By Henry Markow
In 1965, Helen Gurley Brown, the editor of Cosmopolitan, said that a housewife was "a parasite, a dependent, a scrounger, a sponger or a bum."
This is typical of the vicious media campaign global mind controllers have waged against society since 1950.
This campaign to destroy families, arrest heterosexual development, create social dysfunction and reduce population was devastatingly successful.
The scale of marital breakdown in the West since 1960 has no historical precedent," says historian Lawrence Stone. (Bennett, The Broken Hearth, 10)
In 40 short years, the marriage rate is down by one third, the divorce rate has doubled, the birth rate is one half, and single parent families per capita have tripled. Most people are too preoccupied coping to recognize or resist globalist manipulation.
In 1952, the Rockefellers annually controlled $250 million dollars of media advertising. Their newspapers and networks hyped Helen Gurley Brown's 1962 book "Sex and the Single Girl" and the movie by the same name. Millions of single women were told to seek personal fulfillment in career instead of family. At the same time, the Rockefellers were funding and lobbying for population control and eugenics.
As editor of Cosmopolitan (1965-97), Brown was a role model and "teacher" for career women in America and around the world (36 foreign editions.) She married at age 37 and remained childless.
"She is arguably one of the most influential women of the decade, perhaps even the century", one women's website gushes. [http://www.swinginchicks.com/helen_gurley.htm]"She instructed, helped, advised, cheered for, encouraged, liberated, and promoted women, giving them new role models to emulate and a new manual for the sexual revolution. Armed with the pill, she showed women how they ...could take advantage of ... their sexual destinies."
Along with Communist activist Betty Frieden,[http://www.savethemales.ca/150801.html] and CIA agent Gloria Steinem,[http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html] Brown belongs to the triumvirate of modern feminist "pioneers."
WHAT HOUSEWIVES ARE NOT...
Brown didn't accuse the wife of being a whore.
Brown respects whores.
In her latest book, "I'm Wild Again" (2000) she tells us right away that in 1941, at age 19 she joined an "escort service" and made out with a 50-year-old man for $5.
"Why wasn't I revolted? I was a little but not utterly. I think even then I was a practising realist.... I tried to do whatever you needed to do to survive." (4)
She wasn't prepared to become a prostitute, not exactly.
She got a secretarial job on the understanding that she would sleep with her married boss and he would "take care" for her in return. This arrangement lasted for a few years. She describes the routine:
"After cocktail hour we did go to my flat to make love. The lovemaking? ...This was two people copulating ñ he seemed to have a good time...Moi learned to fake often and well." (15)
Brown's excuse is that she was a helping a mother and invalid sister back in Arkansas. (Prostitutes generally don't come from wealth.)
She laments she never really got the promised financial payoff for being a mistress: "I needed somebody to tell me how to treat a man in this situation, how to flatter and cuddle and coo. I should have done it better." (19)
Helen Gurley Brown became that "somebody to tell me how to treat a man in this situation."
She taught women how to be mistresses, corporate and otherwise, instead of wives and mothers. She helped to transform the female mentality from one of devotion and love to one of a calculating predator.
Here is how she got her husband to marry her.
"You get the hook in. Darling, charming, delicious, sexy you has to have sunk into him so seriously, the hook [is] buried so deep he can't get it out without severe pain, i.e. can't live without you. You then close in and deliver your ultimatum. I had to deliver mine twice."(27)
While Brown claims she was loyal, she thinks adultery is just fine. The man's wife is to blame if he strays. Sex, Brown says, "is a physical feeling" "it feels good... one of the best things we have...." not to be subjected to "a moral imperative."
Suffocating a sexual urge can lead to "twitches, tension or depression" and driving "off a cliff some night." (52) But, like a practised madam, she cautions "never sleep with someone who has less money or more troubles than you." (225)
Office romances and even sleeping with the boss is just fine as long as you're discreet. (107) She tells her readers to make the boss "look good," let him take credit for their work, and don't complain about putting in extra hours.
Feminism, it seems, has stolen wives and mothers from families, and put them to work for corporations. Instead of following husbands who love them "until death do thee part," women now obey bosses who pay for their services and fire them in a downturn.
In Brown's view, if a loving husband provides for a devoted wife, she is a "parasite." But if she is a corporate slave or mistress, then she is "independent" and "liberated."
FAMILY vs. FEMINISM: THE BATTLELINE OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER
The global controllers need to destroy the family to control the individual. When people do not belong to a family, they need to belong to something else, which the corporate state will supply.
A smoking gun! The elite doesn't want us to reproduce.
In 1970, Frederick Jaffe, the VP of Rockefeller-sponsored "Planned Parenthood" organization outlined how "social constraints" should be used to achieve "fertility control."[http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci_a_method_to_the_madness.htm] ("Family Planning Perspectives" Oct.1970.)
These "constraints" included encouraging "increased homosexuality," altering "the image of the ideal family," and encouraging women to work outside the home.
If this failed, the agency recommended the placement of "fertility control agents in the water supply." We're not talking about unwanted pregnancies here.
The unprecedented decline of the American family since 1960 did not take place by accident. We are victims of a campaign of psychological warfare carried out by the CIA and foundations through the media, government and education. [http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.htm]
They put the neutering agent in the cultural drinking water. The main ingredient is the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality.
Feminism, which masquerades as "woman's rights," is in fact a pathological lesbian movement. It coerces women to believe that their feminine instincts are socially taught, oppressive and evil. It teaches them to fear and compete with men, and to find fulfillment in career instead of family.
Women who devote their lives to their families are the finest aspects of human life. They are saints who bring love and beauty into the world and tend to the real everyday needs of men and children. To disparage these women is a foul, vicious calumny worthy of the devil himself. Yet that's what the feminist movement is all about, though they deny it.
Betty Frieden, the "moderate" feminist founder, who hid the fact that she was a Communist activist, compared homemakers to concentration camp victims. Simone de Beauvoir, another Communist founder, said women must not be given a choice to be mothers and homemakers because they'll choose that option. According to feminist Ellen Willis, feminism "is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values...The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion...to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values." (The Nation, Nov. 14, 1981)
What part of traditional family values do feminists object to? Love? Sacrifice? Devotion? Loyalty? Security? The preparation of a new generation for life?
A distracted, dysfunctional population, deprived of its history and culture, will not recognize its fate in time. Men, emasculated and demoralized, will not be able to resist.
Feminists would be outraged if they knew they were being hoodwinked by the corporate elite.
They think they are fighting the "patriarchy" but in fact they are victims of a plot to bring down the birth rate by spreading sexual chaos among men and women.
Search for "Women's Studies, Rockefeller Foundation" in Google and you'll discover 15,000 examples of how the people who funded depopulation and Nazi eugenics are funding feminism.[http://www.savethemales.ca/200202.html] This is not a coincidence.
By making women compete with men for the male role, feminism is classic Communist "divide and conquer".[http://www.savethemales.ca/031001.html] They use race and class as well.
To equalize power is to eliminate sexual distinction. This doesn't mean that woman are not powerful and effective as women, but not by becoming men.
Men -- steer clear of any sexual relationship where you are not in charge.
Just as femininity should be respected, so should masculinity.
You emasculate a man when you take away his power. (The corporate elite is using feminism to do just that.)
A husband will consult his wife but eventually someone has to make a decision. A man who is ruled by his wife is less a man. He feels like a little boy with his mother.
On the other hand, when his wife accepts his leadership, he feels like a man. Women help to make men.
Similarly, a wife who follows her husband's leadership feels more like a woman. If she can't follow him, she should be married to someone else.
There is no such thing as "equality" in terms of power. (Feminist "equality" is really a ploy for female domination. For example, you don't hear feminists calling for equality at universities where women often outnumber men by 2-1 .)
Men should avoid opinionated, aggressive, demanding women. It's too late to save them. This will spare you a great deal of time, money and anguish.
The essence of femininity is for a woman to depend on the man she loves.
The intimate male-female dynamic is for woman to entrust worldly power to her husband, and for him to use it to make her happy.
Man wants power. Women want love (not power.) They ARE different.
A man wants to make the woman he loves happy . Does he consult her? How else can he please her?
She reciprocates by making him happy. The energy flows.
Woman must give man the power to love her. If she is "strong, bold and independent," as she is being taught, he becomes redundant ( i.e. the true feminist agenda.)
Woman shows she loves a man by empowering him, by surrendering and trusting. Women want to be possessed by a man's love. (They are not men.)
Of course the contract breaks down if the man doesn't keep his end of the bargain. He must be her champion, loyal and loving to the end. If this contract breaks down, the marriage is over.
A feminist tends to try to control a man, to tell him how to please her (without being asked, and as if she always knows what she really wants.) These relationships fail.
A woman is a vehicle by nature. She is waiting for a man's call. She wants to be used by the man she loves for a higher purpose. One such purpose is to create a healthy happy family.
A man, therefore, should have a clear idea of what he wants, and the role he wants a woman to play. Then he finds a wife who meets HIS criteria instead of contorting himself for every sexually attractive woman he meets.
A man's first passion should always be his work. As my father tried to tell me, "a man's work is his backbone."
Women think they want to be a man's first love, but they don't respect these men.
Age-old standards of masculinity still apply. A man must supply just leadership and sustenance to his family. Therefore he must have control. (Domestic violence legislation is designed to destroy families by undermining paternal authority. Ninety five per cent of the cases involve power struggles NOT battered women. See http://www.zerotolerancesucks.com/)
These days men have no way to measure themselves. They are like little boys looking for love. A woman needs to be enlisted, not entreated.
Woman's nature is to nurture and love her husband and children. She wants to be needed, honored and loved in return. A woman should never be taken for granted. (Nor should a man.)
When a woman identifies with her husband, they become one in marriage. If they remain "independent," they remain roommates open to every temptation. Certainly a woman has her own interests and career but these are not her first priority.
A woman has a limited "window of opportunity" (approximately 12 years) in which to start a family. Millions have been duped into concentrating on a career instead of a husband. They are consigned to lonely frustrated bitter lives thumbing well-worn copies of "The Vagina Monologues". [http://www.savethemales.ca/241001.html]
A woman wants to be an extension of her husband. She is the spiritual ground in which he plants his seed. She is the recipient of to his spirit. By "accepting" him wholeheartedly, he "belongs" to her. This union results in psychological maturity for both. Together they create a new world and bring children into it.
Millions of people suffer from arrested development due to elite sponsorship of feminism which has poisoned heterosexual relations. Societal obsession with sex and pornography is a symptom. Society has witnessed an unprecedented decline in the nuclear family with a parallel increase in personal and social dysfunction.
Events like the accounting scandals teach us that the corporate elite, with its political and media minions, are not our friends. They are out to ravage the general population. They have been doing this for a long time and it is becoming more obvious since Sept. 11, 2001.
However you interpret your heterosexual nature, affirming it is an essential step to resisting the New World Order. It is a way to remain healthy and find happiness in an increasingly difficult and bizarre world.
An item in a story on blind dates in a local university newspaper caught my eye.
The young female author advised girls to bring "protection" on the date, "just in case."
The blithe notion that a girl might jump into bed with a stranger on a first date shows how far females have been hoodwinked by "sexual liberation."
To begin with, the term "sexual liberation" is typical Masonic double speak. Liberation is when you don't have to think about sex all the time. Casual sex ensures that you do.
Sexual liberation is part of a feminist strategy to make young women devote their most fertile years to building a career instead of a family. The deceitful logic, expressed in books like "Sex and the Single Girl" [http://www.savethemales.ca/130103.html] is, "If you can have sex outside of marriage, why get married?" (So your life is devoted to something greater than career?)
The world elite is using feminism to reduce population and do away with the family. Their media bombards us with young fertile women pursuing demanding careers and supplanting men as providers. We are also bombarded with young women flaunting themselves "no strings attached."
Young women are being tricked into thinking promiscuity is "cool" and the way to get love. When they succumb, they usually feel used, empty and angry.
"Sexual liberation" is incompatible with feminine psychology, which is based on biology.
One male ejaculation produces 200 million sperm. A woman produces one egg a month.
Thus man who could populate a planet, tends to care about abstractions and principles. Woman, on the other hand, has a unique ability to care for a few real people.
A woman needs a man to focus on her (and his offspring) to the exclusion of all the other women. Sexual liberation obviously does not serve her. Love and marriage do.
Furthermore, for a woman sexual intercourse is total self-surrender. She doesn't only remove her clothes; she surrenders her whole being. This is why a woman becomes so radiant and beautiful in the sex act. She is sacrificing herself for love, for the survival of the species.
Love is self-surrender. Sexual intercourse is the act of love. Even if conception doesn't take place, it has the same psychic significance. This is why traditional morality reserved sexual intercourse for love.
Love naturally takes time to grow. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman's trust and love. Women should insist on it.
BAD FOR MEN TOO
For a man, the sex act is planting his seed, which is his essence. He should not plant it indiscriminately, symbolically or not.
For a man, love is a different kind of self-surrender. He devotes himself to providing leadership and sustenance to his family. He acquires stability and meaning from this sacrifice, and from intimacy with his wife.
In order to develop psychologically, a man needs a woman to accept his leadership. Obviously a woman who has been burned by successive men will find it difficult to trust and acquiesce.
Sexually, a woman responds best when she can lose herself completely. (See "The Power of Sexual Surrender") [http://www.savethemales.ca/290502.html*] A woman's arousal is what arouses a man. That is why "sexual liberation" is bad for both sexes.
By eschewing love, "sexual liberation" has debased all male-female relationships. But young women especially have been degraded by this false satanic ideology.
They have been taught to bare their souls to males who only want to use their bodies.
The recent fashion of baring the midriff is a metaphor for feminine degradation. Most women do not have the body for this. It makes them look silly and cheap, and feel more insecure than ever.
It's time young women stopped being fashion victims. Like feminism, "sexual liberation" is a cruel elite-sponsored hoax.
It's time young women obeyed their own instincts, and insisted on true sexual liberation based on courtship and marriage.
Heterosexual marriage is the union of the PERSONAL (Woman) with the IMPERSONAL (Man).
This basic difference is seen in the male and female reaction to sex. A man will have sex with any number of attractive women. A woman instinctively requires love. Her focus is personal, on a specific man.
Feminists seek to destroy the realm of the personal represented by women. "The personal is the political," they say parroting their Rockefeller-Communist forbearers. They force women to behave as though they were men.
Feminism is a lesbian hatred and envy of women. Lesbians hate their own femininity because their father didn't love them. They project their self-hatred on all things feminine. They despise a woman's dependence on a man and her desire to bear his children. They can't be women so they try to be men.
In marriage, a woman is a man's point of contact with the personal, the world of emotion and love. A man is a woman's contact with the impersonal world of money and power. Together they complete each other and form a psychic whole. This is a healthy environment for children.
In intimate relations, women must sacrifice power for love. Women love by self-sacrifice. This is based on a mother's love for a child. Because of their sacrifice, women are loved and cherished by their families. From the beginning, they must train husbands and children not to take them for granted.
Men do not love in quite the same way. They increase their power and devote the rewards to their wives and children. This is also a form of self-sacrifice and it is what motivates men. Quite simply, women empower their husbands who then love and protect them. As you see, feminism robs both men and women of their raison d'etre.
The heterosexual contract is not arbitrary, oppressive or rigid. My wife has a professional career. I do all the shopping and cooking. Once the sexual dynamic is clear, couples can make their own rules. And of course, this power arrangement does not apply to the work world.
Women achieve godliness through self-sacrifice. It is a vicious slander (typical of Rockefeller leftists and feminists) to portray devoted hardworking wives and mothers as "bums" and "parasites." The assumption that only work performed for cash (state/economy) is of value is pure new world order. They want to eradicate the personal and spiritual, the private life of the family and the work that this entails.
Brown says, "Whenever you live through someone else, they want someone else." This is simply not true. We love mom because she put us ahead of becoming the top producer at Century 21. Love is self-sacrifice.
Beyond a certain point, ambition in a woman is masculine and impersonal. America is full of bitter neutered women and befuddled emasculated men.
Feminism pretends to be about equal opportunity for women because no one will quarrel with that. In fact, feminism is a sophisticated elite program to destabilize and depopulate the world by undermining heterosexuality.
Iraq is as much about global social disintegration as it is about oil. The new world order is a struggle for man's soul. It is an attempt to steal our spiritual birthright, our connection to God.
Strong loving men and women can create homes where God is a Presence. Survivors of broken homes are easy prey to the devil, and his pawns: Helen Gurley Brown and the power elite.
Sahibzada Junaid Noor
Islamic Republic of Pakistan