Cruel Hoax! Newsweek's "Marriage Crunch"

June 2, 2006

newspeak.jpg 

by Henry Makow Ph.D.


Newsweek's June 5 cover story "Rethinking the Marriage Crunch" is typical of the psychological war waged by the mass media on society .

Newsweek magazine waited 20 years to retract a 1986 story that educated 40-year-old women have "as much chance of marrying as being killed by a terrorist," even though they  knew  it was bogus.  The story became part of popular culture, mentioned in movies and television, and caused many women to panic.

In December 1986, Neil Bennett, a co- author of the study, "Marriage Patterns in the United States." told the New York Times that Newsweek took the findings out of context.

He said the odds climbed sharply if one removed women who choose to remain single, those who favour a live-in relationship or sequential relationships etc. The sampling was also limited to women born in the mid-1950's. In other words, these women were age 30 at the time. How could anyone know what their marriage prospects would be in 10 years? 
(NY Times "Relationships: When Studies Mislead.")

In 2000, Discover Magazine termed this study one of the  "20 Greatest Blunders in Science in the last 20 Years."  Newsweek promises to tell "why we were wrong" but they don't . On the contrary,  Newsweek uses this "rethinking" to mislead women yet again, by suggesting they can safely postpone marriage. They base this "news" on Census information that has been around for ten years!

"Twenty years later, the situation looks far brighter," says reporter Joe McGinn, oozing good will like any salesman. "The good news is that older singles who desire a spouse appear to face far kinder odds nowadays. When the Census last crunched the numbers in 1996, a single woman at 40 had a 40.8 per cent chance of eventually marrying. Today those odds are probably even higher..." ("Rethinking the Marriage Crunch")

The new story is as phoney as the first. The 40.8% chance figure was lifted from Table 3 of a 20-page study on marriage released in 2002 based on the 1996 census. The table shows that only 8.6% of women have never married by age 40, and by age 50 this number has dropped to 5%. There is no mention of their level of education. Newsweek made the calculation (3.6 into 8.6 = 40.8) and acted like this was the finding of a new survey. According to this table, another 15% get married by 60 so Newsweek could as easily have said that  women age 40 and over have a 55.8% chance of marrying. For obvious reasons, McGinn didn't answer my query as to how he arrived at his numbers.

This spectacle demonstrates how the media concocts "news" stories that have a mind control purpose.

The original Newsweek story said  "new demographic research" predicted white college educated woman of 30 had only a 20% chance of ever marrying; by 35 the probability dropped to 5%; and by 40, the probability was 2.6%. Therapists reported that many women cited the story as a reason to rush into marriage. No doubt their marriages were doomed to fail and the intense pressure made many women undesirable to men.

Now the elite mind controllers have decided to send out a different message: Pursue career, postpone marriage, don't worry about children. Wednesday, the central banker-owned media, including  CNN and the Wall Street Journal, was full of stories telling educated women to put off marriage. "Not too late to meet Prince Charming After All," trumpeted ABC News. "Educated Women are Now More Likely to get Married."

The poster girl for the new message is a 49-year-old contractor Laurie Aronson who married a divorced man 10 years ago and became stepmother to his three children. Then "after five years of infertility treatment" she had a son of her own.

 WHY IS THE MEDIA ATTACKING WOMEN?

The mass media is the psychological warfare instrument of the central bankers who regard the US population as their property. The family of Eugene Meyer, a Lazard Freres banker and former Fed Chairman, controls Newsweek magazine. The central bankers, including the Rockefellers, control the rest of the mass media through ownership or advertising. Their agenda is to undermine the family in order to destabilize society and decrease population.

In a memo, March 11, 1969, Frederick S. Jaffe, Vice-president of Rockefeller-sponsored Planned Parenthood – World Population, outlined examples of proposed measures to reduce United States fertility. Among the measures suggested are: 1) Restructure family: a. postpone or avoid marriage and b. alter ideal family size. 2) Encourage increased homosexuality. 3) Educate for family limitation. 4) Fertility control agents in water supply. 5) Encourage women to work. (Emphasis mine.)

Thanks to elite social engineering, the US fertility rate has declined from 2.5 to 2 children per woman since 1970. Significantly the fertility rate for non-Hispanic whites is 1.8 in the US. In Europe and Canada, it is less than 1.5.

If the media were on our side, Newsweek would recognize that women's most fertile years are 18-25 and would be promoting programs for women entering the work force in their 30's after their children are in school. Instead the media pushes sex as totally separate from reproduction, and downplays mature thinking about family and posterity. 

The elite agenda is to prevent women from starting families by encouraging them to waste these years starting a career and competing with men. By the time they are 30 and ready for marriage and children, men are much less interested in them.

As one female blogger lamented, “They told us 'You can have it all, Marriage, children, a fantastic career!' We have ourselves to blame for believing them."

She notes that "women still strive to marry up. Men still tend to marry down. The two sexes’ going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids."

She cites Sylvia Ann Hewlett, an economist and the author of “Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children,” (2002) who found that 55 percent of 35-year-old career women were childless. Forty seven per cent of 40-something women with professional degrees have no children. Only 14% of these women said they didn't want children.

Aaron Russo, director of  America :From Freedom to Fascism, recalls he was approached for his ideas by a younger member of the Rockefeller family in 1995. " He asked me what I thought of the 'women's movement,' and I told him that I support equal opportunity," Russo continues.

"He looked at me and said, 'You know, you're such an idiot in some ways. We' - meaning the people he works with - 'created the women's movement, and we promote it. And it's not about equal opportunity. It's designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.' That's how they control society - by removing the parents from the home and then raising the children as the elitists see fit."

(The contact also predicted, in the year 2000, a 9-11 style event and an invasion of the Middle East to secure oil.)


CONCLUSION

More and more people are realizing that something is fundamentally wrong with society. The truth is too painful for most to accept.

Our money is nothing but "credit" extended by a private banking cartel based in the City of London called "the Crown." (The names of the shareholders of the Bank of England, the Fed etc. are kept secret.) They create this credit out of thin air and back it with our taxes and interest. Modern history is the process of translating this monopoly of credit into a monopoly of power. Globalization means all nations and all minds will be colonized by this stateless financial power.

This cartel is behind terrorism, feminism, Communism, Zionism, most 'isms and most wars. Their agenda is to divide and conquer. They need to destroy the four pillars of human identity (race, religion, nation and family) in order to create their New World Order dictatorship ("globalism.")

The bankers use the media to distract, deceive and destabilize society while fostering the illusion of democracy and freedom. The Newsweek cover story is classic psychological warfare. The bankers perfected their techniques against Germany in World War II and put the same psy ops experts in charge of their media empires.

The bankers subscribe to Illuminism, a pagan Luciferian creed. Scoundrels who have literally sold their souls to the devil run the world. Their goal is to sever our connection to God and block mankind's intended spiritual and material development. That is why they promote decadence and dysfunction.

As people become aware of the awful truth, hopefully they will declare mental and spiritual independence and the diabolical beast that Newsweek represents will choke on its own vomit.
-----------

Related, "Global Warning: World Population Crisis"

 "Fetuses Compete with Mother for Nutrients" More elite propaganda against society.

 




Comments for "Cruel Hoax! Newsweek's "Marriage Crunch""

Tony said (June 8, 2006):

The world is becoming a miserable place to both men and women because women are out of place and out of control. Most women under 50 have no idea what a woman's true role in life is. Seeking the peace of life we all want in artificial, agenda created directions, today's women make life bitter and miserable for everyone - and most don't have a tiny clue what they are doing.

Another point. The police state is being implemented daily with no noticeable opposition. Because women will ALWAYS give up freedom for security and women now get whatever they want as men are relegated to about fifth class behind them and dogs, cats and kids - and maybe birds, fish and bugs. Thus the phony "war on terror" and the "homeland security" horse shit as we watch the world become a not very pleasant prison in front of our eyes with gullible women humming merrily, happy with their "useful lives," while putting the cement blocks and bars in place.


Ian said (June 7, 2006):

Great article exposing more lies. Thank you for continially writing great
article's and fill our minds with the truth.
My wife's sister is 39 and a great buisness woman, on more wage than me.
After watching her sister get married and have a baby, she now desperately
wants what we have. We moved out of a big city and life a quiet life and
LOVE the life and getting our roles right and loving our child. But it feels
too late to undo what she has done. I feel she has bred herself like a horse
to be this fighting woman of money, large rings and expensive coats and now
she is very lonely . What advice can i give to her?

I have been reading Codex Magica by Tex Marrs. You said in you're conclusion
that they are dividing and conquering, well the book i am reading speaks at
length about the two headed Eagle being a symbol of the duality of these
horrible satan worshippers , and the madness they live with. He says it
represents the Yin-Yang, the black and white squares, the saying of God is
satan and satan is God, the creating of chaos to bring about 'peace' and in
their dogma's / rules it says the swapping over of roles of male and female.
My, can't we see that now in society. It has gone so far that you can not
even talk about or you will be called an old fashion bigot. I am only 31 !

Well bless you and your work.


Carol said (June 6, 2006):

Dear Henry, I like your uncompromised description. I assume that you know that they read your pieces (to keep tabs on liberating information) and I like to see people who need it, to be told the truth about them, strait to their faces, especially now, since they�re incessantly showing us what little regard they have for mature ethical living.

(As people become aware of the awful truth, hopefully they will declare mental and spiritual independence and the diabolical beast that /Newsweek /represents will choke on its own vomit.)

I just wanted to add that I had no problem asserting myself by having children by age 26, and remaining available for them until they naturaly allowed me the space to step out into the work force (thanks to Quebecois society) Although, I often superficially referred to myself as doing �every the wrong way�, in secret I pushed forward using solely my own creative inspiration, careful not to make ANY concessions. That last sentence you wrote restored external validity to what I lived so many years through my youth, in the secret region of my soul vis a vis choosing for myself and my children. From this experience, I would reiterate a little by saying � hopefully they will 'safeguard or lay claim' to their mental and spiritual independence� And this because I believe that mental and spiritual independence is innate in all humankind, and it's through outside conditions and more which prevent their unfolding.


Shirley said (June 5, 2006):

All I can say is HORSEFEATHERS.
In the time I was raised it was graduate from high school on Friday, get married by Saturday and have a baby the next year. I as a kid fell for that. So I was married right out of high school had a baby and was divorced by the time I was 21.
Now at the age of 74 am so pleased that I had the sense not to get married again. I raised my baby by myself and now have 2 grandchildren and a great granddaughter. I have my own business and live an independent life.
The "girls" that got married, had 4 babies, a stationwagen and a tract house are now mostly widows or taking care of some old guy. These dummies do not know how to have their cars serviced, figure a tip or, entertain. They now come to me for advise. My advice is "lover are a lot more fun than husbands, they do not mess up the bathroom, take up closet space and realize the dog lives with me, not them. Also with many lovers one does not get wrinkles.
You must have had fun with that article. I am also a perfect grandmother, I put my grandchildren through college.
----

Shirley,

Obviously marriage isn't for everybody.

H


Dan-2 said (June 5, 2006):

remembered why Newsweek ran the 'marriage scare' story in '86 now.

I recall the period very well, when I think of it. I noticed at the time. Marriage was discouraged from the late 60's till the early 80's.
Then AIDS 'came out', and scared away the 'sex revolution'. The homo agenda was also withdrawn from mainstream play for a few years, kept
busy with their aids protests.

The result I recall was '30 something' people starting to marry again. I fell into that category of the time. (there was even a television show for it, '30 something'. Newlyweds and babies and 'getting with the
(Reagan) program and all that). I recall from 1983 on, us young folks threw in the towel on the sex, drugs, rock and roll, and got nervous
about our futures, and people started to team up as couples and get married again.

I now believe the reason they sounded the bell for the brief heterosexual marriage reunion in the 80's was...........need for cannon
fodder in the post millenium wars. Besides, they still need technicians, too. For a while. The 1986 'crop' is already serving in the military, and doing the office work stateside.

After the States has completed this last round of 'international policing', they won't be needing another generation. By then we'll be
in the next decades phase of mass relocations of peoples, and the mass population reductions to come.



Jason said (June 5, 2006):

I'm a little bothered by what I see as a bit of a contradiction in your article. On the one hand you identify the recent newsweek "Rethinking the Marriage Crunch" article as evidence of an elitist population-control campaign. Supporting your position is your interesting Frederick S. Jaffe quote about different ways in which the population could be limited. Remember, your Jaffe quote is from 1969, and you yourself said "Thanks to elite social engineering, the US fertility rate has declined from 2.5 to 2 children per woman since 1970." This suggests an active population control policy since '69 at the latest.
But if the mainsream media is controlled, as you say, by elitists, why then would they allow Newsweek to publish an article that directly undermines their social policy? Considering the impact this article has had even on popular culture ("The story became part of popular culture, mentioned in movies and television, and caused many women to panic....Therapists reported that many women cited the story as a reason to rush into marriage.") Why would they allow this article to stand for 20 years before offering any correction when it seemed to be having the opposite effect to that desired by Jaffe himself?
Your only explanation is that "Now the elite mind controllers have decided to send out a different message." But this new message is no different from that articulated by Jaffe in '69. The question thefore remains : if in fact there is an elitist agenda that uses Newsweek as a mouthpiece, how did an article in '86 ever get published?
---

Jason,

Good point. I am not privy to their reasoning and can only guess. I imagine they can acheive the same purpose by making women hysterical. "Everybody was talking about it and everybody was hysterical," said therapist Bonnie Maislin in the original article. Women who want to marry because of their biological clock are not attractive to men.

Henry


Christine said (June 4, 2006):

There is another aspect to delaying marriage that many women face nowadays due to the mass promotion of promiscuity: sterility. Women are much more likely to become sterile due to venereal disease if they do not preserve their virginity. Also, sterility can be a consequence of abortion.Some men do want children, and I would imagine that would make them less inclined to marry such a woman.

Also, Dr. Laura Schlessinger noted that the more a person engages in promiscuity, the less able they become to form stable, committed relationships with the opposite sex. Thus, such women would not only may have a hard time bearing children, but also staying in a marriage.


Ken said (June 4, 2006):

This is a great article. You are getting more and more concise in your
ability to identify the issue, the cause, the perpetrators and what to do.

There are many ways to control US and world population. But the Illuminati
likes to use the depraved means because they have a proclivity towards this,
and can get a two-fer that they so much enjoy. They can achieve their ends
of population reduction, but at the same time bring in violence, death,
decadence and destruction.

In my opinion, however, the world DOES have far too many humans on it. Our
overpopulation is straining water, food, fresh air and other resources, as
well as overburdening the planet's ability to absorb waste.

There are much better ways to achieve this population reduction that those
being employed by the power elite. But alas, they are not being used.

Anyhow, thanks again for your writing and publishing. Keep up the great
work. It is greatly appreciated.

Also thanks again for telling us about John Coleman's books. We have read
them all and they are worthwhile.

----


Sophie said (June 4, 2006):

I have been brought up in a very feminist household, although have recently discovered some texts and websites like your own that discredit everything I have been taught.
At first I rejected these ideas but I could not deny them from re-entering my thoughts. I have realised that these ideals are really fundamental in upholding any sense in my own world if not world wide, and I would like to thank you graciously for sharing your powerful thought with the rest of society.


Dan said (June 3, 2006):

As one female blogger lamented, �They told us 'You can have it all, Marriage, children, a fantastic career!' We have ourselves to blame for believing them."
She notes that "women still strive to marry up. Men still tend to marry down. The two sexes� going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids."

I've already answered the riddle. "Down" meaning women who would rather have husbands and families than Phd's or corporate titles. Men who are in a position to provide for a family do not need women for economic reasons. They don't need a competitor. They want a housewife to bear and raise their children. Why else would a successful man in his prime (mid 30's) want to bother with marriage?

The amazing thing I see is that women in their 40's are bitter and bitching about it, but the women in their 20's can't see that it will happen to them, too.


Darleen said (June 3, 2006):

Families are the concrete slab, the fabric that holds society together. Without them, we are just roaming nomads.

The system is rigged and we go right along with it as if we don't have the freedom and/or free will to reject and or otherwise make our own path in life. But, again, as I've stated a zillion times, when you are brainwashed, mind controlled from cradle to grave to believe that their way is the right way, you have
already surrendered your free will without even being aware that you have done so.

In our 40's, our energy level has waned somewhate and it can be quite taxing on one's mental, physical and psychological well-being caring for children at this age.

Grandparents may decease before the children are old enough to establish memories of them.

P. S. I wish you would write about the current
immigration propaganda and/or information regarding NAFTA.

If THEY wanted our borders closed, this would have been done centuries ago. They more slaves, the better.


RJ said (June 3, 2006):

The most appalling aspect of this article was the
comments of the women profiled. One woman is telling
her young daughter to 'have fun while she is still
single', and get married after she turns 30 like mommy
did!!!

The article explicitly ignores the declining fertility
of females after the age of 30. It briefly mentions a
woman who married when she was 39, and who endured 4
years of 'fertility treatments' to conceive and bear a
son at the age of 44.

I just wonder what kind of saps are marrying these
women?

Keep up the good work.


Lori said (June 2, 2006):

Good stuff. What a fine example of soft-science research. I am going to
look more closely at this.

I have had personal experiences in my life that have brought me to the
conclusion that the women's right to choice movement against motherhood is
nothing but the front for the real "Men's Mights" movement....he might
stick around, or he might not.


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