carr's comments naturally outraged all of the Jewish leaders and sent them into panicked damage control. The national chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Mark Leibler, dismissed Carr's claims as "a figment of his imagination," and labelled Carr's claims about Australia's Israel Lobby as "inaccurate" and "bizarre."

------
Related-

 Bob Carr was Right to Start this Debate

First Comment from Chris:



I found it strange that not one of the numerous stories (mostly condemning) Carr's Israel lobby comments made mention of Gillard's extensive Zionist ties, and in particular, the employment of her partner, Tim Mathieson, by one of Australia's top Israeli lobbyists in the highly unlikely (though no doubt very lucrative) role of "property consultant".

A letter to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2010 from Australia's former ambassador to Israel, Ross Burns, asserted that Australia's policy on Israel and Palestine was compromised by virtue of Mathieson's employment with Ubertas Group, a property development firm owned Albert Dadon, a prominent Likud lobbyist who sought influence on "both" sides of Australian politics (the two sides being the extreme right wing pro-Israel globalists and the ultra-extreme right wing pro-Israel globalists!).

Dadon personally hosted Gillard and Mathieson on their own indoctrination trip to Israel in 2010.

As one commentator at the time wrote: "An utterly useless 'handbag' like Mathieson, a hairdresser by trade, no less, whose only role seems to be fashion accessory to make Gillard look more 'normal', is handed a high paying position by one of Australia's most influential Jews and, of course, there is nary a mention of impropriety or outright bribery."
Nothing to see here, folks!

And of course, there was no need to mention the (ultra-right wing) Israel Lobby's hand in the coup that overthrew Kevin Rudd as PM.

The key coup instigators were four Labor Party parliamentarians, Bill Shorten, Joe Ludwig, David Feeney and Michael Danby, along with union boss, Paul Howes.

Shorten, Ludwig and Howes all enjoyed free 'Rambam fellowship' trips to Israel, and Shorten was patronised by pro-Israel billionaire Richard Pratt, who flew the current Labor Party leader on his private helicopter to the Beaconsfield mine disaster in 2006 to launch his (totally uncompromised) parliamentary career.

The seemingly bizarre appearance and outrageous grandstanding of the then virtually unknown Shorten was a sure sign he was being groomed for the top job by Australia's globalist/Zionist cartel.

Just three weeks before the coup (on 3 June 2010) the Israel Lobby visited Rudd where they had "a difference of opinion" with him about Australia's expulsion of the resident Mossad chief in response to the passport affair (Australian Jewish News, 10 June 2010, The Australian 1 June 2010) in which forged Australian passport were used by the assassins in the murder of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Mabhouh in Dubai.

Among the members of the Israel Lobby chastising Rudd on 3 June was Mr Dadon himself.

The foreign editor (and of course Zionist cheerleader)  for the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper Greg Sheridan commented that the expulsion "may be the single foreign policy issue that did Rudd the most harm in domestic political terms" (G. Sheridan, The Australian, 1 July 2010).

After the coup, two former Australian ambassadors to Israel complained of "a much more determined pro-Israel position and I think Gillard is a part of that" (The Age, 29 June 2010).
Joe Ludwig now advocates in Parliament for the continued collective punishment of 1.5 million people in Gaza and continuation of illegal settlements.

Feeney staunchly opposes the union endorsed "Boycott Apartheid Israel" movement and rejected the union movement's official report on the appalling conditions in Gaza.
Howes is the leader of the counter campaign against the Israel boycott. He was singled out by (moderate Jewish commentator) Antony Loewenstein as expressing sentiments "straight out of the Zionist Lobby play book".

Indeed, Howes was earlier this year forced to quit his push to replace - ironically enough - Bob Carr in the senate over his Zionist ties. The Australian Jewish News described Howes as "Union boss and outspoken Israel supporter". He quit the union movement in March to prepare for another tilt at politics.

He was forced to pull out of his push for the senate following the leaking of an email from Australia's Mufti Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed accusing him of harboring a  "blind bias for Israel" and threatening to withdraw the Western Sydney Muslim community's support for Labor.

The Murdoch press was gushing in it praise for Howes and passionately promoted his credentials as a future Labor leader and potential prime minister.

Not to be outdone, Australia's current PM Tony Abbott used his "the first major speech of the (election) campaign to pledge fidelity to..." Australia? No, Israel, of course. (The Age, 20 June 2010). Abbott launched his pitch to lead Australia to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, promising  "we would never over-react to any international incidents by Israel."

And just in case anyone doubted Shorten's globalist credentials, he earlier this month (3 April) sparked uproar when he contradicted long-standing official Labor Party policy on illegal settlements, telling the Zionist Federation of Australia that only "some" of the illegal West Bank settlements might be illegal, in his view at least. He also told the Zionist Federation that he wanted to "register my profound opposition to those promoting an anti-Israel boycott. I reject it."

So Israel's extreme right wing can be sure of Australia's ongoing support well into the future, no matter which "side" of politics is in power.

Considering most Australian Jews are very moderate, liberal and anti-war, one wonders who lobbies on their behalf. Not to mention the far greater number of Muslims who call Australia home. The pro Israel lobby stance of Australia's top pollies might cost them votes, but it sure seems to buy them a hell of lot of influence and opportunity.





You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2014/04/Aussie-Foreign-Minister-Lifts-Veil-on-Jewish-Control.html

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

Comments for "Oz Foreign Minister Lifts Veil on Jewish Control"

Austin said (April 15, 2014):

It is rare for an Australian to upset the international applecart, but Bob Carr actually did it. He was a former Labour Premier of New South Wales, and well recognized as a Labour Party heavy back then, and that's why the party brought him out of retirement and into the limelight of federal politics.

John Curtain, Labour prime minister for most of World War 2, criticized the "Langites", supporters of Jack Lang, another Labour premier of New South Wales back in the 1930's, for wanting to bring in a five year moratorium on rent payments to their landlords or mortgages to their bankers, and thus save people's homes and small businesses during the depression years.

Jack Lang called those bankers the "Money Power" and he knew they were everywhere. Eventually, the state governor of New South Wales sacked Lang as premier in 1932, and the moratorium was lost for ever. Many people were made homeless and industry ground to a halt, as people were evicted onto the streets and the bankers systematically called in all outstanding loans.

When he finally realized what the War was all about, (reshaping the world from dependence on former colonial powers to independent and often pro communist) nations, Curtin brought our troops home from the Middle East, defying Churchill and the pleadings of the British generals, whose attitude was that soldiers from the then Commonwealth, particularly Australia and New Zealand, were only good for cannon fodder in the front lines.

If we hadn't had our troops fighting Imperial Japan in PNG and the islands, we'd all be eating rice and speaking foreign languages. Oh, I forgot, that's what many of us are doing now anyway...



Robert said (April 15, 2014):

"The AIJAC ... funds study tours to Israel for journalists and politicians...." 'The Lobby' also courts others, notably (at least, certainly, in Canada and the US) chiefs of police, with a side trip to Auschwitz thrown in.


JG said (April 15, 2014):

John F Kennedy saw this problem coming a long time ago and wanted legislation passed that would curtail an equal amount of public and not private campaign contributions for both candidates,
It's not simply all about the money but WHO'S MONEY?

Mr. Carr's efforts will do nothing more than put him on the "anti semite list" and the MSM will probably dub him as an Australian Nationlist with white supremacist tendencies.

The World Order cannot allow the nations to regain their identity or their cultural heritage back if this one world government is to succeed. They continue to trump all opposition in the once Christian Democracies of the "free world" because they are in total control.

Multiculturalism divides and makes solidarity almost impossible for a " mingled nation" like America, England, France, Canada, and now Australia,


Below - Marriage "Straight Talk" Ignites Firestorm (scroll down)

Feminists Don't Realize They've Mutated

April 14, 2014


pattonbook.jpgSusan Patton, left, started a row by suggesting young women plan for family
the way they plan for career. Today, we look at a young Feminist's reply, which
sounds convincing, but shows how they've been had.










by Henry Makow Ph.D.


At first glance, Emma Gray's rebuttal to Susan Patton makes a lot of sense.

She says Patton's advice that, "I need to buck up and find a damn husband" isn't doing educated young women any favors.

1. Most of us are looking for love. As many single women can attest, there is a vast gulf between being open to love and going on dates, and actually finding a person who you mesh with, who you care about and who cares about you. The women I know put aside time out of their busy weeks to date and to push themselves into new situations where they might meet potential love interests. We sign up for Tinder and Hinge and OKCupid and JDate, half out of boredom, but, ultimately, with an air of hopefulness. With each swipe or like or match we wonder whether this will be the one that works -- and often, it's not.

EMMA-GRAY-large.jpg2. We also are dedicating considerable time and energy to our careers -- but it's not a waste of time.
Not only do most of the single women I know love their jobs,... but also, for most of us, work is and will always be a necessity for survival. ...Most of us will not marry a partner who can afford to take on the full financial burden of his family. ... In fact, highly-educated, successful women are just as likely to get married (if not more so) than other women, they just tend to do it a few years later.

3. Having -- and enjoying -- sex does not prevent us from finding true connection.
"Men won't buy the cow if the milk is free," Patton writes, sounding more out of touch than I thought was humanly possible. I know women who have slept with men right away thinking it would be completely casual, and ended up marrying those men years down the road. I know women who did everything "right" and by "the rules" with a potential partner and ended up dumped.

4. We don't devalue marriage or motherhood. And a lot of us still want those things.
Feminists do not "think that being a wife or a mother is a bad thing, some don't want to be either wives or mothers, and many are single and still want both. Not spending every waking moment wishing for an MRS. degree ... doesn't preclude a desire to find a life partner or have a baby." We  "choose not to define our ultimate worth by our relationship status. Yes, we are single... But we are also so, so much more." (Really?)

MUTANTS 

Emma Gray's response reflects the Feminist view that young women can "have it all" and I don't blame them for trying. But often they can't.

Marriage and motherhood are a frame of mind.  When a woman loves a man, she dedicates her life to him. She wants children to replicate him. I doubt if many young women today can think like this. They have been taught by the Illuminati that self-sacrifice is both self-betrayal and self-endangerment.

Marriage and family used to be a woman's career.  My mother was proud to be "Mrs. David Makow" and share in my father's success. She didn't need a career to feel fulfilled. She got it from her family. She had a successful small business, but quit when my father established himself and asked her to focus on the home.

No wonder women today feel they cannot trust a man. They are flitting from one bed to another. A woman who makes marriage her first priority consecrates her body for her future husband. Her vagina is not a public utility or an amusement park ride. Her womb is where her children will be conceived and grow. Whatever happened to people dating first?

All Susan Patton is saying is, "Ladies get your priorities straight. You can always have a career. You need to be young and somewhat pure to attract a lifelong mate and have children."


April Alliston, a Comparative Literature professor at Princeton is an example of what goes wrong when career is the first priority. The woman misses the boat because she has mutated. Her character has become incompatible to men: 


"As a heterosexual woman who put my ambition to earn tenure at Princeton before my desire to have a family -- which as a result has not happened -- and as a woman who has gone through two husbands and grueling IVF treatments only to find myself now single and childless, neither of which was part of my youthful dreams, I thank Ms. Patton for this chance to address an issue that's so central to so many women's lives and can be a source of so much anxiety. ... The last time I was married, my husband and I would both (simultaneously) wander around our house with arms upraised, lamenting, "Where's the wife? Where's the wife?" because that's what we both really needed."


---
First Comment by David:

Gray's second point is most revealing and illustrates how totally Western women have been conned and snowed. The "necessity" of job and career for women and the impossibility of finding a husband who can financially support a wife and family on his salary are EXACTLY what the long range goal of the financial and political elite have always been.

Private central banking always creates scarcity and robs the private sector of any real wealth, driving both spouses into the workforce and straining or destroying any hope of a harmonious existence.

If Emma Gray had taken some history courses she might have learned that 50 years ago, a husband could support a wife and much larger families on one income, while groceries, fuel and housing were far cheaper than today. It's almost comical how an "education" has robbed so many Emmas of the ability to see the world as it really is.





You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2014/04/feminist-response-to-marry-smart.html

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

Comments for "Feminists Don't Realize They've Mutated "

Linda K said (April 15, 2014):

Dear Henry - young Emma is woefully misled. Item #3, casual sex, is an oxymoron.

The whole milk/cow analogy is timeless - the flip side is prostitution. But, according to young Emma that would be OK, at least the woman gets to have a career.

And I have to say it again...there is no such thing as sex without consequences. A little research regarding the incidences of chlamydia, gonorrhea and HPV in this country would astound many. These diseases often lead to infertility - is that sounding more out of touch than is humanly possible?

Wake up people. Stop dancing around the truth - embrace it and live the lives you were created to live.


Jennifer said (April 15, 2014):

My Advice to Young Women who Want Marriage and Children:

Do you think 20 something Ivy League men growing up on Hollywood corruption want to get married and have children? They are getting drunk, smoking pot, snorting cocaine and/or eating up porn and think its cool to sleep around.

Forget about "education" or money look for a man in his 20s, 30s, or 40s, who feels good for doing good-for doing the honorable right ethical thing over instant gratification.

Find a man who believes in God and has a set of moral codes he follows which include marriage, children, no adultery or getting high. Find a man that has not seared his conscious by insisting that his x-girlfriend get an abortion.

Find a man that still has empathy and will seriously take a woman's feelings into consideration when making plans for both of their futures.

Find a man that knows what "being responsible" means and takes pride in that! Find a man that is not a Freemason or comes from a long line of Freemasons or any other occult group. Be careful with brainwashed Military, West Point, CIA, FBI or Police types. Watch out for Wall Street, high finance, bankers, big corporate executive men, they are ruthless.

Have your potential husband screened by an older trusted adult male. Don't have sex before the wedding night as you will get oxytocin bonded and the man you think is a hero may really be a zero!

When you take sex off the table you screen out bad men right away. Serious real men step up quickly. Get a full medical (including sperm count)-dental-criminal-credit and legal report before marriage.

Have him get life insurance --they will do a lot of screening for you. Don't wait more then 9 months for an engagement ring and then give him no more then 3 months for the wedding. Don't date exclusively until he puts an engagement ring on your finger.

Watch out your sweetheart husband at 27 after you help support him to become something may have a "mid-life" crisis and dump you and the kids and run off with some exotic slut-living out some pathetic James Bond theme. Therefore stay involved in the family finances.

Finally, don't get a State Wedding License either write your own Marriage Contract, go to a Common Law State and get married there- sign, witness and notarize your own Marriage Contract. This will protect you from the infamous family court racket!


Chris said (April 15, 2014):

Another great article and one that tells the truth.
To the lady that said it is harder to be a man, you must be kidding. Most women today are lost, I don't try to understand them anymore. Most of these modern gals will not find a husband. Men are scared of marriage. A lot of men are scared of women if the truth be known.


Paul said (April 15, 2014):

They've been taught generationally that it's a hated thing; oppressive. But when male and female roles are allowed to express themselves without trying to dominate the other fleshily, it can be a truly wonderful thing. It's good that men lead in love as gentlemen! Then women feel comfortable to express who they're designed to be. The world may hiss, but practiced even a little, they'll come to know, it is right.


Debra said (April 14, 2014):

Let’s not forget that a woman bears children for her husband. They are his children first and foremost.

Life in general is not easy for either sex. Not very many happy people around anywhere.

If women think they have it hard, they should realize life is more difficult when you are a man. I’m not one, but I can tell.

Women's liberation PROHIBITED by God:-
http://jahtruth.net/cuofch.htm


Below - Why I Got a Vasectomy (scroll down)

Marriage "Straight Talk" Ignites Firestorm

April 13, 2014


patton16n-1-web.jpg
Human Resources professional Susan Patton, left, created controversy
when she suggested that women who want family should get their
"Mrs." degree at college, where they'll find compatible men and avoid
 their biological clock running out.

The negative reaction, which I will examine tomorrow, is indicative that Feminism
is not about "choice." It's about destroying the institutions of marriage and family.
At Princeton in the 1970's, Patton's desire to get married was considered
"heresy," more evidence that Feminism, and everything associated, is a cult.





"All eight [co-eds] aspired to marriage and motherhood--but not one of them wanted to admit it."


 "No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one"  (Feminist pioneer Simone de Beauvoir, Saturday Review, June 14, 1975).




by Susan Patton
USA Today Excerpt from "Marry Smart"


I wrote a letter
to the editor of the newspaper of the college [Princeton] I attended forty years ago.

I wrote the letter because I was on campus for a Women and Leadership conference that was followed by a breakout session. This afforded current female undergraduates an opportunity to speak informally with alumnae. There were eight young women at my table and they were told that I am a human resources professional and an executive coach, so naturally we all chatted about career planning, resume writing, and interview techniques. Their eyes seemed to glaze over from yet again hearing still more advice about how to succeed in the working world.

Then I looked at each of them and asked, "Do any of you girls want to someday get married and have children?" Their jaws dropped. They were stunned by the very question. They looked cautiously at each other before sheepishly raising their hands. All eight aspired to marriage and motherhood--but not one of them wanted to admit it.

Now it was my turn to be stunned. These amazing young women were reluctant to share their heartfelt hopes, for fear of critical judgment. It was clear to me that someone had to talk with them honestly about finding husbands, getting married, and having babies.

That someone might as well be me.

marrysmart.jpg(Patton expanded her advice into this book.)

So I decided to write a letter to the editor, addressed to the daughters I never had. Back when I was an undergraduate, a proud member of one of the pioneering first classes of women to graduate from Princeton University, I dated but I never had a serious boyfriend. Instead of looking for and possibly finding a life partner among my college classmates, I spent almost ten years after college dating men who weren't as interesting, educated, or accomplished as my classmates had been. I ultimately married the man I had been dating for years, because if I was to fulfill my lifelong dream of having children, time was running out. He wasn't the love of my life, but we marry for many reasons. Sometimes, we make sacrifices to achieve our greater goals. I married at thirty-one years old because I knew that I wanted to have children and do so in a traditional marriage--and I was cognizant of the limitations on my ability to procreate. And although after twenty-five years my marriage ended in divorce, I consider it to have been successful--because I had the children I always wanted.

In retrospect, I realize that I may have squandered some of my best years looking for what I probably could have found as a student on campus when I was twenty years old. I wish somebody had told me when I was an undergraduate that I should look more carefully at my male classmates. There must have been many marriageable men in that group. Either I didn't recognize them, or I carelessly dismissed them for superficial reasons, or I allowed myself to be shouted down by feminists who made me feel that it was a betrayal to the sisterhood for an educated woman to be so interested in marriage.

Did the fact that I didn't choose a man with comparable academic credentials damage my marriage and contribute to my divorce? I don't know for sure. But I know it didn't help.

During my four years on campus, I did many things right. I made great friends, had wonderful experiences that I'll remember always, and I graduated! But there are at least as many things I wish I had done differently. I especially wish that I had had sense enough to look for a husband on campus before I graduated.

So I wrote a letter, and it went, as they say, "viral." Honestly, I thought I would just share a few words of simple, maternal advice with the girls on campus, where my younger son was an undergraduate.

I didn't mean to cause an international firestorm or infuriate some women on campus, let alone on the Internet.

(Well, maybe I did expect a little controversy--I am more blunt than most people, I've always been like that--but who knew anyone would pay attention?)

And viral? Who thinks of going viral? Within three days of the publication of my letter to the editor of the Daily Princetonian, my advice exceeded 100 million inquiries on Google worldwide. Not all of the responses were positive. In fact, I was called "retro," "crazy," "a throwback"--and those are some of the nicer epithets. I was accused of being a traitor to feminism, a traitor to coeducation, and an elitist.

womancat.jpgSomewhere early on in the brouhaha, I was dubbed the "Princeton Mom." And you know what? I love that moniker! I earned it, both by graduating from Princeton and by having two children who went there. The advice I offered in the Daily Princetonian was intended for the women on the campus of my beloved alma mater, but it is applicable to smart women everywhere who want a traditional family. To avoid a life of unwanted spinsterhood--with cats!--you have to smarten up about what's important to you, and keep your head in the game. You have to plan for your personal happiness with the same commitment and dedication that you plan for your professional success.

Honestly, what about that is so controversial?

Knowing and respecting yourself. That's what it's really about: understanding what's important to you and prioritizing. That's what it's about. When I say, "Find a man," what I really mean is "Find a man who will respect you." And when I say, "Find a husband in college," what I'm really saying is "It's never too early to start planning for your personal happiness and looking for a husband who will respect you." It's never too early, and it's never too late. (Well, that's not really true, but we'll discuss that later.)

So, with the benefit of hindsight, this book contains the advice I wish I had been given when I was younger, which I now offer to educated young women everywhere.

The Letter

March 29, 2013

Advice for the Young Women of Princeton--the Daughters I Never Had

Forget about having it all, or not having it all, leaning in or leaning out . . . here's what you really need to know that nobody is telling you.

For years (decades, really) we have been bombarded with advice on professional advancement, breaking through that glass ceiling and achieving work-life balance. We can figure that out--we are Princeton women. If anyone can overcome professional obstacles, it will be our brilliant, resourceful, very well educated selves.

When I was an undergraduate in the mid-seventies, the two hundred pioneer women in my class would talk about navigating the virile plains of Princeton as a precursor to professional success. Never being one to shy away from expressing an unpopular opinion, I said that I wanted to get married and have children.

It was seen as heresy.
For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you. Here's what nobody is telling you . . . find a husband on campus before you graduate.

Yes, I went there. Men regularly marry women who are younger, less intelligent, less educated. It's amazing how forgiving men can be about a woman's lack of erudition, if she is exceptionally pretty. Smart women can't (shouldn't) marry men who aren't at least their intellectual equals. As Princeton women, we have almost priced ourselves out of the market. Simply put, there is a very limited population of men who are as smart or smarter than we are. And I say again--you will never again be surrounded by this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Of course, once you graduate you will meet men who are your intellectual equal--just not that many of them. And, you could choose to marry a man who has other things to recommend him besides a soaring intellect. But ultimately, it will frustrate you to be with a man who just isn't as smart as you.

Here is another truth that you know, but nobody is talking about. As freshman women, you have four classes of men to choose from. Every year, you lose the men in the senior class, and are older than the class of incoming freshman men. So, by the time you are a senior, you basically have only the men in your own class to choose from, and frankly--they now have four classes of women to choose from. Maybe you should have been a little nicer to these guys when you were freshmen?

If I had daughters, this is what I would be telling them. - --Susan A. Patton, Class of 1977


----
Related - Interview with Patton -
---------- Reaction on Campus
---
Thanks to Sandeep for the tip!

First Response from Peter R:

Applied anti-feminism, from the heart. And very true. My accountant of more than 20 years is a spinster who comes to the house every month for some paper work. She sees our small kids sometimes and loves them. Just last week she told my wife, you make such beautiful children, why don't you make another one and give it to me, I will raise it.

I don't think she is a feminist, at least not a militant one, but for whatever reason, biology will catch up with people, and at some point in their lives they will remember what it's all about.

Dr. Elisabeth Kuebler, a Swiss-American, who took care of dying people in hospices, made a study and wrote a book about the psychological condition of people in their last phases. She said the deepest and biggest regret of childless, dying people was that they never had children. Very profound, and very true. Feminists with their emptiness have no answer to that.




You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2014/04/marriage-straight-talk.html

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

Comments for "Marriage "Straight Talk" Ignites Firestorm "

Jane said (April 16, 2014):

I appreciate Patton's advice to young women. There is only one aspect of her perspective that I felt uncomfortable with. Although I agree that intellectual compatibility is important in marriage, I do not see an unfailing correlation between academic achievement and intelligence. It is not all that rare to find highly intelligent people who are practically allergic to formal education. They may drop out well before graduating from college.


Mark said (April 14, 2014):

All pretty mild stuff, really. She's all for women being hyper-educated and using their smarts to "break through that glass ceiling" in a man's world should they decide to and can't even do the "until death us do part" thing, on account of her man not being her intellectual equal (And would it have been any different if he were blessed with that oh so beautiful mind?); a far cry from loving those for their labor of love towards us. She merely advises looking for Mr. Right (Or would they rather be advised to look for Miss Right?) early on at college before the pickings become too thin, lest they end up like her with Mr. Wrong. But clearly that isn't radical enough for her die-hard Feminist sisters, as if her brand of Feminism light weren't toxic enough.


Marco said (April 14, 2014):

An interesting article, I just would disagree with the part in delves into seeking 'intellectual equals', and when she equates being a 'Princeton women' as a limit towards finding a suitable mate. As the definition of intellect is 'the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters', then I believe women are limiting themselves if that what they mainly seek in a man. If a women values intelligence, then they should have the intelligence to know that wisdom is what truly matters. They should seek and value a man of wisdom, and not fall into a trap of believing that men of intelligence are bound to a university. I would pose her the question, 'If having a strong intellect is not connected to wisdom, then what good is it?'

One of the wisest men I ever met was a homeless man at night outside a Catholic Church, and he spoke so eloquently to me, it touched my heart even to this day. As for his education, I cannot say, and by all standards he was not 'successful' in this world, but his eloquence in speaking spoke to me of his intelligence, and his knowledge of God spoke wonders to me of his wisdom. And I attribute his wisdom to having God dwelling in him, as Jesus Christ is all wisdom. Therefore I believe that many people of different educations, and intellectual capabilities should be considered eligible for marriage.

The idea that being an 'educated women' somehow limits your chances of finding a suitable mate, is a trap and a fallacy. God is what counts, and God can be found in the most lowly of people, and these people may have more wisdom then the most educated men in the world.


Paul said (April 14, 2014):

As men are increasingly challenged by unpolarized complacency (equality in the workplace), it will be difficult to get back to a traditional model.
That said, the younger generation can still learn manhood and womanhood, just not in the workplace. They both have to want it, or mediocrity and non-committal relations will surely be today's flavor.

Sex without commitment is hollow and temporary, and ultimately will not sustain a society.


Dan said (April 14, 2014):

As you've said many times Henry, a woman's marriage value in the eyes of the kind of man she thinks she deserves is already on the slippery before she's 30.

The fact is that human sexuality exists for successful procreation. Sure, human minds can imagine endless 'variations', but those are really just fantasies. People can spend money or scheme to catch a few years of months with someone they can draw into theirs, but it's got no longevity because it's delusive.

The same goes for men - though we do get a bit longer to 'settle down', it's not as long as men have been led to think.

Susan Patton gives good advice for young women, though it's really just a start in the right direction.


Al Thompson said (April 13, 2014):

I take exception to the idea of "intellectual" equal. First of all, going through four years of college truly takes someone who is bordering on the insane. In college, you learn such stupid things as evolution which doesn't exist, read depressing English literature, and then you get taught a false sense of history with a complete socialist, communist, and fascist point of view. By the time a student is done with college, it is a wonder he can even wipe himself.

Going to college was a disappointment for me because I wanted to learn marketable skills. Instead, I was subjected to the same crap I learned in high school. School should be for learning marketable skills and not for indoctrination.

Someone who goes to college is not necessarily more "intellectual" but in fact may be more stupid and insane for being able to tolerate such nonsense. A lot of our political leaders went to Princeton and look at the shitty job they are doing. The proof is in the results.

Women get brainwashed into thinking they are better than men. Most women want to have children and a loving husband, but they are always at battle with the feminist idea. This has taken an excruciating toll on the idea of a family and as a result we now have a decomposed society of wing nuts.

A man and a woman are two completely different kinds of people, and one should be complimenting the other. I never had so much fun raising my own children along with my wife. People spend too much wasted time in school learn stupid crap when they could be out in the workplace earning money and having a nice family.

Maybe some day people will turn around their priorities and marry at an earlier age and stay with their spouses for the rest of their lives. That would help to establish a strong society.


Abortion is a Rite of Witchcraft

April 10, 2014


Windle.jpeg(left, Patricia Baird Windle)

Abortion is a Rite of  Witchcraft


by Dan

There's a long history of abortions being performed by practicing witches.  This has come out in public again again all along, many times in blatant statements by the witches themselves.  It amazes me how the public simply tunes out things that don't into their little window on the world.
I can give you one quote off the top of my head right here:  Patricia Baird Windle, founder and owner of an abortion business called 'Aware Woman'.  She was an avowed witch who raised a stink years ago saying "You practice your religion and let me practice mine. My religion is a holy ritual child sacrifice." 

She got away with saying that because her abortion clinic is LEGAL.  In fact she meant to make the news to promote one of her books 'Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism',  which labels the "pro life" position as fundamentalist fanatics endangering the lives of women, yada yada yada...

She's just one of five I can cite to show it's a religion and they're proud of it.  They share this insanity that claiming feminine power involves this initiation of taking the life she creates. That's how a woman graduates to 'goddess'.

The Masonic maxim is true.  Everything really is out there 'in plain sight'.  But people don't believe their eyes and ears if they don't believe evil is real and there's a non-human aspect to it.  That's why everything that came out in broad daylight in the 1980's about the epidemic of Satanism already went down the memory hole.   We're always having to start from scratch trying to explain these things over, and over and over.

Of interest, abortion clinics are on the run here in Texas. The Legislature and Governor have closed most of them down by pulling State funding from Planned Parenthood.  We'll see how long it sticks.



Canada's Political Prisoner - Dean Clifford

media-960x360.jpgCanada's Political Prisoner - Dean Clifford

(left, Dean Clifford)


This is what happens when you challenge the legitimacy of government.





(Editor's Note: I don't support the Freeman movement but think it's worth knowing about.)



by V
(henrymakow.com)

There is a political prisoner sitting in a Manitoba prison that few people outside the Freeman movement have ever heard about. Dean Clifford was abducted by the Hamilton Police Department on November 24, 2013 after he gave a 2-day seminar. His crime? Challenging the validity of the law.

Dean Clifford is a white male of Irish-Canadian heritage who lives just north of Winnipeg. Manitoba. A contractor by trade, he concluded the Canadian government and courts are detrimental to the health, finance and well-being of the people. Dean drives without a driver's license, has no government license plates and pay's no income tax to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). He does this lawfully (common-law.)

Of all the person's in the Freeman movement such as Winston Shrout, Max Egan, etc, Dean Clifford practices in real life what he preaches and his number #1 point is, 'Do Harm To No One'. For this he has been jailed many times over the years and has even been physically abused by the police.

Manitoba court records show that the charge was that Dean didn't show up for a court appearance in August 21st.

Dean has been in prison for over four months know with trumped-up charges. The "crown" and the powers behind the "crown" do not want other people to know the fahat Dean Clifford is teaching to the public.

Dean Clifford has shown in simple, clear language that the government of Canada is a separate foreign power and the only way the government of Canada can interact with us, private citizen's is to trick us into making us franchisees (employees) of the 'crown' through the fraudulent use of our birth certificate, driver's license, social insurance card, etc.

So far the courts have denied Dean access to a notary or commissioner of oath, and have tried every dirty trick up their sleeves to keep him in prison. The best guess seems to be to send a strong message to others out there in the "true" Freeman's movement that doing battle with the crown courts and crown prosecutors will only land you in jail for a long time. Mind you in Dean's case on trumped up charges and in a private statutory 'kangaroo court' environment.

http://deanclifford.info/2014/03/02/update-number-five/

For those of you that want to learn more of Dean Clifford's teachings go to his website (http://deanclifford.info/) and watch more of his video's on his website: http://deanclifford.info/media/




The Real Zombie Apocalypse

April 4, 2014



zombie-apocolypse.jpg