The Biggest Mistake Men Make

[hotweiss]

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_biggest_mistake_men_make.html

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

(Note: This may be of value to single men and women who are frustrated or confused. It doesn't apply to people who are happily married.)

The biggest mistake a man can make is to put a woman on a pedestal and give her power over him.

Men, no less than women, are suckers for romance and sex. Romantic love is the ersatz religion of our neo-pagan era, a form of idolatry based on sexual infatuation. But no one is worthy of adoration. No one is perfect.

A man might benefit by regarding a woman as a means to an end rather than an end in herself. A man needs a woman to create a home and family, for companionship, sex, emotional and practical support, intimacy and you name it.

A "means to an end" may sound harsh to some. But in fact, nature designed women to make things happen. Mainly babies. My first girlfriend said, "I want to be used."

A man might think of a wife as a race driver thinks of his car, a cowboy his horse, a shepherd his dog, or a carpenter his tools. Men treasure what belongs to them, serve them well, and are true.

A woman expresses her love by her devotion to husband and children. She is loved for what she does, not for her sex appeal appearance. Women (and men) earn love by their deeds. This is the only permanent love worthy of respect.

The romantic model of male-female love, based on lust and idealization of beauty, does not work. A man who "looks up" to a woman is destined to remain a child. On the other hand, a woman wants to look up to her husband.

The feminist idea that women are "strong, creative, independent" persons loved for their repartee and sex appeal also doesn't work. People get bored and move on.

For a man to provide leadership to a woman is masculine; for a woman to accept that leadership is feminine. Of course, a man is going to consult his wife because one of his goals is to make her happy.

Beauty is skin deep. There is no correlation between beauty and intelligence or character. Women have used sex to control men from time immemorial but they want men they can't control.

A man might also abandon the notion that there is only one special woman for him. There are many women who will fit the bill. Finally, a man should not expect his lover or wife to think like him. As long as there is general agreement, he should respect her individuality.


"A MEANS TO AN END?"

Women are human beings worthy of the same dignity, respect and fulfillment as men.
I'm talking about the way many men really love, and how many women really want to be loved.

Women are designed by nature to implement a man's vision and to be cherished for it. When a woman loves a man, she often wants to have his children.

Sex is the symbol of a permanent relationship. No matter what "liberated" people say, sex is an act of possession and should be exclusive.

If you think this model of marriage is suspiciously like the old fashioned one, you are right. There is nothing wrong with it. It has been maligned and undermined by a sophisticated propaganda campaign designed to turn us into hetero-homosexuals, incapable of bonding with the opposite sex and having families.

The result is a growing population of isolated individuals who use promiscuity to assuage their loneliness. These people are easily controlled. See Aldous Huxley's prophetic novel, "Brave New World."

Women empower men by accepting their leadership. They emasculate them by challenging and criticizing them. This is the agenda of the kabalistic central bankers who control the mass media, education and government.

OUR HETEROPHOBIC SOCIETY

There has never been a war of aggression that hasn't been disguised as a war of defense. The war against heterosexual society (gender, marriage, family) is no exception, masquerading as the defense of women's and homosexual rights.

Our identity is based on gender. We develop in terms of our family roles as husbands and fathers, wives and mothers, sisters and brothers. An attack on gender is an attack on our identity.

Feminism tells women that marriage and family are instruments of oppression, and urges them to usurp the male role and abandon the feminine one. We also see this attack in the promotion of homosexuality/ gay marriage, in demands for genderless bathrooms, and birth control and sex vaccines for children.

Sexual promiscuity (a.k.a, the sexual revolution) is part of this attack. Promiscuous people are less likely to form permanent marriages and stable families. Men who can get sex easily are less likely to marry.

What we are told is "progress" is really "progressive"only if you are a satanist.

In "Satan: Prince of this World" William Guy Carr wrote: "Satanists have always used sex bribery and the depravities and perversions of sex to obtain control of men and women they wished to use to further their diabolical conspiracy. Satanism makes a God of sex." (p. 37)

Pornography is used in war to undermine an enemy population by destroying family and morale. The Nazis spread porn in occupied Poland; the Israelis in the West Bank; the Americans in Iraq. We are drowning in porn and filth.

CASUAL SEX

Women haven't twigged to how self-destructive feminism and "sexual liberation" are. Young women are no longer valued as potential wives and mothers, but by how "hot" they are. They are pressured to have sex because other women will, and it is the only way to get male attention. There is nothing more demeaning to women (and men) than casual sex.

No wonder women suffer from low self-esteem. They want to be used for a higher purpose: as lovers, wives and mothers. They must demand evidence of love (patient courtship and marriage.) Otherwise they will be used and tossed away.

The separation of sex from love and procreation is degrading. It makes us view people as objects. It is the source of virtually all sexual perversion.

Sex, the ritual of marriage and procreation, creates a powerful bond between a man and a woman. It is a perversion to use it as diversion and entertainment.

We can fight the New World Order by restricting sex to courtship, love, marriage and procreation. We can resist the allure of sex by thinking in these terms. We can fight the New World Order by upholding the traditional heterosexual family.

If you like it Digg it:

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/The_Biggest_Mistake_Men_Make

[Nikita]

The bigges mistake men make is believing these silly theories. This is nothing more than an opinion by some author, with a whack of ridiculously wrong assumptions. It would take me half the day to respond to his comments, and I really can't be bothered. Just shows that even Ph.D.'s can write crap.

[firetrainer]

Real men alrady know this.

[Zaku_4]

i love it

lots of philosophical theories in there and its really a sound argument.

[cmge]

Real men alrady know this.
+1

[Impossibles]

I'm confused on what this article is saying, other than the ambiguous statement 'men shouldn't put women on a pedestal'.

That would be a dumb place to put them anyways. Its not comfortable, and they will probably fall and start crying.

[HBP]

Men don't make mistakes.

[Nikita]

I'm confused on what this article is saying, other than the ambiguous statement 'men shouldn't put women on a pedestal'.

That would be a dumb place to put them anyways. Its not comfortable, and they will probably fall and start crying.

LOL!

[ItemFinder]

Men don't make mistakes.
+1. "The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

[hotweiss]

The bigges mistake men make is believing these silly theories. This is nothing more than an opinion by some author, with a whack of ridiculously wrong assumptions. It would take me half the day to respond to his comments, and I really can't be bothered. Just shows that even Ph.D.'s can write crap.

What do you disagree with? I assume you are an adult, so try to go beyond an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite.

[Nikita]

What do you disagree with? I assume you are an adult, so try to go beyond an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite.

LOL...an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite? Quite an assumption...I'm not childish, emotional or spiteful. As I stated above there are so many things I disagree with that I'd be here half the day addressing each and every statement...and I really have no interest doing so. Since I already stated this in my original post, why bother asking me to expand on my answer. Not interested.

[ItemFinder]

And again, you answered nothing. If you don't have a valid argument, stop trying to hide behind feeble words.

[hotweiss]

LOL...an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite? Quite an assumption...I'm not childish, emotional or spiteful. As I stated above there are so many things I disagree with that I'd be here half the day addressing each and every statement...and I really have no interest doing so. Since I already stated this in my original post, why bother asking me to expand on my answer. Not interested.

It's not an assumption, it's an objective observation. Anyways, when you develop some interest towards this topic please feel free to debunk this silly theory.

[Nikita]

It's not an assumption, it's an objective observation. Anyways, when you develop some interest towards this topic please feel free to debunk this silly theory.

Well since your wrong about me on all counts, your comment is not objective nor anywhere near an accurate observation. Perhaps you should work on developing those skills.;)

[ItemFinder]

Well since your wrong about me on all counts, your comment is not objective nor anywhere near an accurate observation. Perhaps you should work on developing those skills.;)
You can keep saying what you like, but the truth is, his arguments were objective. Just saying it's not true, doesn't make it untrue.

[Stoe99]

Men's biggest mistake is trusting something that bleeds for seven days and doesn't die

[Nikita]

You can keep saying what you like, but the truth is, his arguments were objective. Just saying it's not true, doesn't make it untrue.

And just saying it's objective doesn't make it true....:rolleyes:

[weedb0y]

Men's biggest mistake is trusting something that bleeds for seven days and doesn't die

lol

The 2004 survey found that 93% of divorce cases were petitioned by women, very few of which were contested.

[deep]

Nikita is both correct, and correct in not bothering to respond to that steaming pile of drivel.

If you honestly agree with the premise of the article, then the caveat that the article "may be of value to single men and women who are frustrated and confused" probably hits the nail right on the head.

(By the way, the biggest mistake I ever made DID involve a woman, but it was the vodka and the handguns that were the real issue.....at least to the D.A.)

[weedb0y]

lol @ post above.

I guess it has to be on a middle ground though. Both parties should respect each other and work together to form a life 'together'. There are certain things that woman want and desire without even knowing that they want them. If those expectations don't get fulfilled, then road ahead is full of bumps. At least from stats and personal observations and experiences, I can attest that most men are atleast more vocal about issues or don't keep them in to explode at later date.

[hotweiss]

Nikita is both correct, and correct in not bothering to respond to that steaming pile of drivel.

If you honestly agree with the premise of the article, then the caveat that the article "may be of value to single men and women who are frustrated and confused" probably hits the nail right on the head.

(By the way, the biggest mistake I ever made DID involve a woman, but it was the vodka and the handguns that were the real issue.....at least to the D.A.)

Once again, what do you disagree with? I assume you are an adult, so try to go beyond an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite.

[Nikita]

Once again, what do you disagree with? I assume you are an adult, so try to go beyond an oppositional childish stance based on emotion and spite.

Original...:rolleyes: What's this, your newly-learned phrase of the day?

[Impossibles]

lol

The 2004 survey found that 93% of divorce cases were petitioned by women, very few of which were contested.

78% of statistics posted on internet are pulled out of a rectal orafice.

[deep]

Hotweiss, I recall reading some of your arguments in the past, and I don't expect to get any sort of rational debate regarding another typical post. However, I will make a cursory reply, which is more than the article deserves.

1) Disjointed, unrelated points made by the author. The author either has ADHD, or a fake PhD. No one gets out of university without a basic understanding of how to formulate an argument.

2) The use of unnecessarily flowery language to make simply ridiculous statements look like educated truths. "Romantic love is the ersatz religion of our neo-pagan era, a form of idolatry based on sexual infatuation". The author doesn't even pretend to argue this point in the article, just lays it out there like some rotten egg and hopes his vocabulary is a useful substitute for intelligence.

3) The pathetic attempts to once again tie such an argument to CTs about central banks and the NWO:
3a) "[women] emasculate [men] by challenging and criticizing them. This is the agenda of the kabalistic central bankers who control the mass media, education and government." Really? What an incredible leap. Bankers are making my wife disagree with me? Please construct a logical argument to get from point A to point B.
3b) "It is a perversion to use [sex] as diversion and entertainment." Just as it is a perversion to use eating as a source of pleasure. It should be for sustenance only! Finally, combat should only be for destroying our enemies....stop all other forms of competition, such as football and wrestling.

4) "A man who "looks up" to a woman is destined to remain a child. On the other hand, a woman wants to look up to her husband." Right. Does this require an argument? I didn't think so. If you would like to explain how this plays out, be my guest. The author certainly doesn't make any attempt to say why this might be the case.

5) I'm not sure why the author proceeds to soften his point on sex at the very end. Sex for courtship? Sex for love? I thought those were perverted diversions? Sex is for procreation ONLY, thank you very much.

Sadly, I didn't have the time to do a point by point breakdown, as I have to go be with my family, but I might chime in again. I wish the author had included a few actual arguments in his article, instead of just making unfounded assertions. Perhaps you (hotweiss) would like to argue in favour of some of his points?

[king_george]

Wow a new kook tactic.
Tie is sex with the NWO and all the other evil cabals inthe world.:cheesygri

I'll bet this prof ain't getting any...

Looks like another case of here's a "theory", and it's valid until someone cares enough to debunk it. Another overeducated Phd kook and his rantings.. Ho hum another day another kookster.

And no, I'm not an adult today so lert's not use the phrase of the day...:razz:

[i6s1]

You're putting the pussy on the pedestal, like the goddess pussylia.

What he forgot to point out is that women were put on earth simply to serve and please men. And that a woman can never be as smart as a man.

Seriously, I liked the article. Some real truths combined with lots of general nuttyness.

The good:
"A woman expresses her love by her devotion to husband and children. She is loved for what she does, not for her sex appeal appearance."

"On the other hand, a woman wants to look up to her husband." This is true, if God wanted it the other way around, he would have made women taller then men. QED.

[masterhapposai]

Fact is if you don't follow something like this you simply won't get a girl, or you will be manipulated by one that you didn't want to be with.

This is 100% true in my circle of friends and amongst anyone I've met long enough to know their relationship status.

Of course some people will object and speak irrationally in defiance of the truth, but that's because they want some saps left over when they're older and/or poor to take advantage of.

I had a bunch of friends that did believe in these types of theories, and we all agreed to it roughly around 1999'ish. The 2 that objected back then slightly and now majorly are in these positions:

-1 is dominated by a much older woman who doesn't have anything going for her whether you judge her on looks/intelligence/success/personality/etc.. , in fact she steals $ off the table when you go out with people to eat, and reminds me of some form mole or rat with morals to match

-Other pays for everything when out with a girl and has been single for many years with no prospects and not even hope


The other 10+ that I know of that agreed to a similar theory and are doing very well with females and in their careers. And in my time talking to people in the city and even other countries, every male agrees with the theory or has been impacted negatively.

[Icedawn]

more than a little disturbed that such junk is considered "objective" or even an "argument" at all.

[Nikita]

more than a little disturbed that such junk is considered "objective" or even an "argument" at all.

Agreed. Completely. But hey, if people want to run their lives according to half-baked, non-scientific theories...their problem, not mine.

[masterhapposai]

more than a little disturbed that such junk is considered "objective" or even an "argument" at all.

Show me your greatest work and I will have something that is 80%+ drivel, redundant, cliche and useless (in that order probably too). You(or anyone else) have to output a lot before something meaningful is said. Some of the world's greatest leaders are known only for 1 sentence, 1 quote and 1 idea. It's just that the idea hasn't been said before or taken seriously.

Don't discount a discussion because you will miss the gems.

If you disagree with them, please state why.

[masterhapposai]

Agreed. Completely. But hey, if people want to run their lives according to half-baked, non-scientific theories...their problem, not mine.

As opposed to living your relationships according to ..., uh oh .. "science" hasn't proved anything regarding this topic.

And please stop replying continuously with "this theory is teh stupid" in the meantime. I await an actual idea from you that isn't full of insults, degradation and/or abuse of the word "science", hopefully by tomorrow.

You single people can bash it all you want while I'm out tonight.

[weedb0y]

Fact is if you don't follow something like this you simply won't get a girl, or you will be manipulated by one that you didn't want to be with.

This is 100% true in my circle of friends and amongst anyone I've met long enough to know their relationship status.

Of course some people will object and speak irrationally in defiance of the truth, but that's because they want some saps left over when they're older and/or poor to take advantage of.

I had a bunch of friends that did believe in these types of theories, and we all agreed to it roughly around 1999'ish. The 2 that objected back then slightly and now majorly are in these positions:

-1 is dominated by a much older woman who doesn't have anything going for her whether you judge her on looks/intelligence/success/personality/etc.. , in fact she steals $ off the table when you go out with people to eat, and reminds me of some form mole or rat with morals to match

-Other pays for everything when out with a girl and has been single for many years with no prospects and not even hope


The other 10+ that I know of that agreed to a similar theory and are doing very well with females and in their careers. And in my time talking to people in the city and even other countries, every male agrees with the theory or has been impacted negatively.

+1, agreed to 90% extent. I have seen men get divorced after 10 years just because they had put their wives on the pedestal. Left the kids in the house while he was at work. To pursue her freedom while she hadn't worked for 10 years while she was married and husband was making 300K+ (Senior exec at Dell).

[felixdd]

Sorry. For me to believe/accept any system of logic/thought, there must be supporting evidence/argument provided. It may be the result of an experiment, or a logical progression leading to a conclusion. But an argument is a process, the end of which is fact or conclusion. Otherwise it's just rhetoric; a statement with no truth value.

For example, I can say "the ground is hard". Its truth value is not inherent in it, nor has it been discussed why the ground is hard.

So lets dissect one, just one very small portion, of this article, shall we?

For a man to provide leadership to a woman is masculine; for a woman to accept that leadership is feminine. Of course, a man is going to consult his wife because one of his goals is to make her happy.
What is the definition of masculine? What is the definition of feminine? How does that pertain to the provision of leadership? Obviously the meanings and implications of leadership and masculinity, as it pertains to this article, do not perfectly overlap. In fact, why is it good for men to be masculine, or for women to be feminine?

The entire article is written in pieces. Statement after statement with no logical progression between them. Here's more:

This is the agenda of the kabalistic central bankers who control the mass media, education and government.
Which bankers? Who exactly? CIBC? BMO? Which governments are being controlled? How is mass media being controlled?

In "Satan: Prince of this World" William Guy Carr wrote: "Satanists have always used sex bribery and the depravities and perversions of sex to obtain control of men and women they wished to use to further their diabolical conspiracy. Satanism makes a God of sex."
I'm sorry, but I must reject the use of this as valid premise of an argument on the basis that William Guy Carr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Guy_Carr) is a theorist in the most generous of terms (and conspiracist, on a more realistic level). Using a theory to substantiate another theory is bad form, and can't be used to conclude a fact. The most you might make of it is that this article is Henry Makow's philosophy on the matter. But that's a very far cry from it reflecting reality.

So there you go, my critical analysis of the article. Can you accuse me of committing the same mistake as the author? No, because I at least took the effort to come up with material to support my argument.

Finally, I would like to point out this little internal incoherence in his framework:

A "means to an end" may sound harsh to some. But in fact, nature designed women to make things happen. Mainly babies. My first girlfriend said, "I want to be used."

If she did indeed operate under that framework, then that relationship must have failed, because she was his first girlfriend. I wonder if his second one had that same mentality too?

[deep]

The entire article is written in pieces. Statement after statement with no logical progression between them.

Exactly my point - there is no argument to disagree with, just a series of random statements that neither support nor complement each other.

[hotweiss]

Hotweiss, I recall reading some of your arguments in the past, and I don't expect to get any sort of rational debate regarding another typical post. However, I will make a cursory reply, which is more than the article deserves.

1) Disjointed, unrelated points made by the author. The author either has ADHD, or a fake PhD. No one gets out of university without a basic understanding of how to formulate an argument.

2) The use of unnecessarily flowery language to make simply ridiculous statements look like educated truths. "Romantic love is the ersatz religion of our neo-pagan era, a form of idolatry based on sexual infatuation". The author doesn't even pretend to argue this point in the article, just lays it out there like some rotten egg and hopes his vocabulary is a useful substitute for intelligence.

3) The pathetic attempts to once again tie such an argument to CTs about central banks and the NWO:
3a) "[women] emasculate [men] by challenging and criticizing them. This is the agenda of the kabalistic central bankers who control the mass media, education and government." Really? What an incredible leap. Bankers are making my wife disagree with me? Please construct a logical argument to get from point A to point B.
3b) "It is a perversion to use [sex] as diversion and entertainment." Just as it is a perversion to use eating as a source of pleasure. It should be for sustenance only! Finally, combat should only be for destroying our enemies....stop all other forms of competition, such as football and wrestling.

4) "A man who "looks up" to a woman is destined to remain a child. On the other hand, a woman wants to look up to her husband." Right. Does this require an argument? I didn't think so. If you would like to explain how this plays out, be my guest. The author certainly doesn't make any attempt to say why this might be the case.

5) I'm not sure why the author proceeds to soften his point on sex at the very end. Sex for courtship? Sex for love? I thought those were perverted diversions? Sex is for procreation ONLY, thank you very much.

Sadly, I didn't have the time to do a point by point breakdown, as I have to go be with my family, but I might chime in again. I wish the author had included a few actual arguments in his article, instead of just making unfounded assertions. Perhaps you (hotweiss) would like to argue in favour of some of his points?

1) Great rebuttal, but personal attacks are pathetic.

2) Is it ridiculous because these statements go against your frame of mind or is it ridiculous because you don't understand the context and meaning behind these words?

3) Now I see that your animosity is solely based on ignorance and the lack of any abstract thinking that would allow you to comprehend and validate those statements.

4) See number reply number 3.

5) If you see sex as a tool for procreation only, fine. We each set our own realities about what sex really is, but these realities are set by external influences. And this is what this article is mainly about! Sex has been intentionally subverted into a practice that is detrimental to womanhood and family.

[hotweiss]

Sorry. For me to believe/accept any system of logic/thought, there must be supporting evidence/argument provided. It may be the result of an experiment, or a logical progression leading to a conclusion. But an argument is a process, the end of which is fact or conclusion. Otherwise it's just rhetoric; a statement with no truth value.

For example, I can say "the ground is hard". Its truth value is not inherent in it, nor has it been discussed why the ground is hard.

So lets dissect one, just one very small portion, of this article, shall we?


What is the definition of masculine? What is the definition of feminine? How does that pertain to the provision of leadership? Obviously the meanings and implications of leadership and masculinity, as it pertains to this article, do not perfectly overlap. In fact, why is it good for men to be masculine, or for women to be feminine?

The entire article is written in pieces. Statement after statement with no logical progression between them. Here's more:


Which bankers? Who exactly? CIBC? BMO? Which governments are being controlled? How is mass media being controlled?


I'm sorry, but I must reject the use of this as valid premise of an argument on the basis that William Guy Carr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Guy_Carr) is a theorist in the most generous of terms (and conspiracist, on a more realistic level). Using a theory to substantiate another theory is bad form, and can't be used to conclude a fact. The most you might make of it is that this article is Henry Makow's philosophy on the matter. But that's a very far cry from it reflecting reality.

So there you go, my critical analysis of the article. Can you accuse me of committing the same mistake as the author? No, because I at least took the effort to come up with material to support my argument.

Finally, I would like to point out this little internal incoherence in his framework:



If she did indeed operate under that framework, then that relationship must have failed, because she was his first girlfriend. I wonder if his second one had that same mentality too?

Read this article:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n456640120524157/

You will have the same problem with statements made in this article. Why, because you don't have the foundation and an understanding of the context to properly comprehend the article, just like Henry Makow's article.

[deep]

1) 3) Now I see that your animosity is solely based on ignorance and the lack of any abstract thinking that would allow you to comprehend and validate those statements.
Now I see that your support of such statements is due solely to your complete ignorance of life as most people know it, and a lack of any thinking at all that would allow you to formulate individual intelligent thought. You never have any way at all of defending the garbage that you post. Please argue in it's favour, rather that taking your usual tack of just attacking your detractors.

5) If you see sex as a tool for procreation only, fine. We each set our own realities about what sex really is, but these realities are set by external influences. And this is what this article is mainly about! Sex has been intentionally subverted into a practice that is detrimental to womanhood and family.
Reading comprehension is also apparently an issue....the AUTHOR said that sex is only for procreation, not me. I think sex is just fine in current society...at least in my life. The author is the one who changes gears as to what he says sex is for.

As I said, I didn't expect much in return from you, and you validated that expectation entirely. You will always say that others are unable to comprehend the crap that you post here, but you don't appear to understand that such nonsense is easily and completely comprehensible. It is just as easily dismissed.

[JohnB]

I would REALLY like to be in a religion where I could get multiple hot wives...maybe up to 10 wives...some of my wives could work, while others would stay home to hang out with me...I think that would be ideal...

[felixdd]

Read this article:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n456640120524157/

You will have the same problem with statements made in this article. Why, because you don't have the foundation and an understanding of the context to properly comprehend the article, just like Henry Makow's article.

Actually, I'm fairly comfortable with that article. I have a life science background.

And if I have indeed misconstrued the basic tenets surround Makow's views, pray tell, where? Again -- it's one thing to make a statement, but be prepared to back it up.

So your statement is, "I don't have the foundation and an understanding of the context to properly comprehend the article..."

Where is your support?

[felixdd]

Two more points of criticism:

Makow starts the article to criticize that relationships often fail because men start to worship their significant other. In fact, although this isn't evident from his article, it is the main point he's trying to make. Scroll down and read his replies to readers' comments to find this,My point is that it is adolescent to worship women as though they were divine, and while they are flattered for a while, ultimately they weary of it, and you.. However, the entire second article discusses the demerits of promiscuity and pornography, and ends with a call to arms to "...fight the New World Order by upholding the traditional heterosexual family."

Simply put, wasn't he talking about men putting women on pedestals? How does that equate to being promiscuous, polygamous, and pornographic? If I were to worship a female figure, the last thing I would do is to go copulate with another.

And yet another criticism, he starts off the article by stating:
(Note: This may be of value to single men and women who are frustrated or confused. It doesn't apply to people who are happily married.)That's a huge cop-out. Sure, limit your audience to a select number, and then make broad-stroke statements about the population in general. When someone criticizes your statements, you can simply say, "oh it doesn't apply because you don't fall into the spectrum of the article." Sure, it works from a logical point of view, but it also limits the applicability of your argument, no?

[felixdd]

And to call to question the credibility of the author, this is the start of his newest article:

"Oh my Gawd!" I exclaimed when Benjamin Fulford sent me his picture with David Rockefeller. "He actually met the Grand Panjandrum of the New World Order!"

When we last tuned in, Benjamin Fulford had issued an ultimatum to the Illuminati on behalf of an ancient Chinese Secret society, consisting of six million members, including thousands of assassins, gangsters and ninjas: "Desist with your plans for world depopulation or else you and your families will be assassinated."

"We will pluck out the eye at the top of the Illuminati pyramid," Fulford told us. "We have trained ninjas close to them all. They will be wiped out in a matter of hours."...
From http://www.henrymakow.com/index.html

Do you still take him seriously now?

[deep]

Do you still take him seriously now?
Of course he does. And you, clearly, lack the world experience, intelligence, and uncommon common sense to put 2 and 2 together*. When you are ready to step beyond your infantile upbringing and embrace all of his views, hotweiss will be waiting with open arms.




*4.000000000007, but the NWO would have you believe it's a mere 4! bastards!