Categories
MRA

>The Devil and Henry Makow, PhD

>

Once upon a time, Henry Makow invented the game Scruples. Once upon a more recent time, he was a prominent Men’s Rights Activist, the proprietor of a website called savethemales.ca, and the author of a book, A Long Way to Go for a Date, an account of how he, a self-described “fat and unattractive 47-year old” traveled to the Phillipines to meet and marry a woman 30 years younger than him. (They divorced shortly afterwards.)

Then Makow discovered conspiracy theory. These days, he spends much less time denouncing feminism than he does attacking the secret Satanic-Jewish-Illuminati cabal that (allegedly) rules the world. Take a look at his site for a virtual buffet of conspiracy theory kookiness.

Today being Halloween, Makow treats his readers to a lovely piece by Richard Evans entitled “Halloween is Christmas for Satanists,” and, yes, he’s completely serious about it. Some of the pearls of wisdom found within:

Halloween as we know it was created by interests which we now identify as ‘Illuminati’ and Satanic. … American children used to be protected by laws which no longer exist.  They were protected by families and normal society. Before television it wasn’t so easy for self avowed witches to get inside their heads. The Illuminati recognized Halloween as the opportunity to do that. …

Halloween [has] graduated from benign harvest celebration into a Sex and Death festival. Sex and Death = Thanateros. Don’t tell me that mix of costumes I saw at the grocery store last night dressed either as zombies, or SM sluts, (and I saw two cross dressing males) isn’t a merger of sex and death. 

Despite the fact that he now lives almost entirely in crazyland, Makow still gets some attention from MRAs: here, for example, is the first in a series of YouTube intervews he gave an MRA last year on the evils of feminism. (See here, here, and here for more MRAs citing Makow approvingly.)

Still, I rather doubt there are many MRAs out there who actually agree with Makow that, for example, feminism is part of an evil plan by the Rockefellers to depopulate the world, or that the Satanic cult that secretly rules the world is introducing “Freemasonry … as the New World Religion.”

So where are the MRA critiques of Makow — or of other MRAs who cite Makow? So far I’ve only run across a couple of MRA blog posts actually offering a critique of his tinfoil-hat politics. (Apparently, “conspiracy theorists are manginas” who use their “convoluted conspiracy theories to justify [their] manginaism.” Meanwhile, our good friend Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech is annoyed that Makow has suggested, with his typical loopy logic, that all porn is gay.)

Are there any more MRA critiques of Makow out there I’ve missed?

35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tec
tec
11 years ago

>@Eoghan"Tec, your argument here is irrational, a non sequitur. "It's spelled "non sequitur", and you clearly don't know what it means. I would stick to english considering how many problems you already have with it before you take on latin. You said: "Like Malows nonsense, feminism is based mainly on conspiracy theory, patriarchy" I point out that the Romans were patriarchs. Hell, the emperor was called pater patriae – "father of the fatherland", which incidently is related to our current term, patriot. Then you said:"Tec, that's revisionist history, feminist history shouldnt be taken litrally, there are elements of truth to it but patriarchal abuse theory has been thoroughly debunked."You then, to disprove my point, give a pathetic straw man argument about Rule of Thumb, which, true to being a straw argument, doesn't disprove my original point, only seems to be related. How is that related to the Romans and their patriarchial institution? Please explain.You then say, "And anyway, ancient greece and rome has little to do with feminist conspiracy theory today, hint – ancient. "Well, if it hasn't anything to do with today, what the fuck is the Pope???? His title comes from pontifex maximus, the high Roman priest.You still haven't effectively proven how actual sources from the Roman period, written by Romans, are somehow "revisionist". You apparently don't understand that concept either. So in other words, Eoghan, prove how Romans were not patriarchs otherwise take back your previous statement that patriarchy is a conspiracy theory. Good luck with that.

Eoghan
11 years ago

>TecAny society that doesn't have reliable birth control and the technology to sustain a surplus of female friendly jobs and a nanny state is going to be mainly male lead and women are going to be dependent on men, thats an inevitable outcome.The conspiracy theories, political fear mongering, scapegoating, pseudo history and propaganda that feminism has built up around patriarchy is where the inaccuracy is found, its faux. Ideology designed by the manipulative the manipulate the gullible, its like a religion.Feminist pseudo history also taught young impressionable young people .."The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. … The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology —the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors".http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965Like as you say, the bible, feminist pseudo history shouldn't be taken literally. Your reverting back to something that Maximus probably didnt say 1000s of years ago to maintain a shaky position today is the feminist equivalent of a Christian quoting verses of genesis in an argument about evolution.

tec
tec
11 years ago

>@EoghanSo your argument is as follows:A myth about Romulus and Remus are obvy just that a myth…and therefore, despite being actual sources from a written period in Roman history, we should ignore them as "false" as well? That's so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin. "Your reverting back to something that Maximus probably didnt say 1000s of years ago"The whole point is Maximus did say that. We have the source text. Why don't you try, I don't know, reading instead of making stupid false assumptions and posting straw arguments that make no sense?

David Futrelle
11 years ago

>Eoghan, why don't you try reading this, and then get back to us: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Patriarchy-Women-History/dp/0195051858

Eoghan
11 years ago

>Christians have their sacred text as do feminists.I don't think you know what a straw man argument is Tec. Most of what you say here is fallacy based. The notion that events reported by womens studies which is a largely a faux academic discipline containing political indoctrination and ideology in the style of the old soviet education system, in ancient rome are somehow relevant today.Even if Maximus did say that, and someone bothered to write it down you have the original script as you say.. its irrelevant today.And your story is most likely like rule of thumb and the romulus and remus story, invented and presented as truth to the gullible to fuel a political movement.

Tec
Tec
11 years ago

>@EoghanThey are not reported by women's studies. They are source texts!Eoghan, you're a fucking moron if you simply can't understand that. What's next? Dinosaur bones are made up? Because that's the equivalent of what you're doing – dismissing ages old evidence as not real because it doesn't fit with your world view.And I've already pointed out how dimissing the Romulus and Remus myth isn't disputing actual source texts. Again, straw argument. You appear to be refuting what I'm saying by talking about something similar, but in no way actually refuting it. Straw argument. Dispute actual source texts. Or shut the fuck up about stuff you don't know what you're talking about…

Pam
Pam
11 years ago

>Farrell just keeps stirring the pot without offering any viable solutions, feeding off men's "righteous anger" and laughing all the way to the bank! He's found a 'niche market' that he can exploit for his own profit, much like the producers of Viagra, etc. The concern is no longer with helping men, it's profiting off the vanities and insecurities of men under the guise of "helping".No, it seems to be inconceivable to you that societies that have been mainly male led, slanting the system to favour men in order to sustain that lead position, could have caused problems for women. That's NOT to say that women are totally blameless, as many chose to capitulate and support systems that caused them problems (mainly just in order to survive). What men refuse to acknowledge is how these male led systems also did harm to THEM, especially those on the lower rungs of the hierarchical ladder, because they enjoy the privileges that were bestowed upon them…it's a tradeoff, but one designed by men, not women.Sure men band together on MRM and MRA boards/blogs and discuss prostate cancer to bring these issue to light, but always in an adversarial manner comparing and contrasting to funding for women's health issues, such as breast cancer. Next thing you know, the comments devolve further into general women-hating and the actual topic has been lost. Anger appears to be more easily expressed by men than pleas for help.But that doesn't mean that ALL of men's health issues are ignored or invisible because men are not important, just that the men's health issues that ARE taking precedence are garnering such huge profits for the big pharmaceuticals that they don't require extra funding or activities such as charity runs, blue (red, green, purple…) ribbon campaigns, etc. Instead of taking on breast cancer research as the pet whipping boy for the lack of funding for prostate cancer research, why doesn't the MRM take on the big pharmaceuticals that spend part of their profits on advertising to fund the Viagra, Levitra and Cialis wars instead of using that money towards developing a cure or preventative for prostate cancer? Discuss a letter writing campaign to the American or Canadian or whatever country's Cancer Society to ask what you can do to promote awareness of prostate cancer and what types of charitable activities can be done and then organize and join in those activities. For example, women will wear pink shoes and pink ribbons to sell same to raise money for breast cancer research, will men agree to, say, wear blue shoes and blue ribbons to sell same to raise money for prostate cancer research or would they deride each other for doing so?

Eoghan
11 years ago

>PamMale lead societies were inevitable, it wasn't that it was slanted that way deliberately, its reliable birth control, technology and the nanny state that makes things more equal and historically it was, and still is men at the bottom of society, a woman at home was better off than a man in mine, (as we discussed, women fought the previous attempt at equality because the conditions were so bad) besides that should have little to do with feminism slanting the system in favour of women today, most people (mrm/real feminists) agree that equal opportunity is more favorable than coerced supremacy of one group over another and systemic bias. As for the pink shoes and ribbons that women wear, "non profits" and charities make a fortune out of women, they will donate just 1% or whatever it is to research or whatever the cause might be, the real bias in healthcare funding is in the system, not in the "non profits" that make a fortune out of women wearing pink shoes and so on. And mens rights groups do look at areas like healthcare research, you seem to be stuck on the idea that mens rights bloggers are incorrect because they are not working on a cause that you deem correct, something to do with viagra and prostate cancer… which makes little sense to me. The mens rights bloggers are doing what bloggers do, blogging from a mens rights perspective and telling people about the systemic biases, raising awareness, sharing information, making it known that feminism is lying about men. Were it not for the internet, most of us would have no idea about these systemic biases and legal inequalities. You may feel that challenging these biases and polemics and their source has no merit and feel that wearing coloured shoes and ribbons is where activism is at, but I disagree with you there. David – from the review section"Editorial ReviewsFrom Library Journal – "Using admittedly sparse prehistorical evidence…" I wont be reading that, it sounds like a political fiction.

Eoghan
11 years ago

>Back to farrell, was he alright when he was doing the same work with women or was he always a bad person?

slimekiller
slimekiller
7 years ago

Yeah, say what you want but so far his conspiracies are turning into fact. You don’t think there is a police state emerging? Do you know what a Khazarian is??? if you don’t know either of those two things, then you are not a conspiracy nut, what you are is ignorant and that is worse. Thomas Jefferson said, rightly so, that ““If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –

%d bloggers like this: