From Ken Adachi <Editor>
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/makowandhomosexuality15feb06.shtml
February 15, 2006

----- Original Message -----
From: David <david@freedomwizard.com>
To: Ken Adachi <Editor>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Subject: Religion is mind control

Dear Ken,

I have been consulting your web page for a long time, have a super cloud-buster in my back yard (tornado by Galaero). I also went with him on an HHG gifting expedition.  This is to make the point that I value freedom and oppose tyranny.

So I was dismayed to read an article on your website by Henry Makow, that somehow equated freedom with bible inspired bigotry and sexual repression.  While I am as hetero-sexual as they get, I have met many homosexuals who inspire a deep respect.  Because nature gave them a brain chemistry that attracts them to the same sex, does not make them perverted or their lifestyle any less legitimate than mine or yours.  Their sexual orientation is part of who they are and makes them no less admirable as human beings.

A major portion of the subversion of our humanity has come through the sexual repression of the mainstream religions.  Sexual energy is the most powerful drive we have and is not separable from our spiritual energy.  Many consider Tantra a path to God.  Perversion exists only in the presence of sexual repression.  So I am sorry to see you giving voice to the "sex is dirty" mentality that has done so much harm to our joy in living and even our spiritual expression.  Mainstream religion has been used by the dark forces to enslave our minds for over 2000 years.  A big part of that enslavement has been the soul crushing shame that was attached to our bodies and our sexuality.  The most violent and neurotic societies are the most repressed.  Frustrated men are more likely to fight and go to war.

Bigots like Henry Makow equate healthy sexual expression with the addictive behavour of Hugh Hefner.  Monogamy is not the only relationship structure ordained by "God".  Surely the key question to ask, in deciding if an action is ethical, is "Does anyone get harmed".  Abstract concepts like bible-based "morality" serve only to limit us and stunt our growth as humans and spiritual beings.

David Lerner

---- Original Message -----
From: Ken Adachi <Editor>
To: "David" <david@freedomwizard.com>
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006
Subject: Re: Religion is mind control

Hi David,

I understand the point you are making and will post your letter because many people, perhaps even a majority, might  react as you have to Makow's essay, but I'm afraid that the story is far more sophisticated than what you have comprehended and you don't see the manipulation of your progressive 'opinion' by the Man Behind the Curtain. In fact, you have reacted in the easy-to-understand and obvious manner that it was INTENDED for you to react because you've been influenced by  propaganda. I'll provide a few examples below to illustrate my point, but first let's talk about your "opinion".

I can see that you've been well conditioned when you accuse me of  holding a "'sex is dirty' mentality." When you trump that with the "religions enslave" with the sex related guilt chestnut, then I know that they got you reciting all the right mantras- and on cue. You "value freedom and oppose tyranny", yet you cannot recognize that you play into the hands of the Illuminati who intends to take both away from you by undermining the very foundation of  society- the family. By the way, homosexuality is not exclusively a result of different 'brain' chemistry. The social environment plays a considerable role in the development of homosexual tendencies, as many who research the topic have confirmed, but homosexual promoters and propaganda will claim quite the opposite.

It took a long time for your mind set about homosexuality to be implanted and then inculcated so that it's part of your belief system. It's a very gradual process. I think that it began in earnest in America with the movie "The Boys in the Band" which came out somewhere in the late 1970's ( I can't remember exactly). Larry Luckinbill (sp?) who is married to the daughter of Lucille Ball (a significant fact which will become more apparent in another article to be published about mind control, Satanism, and Hollywood), was one of the stars in that movie. He was featured in a lot of magazine interviews at the time of the movie's debut. He wanted the public to know that he was personally a solid heterosexual (like you have), but that the public needs to recognize the basic humanity of homosexual people and to be less condemnatory.  Fine, who can argue with that?  

You're making the same argument, of course, but no one is attempting to condemn homosexuals as people, Makow is talking about the promotion of homosexuality. He certainly isn't endorsing Hugh Hefner's world as "healthy". You missed that one completely. I didn't like that Henry called Hugh Hefner's girl friends "whores". I didn't think that was fair. A kept woman is not necessarily a whore. Even six kept women aren't necessarily whores.

When you say things like:"Sexual energy is the most powerful drive we have and is not separable from our spiritual energy" and " Perversion exists only in the presence of sexual repression", it tells me that you need to hire a pilot to take you through the shoals because you're going to flounder. While sex and spiritual "energy' could co-exist and compliment each other, sex is not inseparable from spirituality. It is very separable. In fact, the promotion of homosexuality is part of the agenda to remove spirituality from sex and reduce it to an act of physical gratification only (and I'm not saying that homosexuals can't have feelings of love towards each other)-as is the promotion of pornography (which is also Illuminati inspired).

Just to answer your question up front-- Who gets harmed? Children get harmed and society disintegrates as a consequence.

As to your statement that " Perversion exists only in the presence of sexual repression", all I can do is sigh and ask that you look around the room for your head and screw it back on. You look ridiculous without it.

So how was your 'progressive' opinions formed? Gradually- ever so gradually. We are now introduced to more and more homosexuals who 'come out of the closet'  these days and become 'liberated' from the tyranny of hiding their 'true' identity. Sound familiar? How many TV shows are now seen that flaunt homosexuality in a positive light? What's the supposedly 'biggest' movie being touted on radio and TV as the Academy Award winner this year? Broke Back Mountain-of course-a picture about homosexual cowboys (just a coincidence, of course, no behind-the-scenes propaganda manipulation possible there!).

You are led to assume that your progressive attitude about homosexuals is akin to the liberation of the female vote or freedom from child labor. And that's why you view Makow as a "bigot" because he's not going along with the now politically correct (and safe) posture of "accepting" homosexuals into society -at every level of social intercourse and family development -as being 'normal' in all regards. Right? Therefore, there's no reason for homosexuals to be denied a marriage licence or denied the rights and privileges of parenthood since it's OK and perfectly  acceptable to have two Mommies or two Daddies in place of one Mommy and one Daddy. Only a 'bigoted' person would think otherwise, right?

Here's Example #1: Read this paragraph and notice how convincing and 'acceptable' the objective appears to be.

"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future."

Now if you didn't read the Red Flag words "new world order", you would likely agree with the apparent ideals in this statement, wouldn't you? You have to admit, it sounds good on the surface, but what is the reality behind the words versus the MYTH that the words are tying to inculcate in the mind of the reader or listener?

You have the advantage of knowing that the author of those words, George Bush Sr (state of the union address, January 16, 1991), is a major player in the hierarchy of the satanic Illuminati and you are therefore on guard against his deceptive words because you know better than to trust him, BUT what if you didn't know about his reputation and just accepted his words on the face of it, you could easily be led down the garden path, as they say, into acceptance because it sounds good. It's not difficult to sell any idea if you are clever enough in the way you manipulate your words and arguments and present your ideas gradually and steadily, taking as much time as necessary (years) for the acclimation process to dominate popular 'opinion'. In today's Illuminati-controlled world, 'public opinion' is created by design; it does not evolve naturally.

Gradual acclimation is the principal vehicle employed by the Illuminati to get you to accept ANYTHING that they want you to accept as 'normal'. The Illuminati gets you accustomed to police state controls by introducing one, relatively minor 'requirement',  after another to get you to knuckle under as a cooperating slave. For example, is there any truly legitimate reason why you have to provide your social security number and your driver's licence (to be photo copied) in order to be seen by your doctor or your dentist? Not really, but just TRY and make an appointment to  see a physician or dentist WITHOUT providing your "ID" and see how far you get.

 

Example #2 is more sexual in content. Let's say that I want to acclimate you to the idea that adults having sex with teens is OK. I begin my propaganda efforts by producing a beautiful and touching movie that presents the love affair between a 16 year old high school girl and a 30 year old teacher, for example. It wins all kinds of academy awards, like "The Boys in the Band" or "Love Story" did some years ago. It's not such a big deal that a  30 year old man and a 16 year old girl can fall in love and it's only natural that they would progress to the sex act. Perfectly normal, right? After all, Juliet was 14 years old when she met Romeo at that dance in Verona so many centuries ago (even in fiction land). So far, so good, right? 

 

Now let's fast forward a couple of years, and I now come out with another touching story about a 14 year old girl who runs away with a 22 year old college dropout who together go on an adventurous sea voyage or something. You're slightly uncomfortable with the girl's age, but you'll still accept it as OK because you know that girls 'mature' so much faster than guys do in today's world and you understand very well that it's more than possible for a 14 year old teenager to fall crazy in love with an adult and 'go all the way', right? You began to fall in love with someone when you were about 14 years old, didn't you?

After I get you to accept 14 year old girls as legitimate sexual conquests for adult males, then maybe I can get you to lower the bar to 13 or even 12.5 year olds because some girls are developing really big breast by age 11, 12 or 13 these days and if they have breasts, then, biologically speaking at least, they are ready for intercourse, right?  After all, "love" between two people knows no bounds of age or even gender. Isn't that the message that NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, wishes to preach? There's nothing really "wrong", they claim, with an adult male having anal intercourse with a 10, 11, or 12 year old boy, just as long as the boy is "consenting "  to this 'love act'. Right?

Do you see what I'm doing here?

I'm using these examples to illustrate how we are led down the 'gradual acclimation' path of acceptance.

You've missed Makow's argument when you condemn him as a "bigot". Expressing disapproval of a perverse act, perverse conduct, or a perverse lifestyle is not bigotry, it's an assessment of conduct that is outside the normal boundaries established by Nature. Is it 'natural' for men to have anal intercourse with each other or is the female vagina the 'natural' receptacle? Is it 'natural' for a man to have intercourse with a sheep, even though it is physically possible to engage in that behavior? Makow made it clear that he is not advocating the persecution of homosexuality, but rather is expressing his disapproval of the promotion of homosexuality.

The Illuminati is destroying America from within. They do it on multiple fronts and they use an endless army of witting (and unwitting) agents to carry out their goals. They use brainwashing and propaganda to bring about the desired agenda. The strength of any nation is wholly dependent on the inner core and stability of the nuclear family structure. They are dismantling that structure by the aggravation of dissatisfaction and disharmony between husbands and wives through the promotion of pornography and the friction engendered between men and woman by the so-called feminist movement. Before feminists, like CIA agent Gloria Steninem, got the national legislators to install unilateral divorce laws (one spouse can force a divorce without the consent or agreement of the other spouse), we had about a 10% divorce rate. By time the last US Census rolled around, it was nearly 80% (just another coincidence, of course, no intended manipulation I'm sure). A high divorce rate has profound and detrimental effects on children's emotional stability and adjustment. The same could be said of the promotion of gays as being the equivalent of natural parents. The entire "child custody" and "child support" industry , and the mountains of misery that it has produced, was engineered into existence by feminists and the creation of unilateral divorce "laws".

The Illuminati further promotes the decay of the targeted society by the promotion, or at least the acceptance, of perversion. Homosexuality is one expression of perversion. Teens who cut themselves in acts of self mutilation (called "cutting") is another expression of perversion (actually a by-product of mind control programming-but the teens and their parents don't know it). Watching a couple fornicate on stage while you're eating your dinner (live sex shows/dinner clubs) is yet another expression of social perversion which will be coming to a diner theater near you-and not too distant in the future.

The One World that the Illuminati wish to create is devoid of spirituality, morals, ethics, a belief in God, and love. Physical appetite is to replace anything that smacks of love and concern for others-especially concern for children. Children are to be raised and trained by the state, not by their natural mother and father, in order to become good little robot workers. Citizens of the NWO are to be amused-and preoccupied- with every sort of lustful addiction and perverse conduct known to man and they need BLIND people to help them achieve their ends. .

Ken Adachi

----- Original Message -----

From: "David" <david@freedomwizard.com>

To: Ken Adachi <Editor>

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006

Subject: Re: Religion is mind control

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your detailed, carefully thought out reply.

That is an interesting observation that voluntary body piercings and mutilation are associated with mind control.  Makes perfect sense!

There were so-called primitive societies that predated Illuminati control, the did not have the fixation on controlling sexuality that we see in our Judeo-Christian-Moslem cultures.  Monogamy was not expected or enforced.  Their spirituality consisted of practical systems of growth and an understanding of the oneness of all life and consciousness (we use the label "God").

It is true that the Illuminati have used both the repression and enforcement of sexuality to sever us from our spiritual connections.  Christianity has also been used to sever people from their innate connection with the divine.  The fixed idea that the monogamous family is the only way to have a stable society is the product of dogmatic, controlling religion.  Unhealthy, neurotically driven behaviour is easily recognized because its result is misery and emotional upset.  Whether the neurotic pattern is sexual or otherwise, we have more therapeutic tools available now than ever before.  It is basicly the choice of the individual, if they want to seek out help.  The only time others need to intervene is when the behaviour adversely affects the lives of others.

I don't care whether gays can legally marry.  Why do we need government approval or recognition of our sacred relationships?  The issue there that matters, is that government and other institutions make life difficult for gay couples on subjects like hospital visitation, medical insurance for dependents and inheritance.  These are problems caused by government and big insititutions.  Some people have proposed some other form of relationship recognition other than marriage.  That could work to end the discrimination.  Personally, I would like to see all relationship structures accepted including multiple partnerships (I know of one with 3 women and 3 men).

Too many people have used the issue of illuminati control as a rational to justify their religious fixed ideas.  Freedom is what counts!

Best wishes,

David

---

Reader Comment

---- Original Message -----
From: Daniel
To: Ken Adachi
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Subject: Further Response to Recent Makow Thread

Mr. Adachi,

Good day; my name is Daniel (xxxx), I am a reader of your website, and I appreciate your energy towards getting us all out of the Big Mess through genuine information.  Generally, I am a fool; not to efface myself, rather to admit that I am at the first stage towards wisdom.  Thus, I normally have little of importance to offer on what I read at your website.  Today, however, is different.

I have been following the developing thread on homosexuality that began with Henry Makow's recent article.  As it happens, I attend the University where Mr. Makow used to teach.  I am currently researching the events surrounding his dismissal to supplement what I read on his website, which occurred a couple of years before my enrollment.

Sir, I am a gay man, and I agree with the both of you about a number of things.  The mainstream promotion of homosexuality is certainly spiritually debilitating.  Pornography is addictive and destructive.  Sex is everywhere in media and advertising and programs people to accept a lifestyle of meaningless promiscuity as natural and make of the human being a simple animal.

I believe that religious suppression of sex is also spiritually debilitating.  Dr. Wilhelm Reich's case study with the German woman, for example, revealed sexual dysfunction as the cause of her cancer (as read in Wilhelm Reich: Selected Writings.  New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1960).  Reading this man's work on sex therapy only confirms my belief.  He is a good man.

The problem here, I think, is the game of extremes which the Illuminati plays.  They make religion beforehand completely restrictive of sexuality, and then tear down all the walls and start up a steaming orgy and call it the best alternative.  In both poles sex is divorced from its spiritual function - represented either as a shameful and filthy thing and then a purely physical pleasure, as common and harmless as chewing gum.

Also one sees the sorts of gender images being pushed in advertising: mostly lithe, sinewy, S-curved and androgynous beings.  Clothing and underwear ads all suggest sex.  This is definitely tied in to mainstream feminism and homosexuality; see The Male Body by Susan Bordo for a good delineation of this.  But you know all about it already.  My point is that the media is pushing a sort of omni-sexuality and not just homosexuality.  Mr. Makow
merely switches words around, taking heterosexuality to signify a partnership of love and commitment, and homosexuality to signify lust and promiscuity.  He says that "a small minority of homosexuals are monogamous and partake in heterosexuality."  It's true that it's a small minority, but I believe that the gay man in this case is being undermined by the system with everybody else.

I was born gay; I know this in my heart.  I went through a dark and deceitful period where I tried to deny this; and I believe that whatever the cause, the closet is a horrible place to live.  I know that neither you nor Mr. Makow are condoning the closet or homophobia, and I recognize that pointing out the spiritually debilitating mainstream models of sexuality does not equate with the latter.  But I want to say that being gay, for me, is not a matter of child abuse carryover or social dysfunction; I come from a good home, and denying that I was gay caused me social dysfunction, not the other way around.  I am making a distinction here between being gay and being homosexual.

To demonstrate that distinction, I shall draw from my experience with University students.  Many, many, many female students call themselves bisexual because it's very popular to do so.  It's fairly easy to get sex, for example, after presenting oneself as bisexual - with either gender. It's often a big show.  Men rarely do so, but I think the trend is changing; as I said, a sort of casual omni-sexuality for everybody is trying to come about.  Knocks of the way sex is portrayed in Brave New World, I think.

I believe in spiritual love and monogamous bonding, but it has not always been so with me.  Have you heard of a television show called "Queer as Folk?"  A version was made in the UK and later in Canada; I saw only a little of the former, but almost all of the latter when I was a later teenager..  It is a soap-opera style program that tells the story of a series of homosexual young adults.  Its supposed intent is to portray the full spectrum of homosexual and gay cultures, and so while it has monogamous characters in loving relationships, it also has promiscuous, materialistic, and lusty characters, a lot of soft-core sex scenes, and celebrates a very specific range of body types.  Watching this show when I was a teenager was very destructive to me.  I developed bulemia in obsession with my body image and I pursued sex with strangers through gay bars, an activity strongly endorsed in the show.  I am not particularly proud of those ... episodes, which brought me little pleasure anyhow.

As another example of extremes, I went from total emotionally destructive repression to total emotionally destructive compulsion.

Why am I writing this to you, you wonder?  Well, to demonstrate that I understand the point Mr. Makow makes very much and very personally, and why you condone his writing.  But I would like to speak up for the"heterosexual" gay men who rebel against the destructive models being pushed on us, with the program Queer as Folk as only one example.  Neither denying the true-born nature of many gays with the don't-ask-don't-tell closet mentality, nor making of that nature a simply childish and malicious slut, or any other of the brassy awful stereotypes, is going to solve anybody's problems.

I would also like to know, then: whence, then, comes true gayness?  I believe there is a spiritual element to it, one that I am still seeking to put my finger on.  Not all gay men are merely homosexuals made so by various factors in life, and not in the least by choice; the true gay man was born the way he is and cannot change any more than he can change the colour his hair grows.  I know this first-hand.  Please do not take this statement, by the way, as elitism in the matter, but rather a simple fact based on my own experience.  American Indians had a whole pseudo-religious subclass of men-women and women-men, after all.

Whence come the gay men, then? - and since we do not necessarily make children, for what purpose are we?  I would appreciate your opinion; you do good work with this web site.  I came to it from Warrior Matrix, which has guided me into experiments with gifting and orgonite and given me some rare hope against the despair that writers like David Icke inspire.

Thank you for taking the time to read this rather long letter, and I will thank you again if you find the time ro respond.

In loving and genuine inquiry -

-Daniel

(As a postscript, I wonder, have you read about Mr. Makow's dismissal; are you interested to hear whether my research turns up anything interesting if and when it does?)

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Adachi

To: Daniel

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Subject: Re: Further Response to Recent Makow Thread

Hello Daniel,

Good letter, well done. .

You present your well considered observations with clarity, charity and conviction. Who could hope for more? I expect a barrage of  stones and I receive a pearl instead.

I won't pretend to know the answers to your questions other than to remark that I recognize and agree that some substantial portion of gay people are born in that orientation and the social environment is not a part of the equation.

As to the purpose of a gay life, I could only speculate with a known metaphysical conclusion that relates to the purpose of  any third density incarnation:  physical life offers an opportunity to acquire greater spiritual insights from lessons learned on the physical plane. That in turn leads to an advance in soul development which leads us towards higher planes of finer density and an eventual re-unification with God as pure light and consciousness.

When one recognizes and honors, as you have, the dignity of humanity as a fundamental sanctuary, you will receive no argument from me. I am your ally.

Thanks for taking the time to write. It was wonderful to read your comments.

Best Regards, Ken

PS. No, I have not read of Henry's dismissal, but I'm willing to read whatever info you have gleaned on the subject.

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel
To: Ken Adachi
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Further Response to Recent Makow Thread

Mr. Adachi,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.  I'm quite glad this thread developed, actually, because it helped me concretize a lot of thoughts I've been circulating with on the matter for a while now.

Just to give a brief summary from Mr. Makow's own writings, he was a tenure instructor in English at the University I attend several years ago, and was involved in a scandal with some radically feminist students who warped words from his lectures to accuse him of sexual harassment and bigotry with the help of the then-University president Constance Rook, herself feminist and an English PhD.  The University does have a reputation for such students, I'm afraid.  She was let go the next year, by the way, the exact reasons for which, I realize in reflection, were never publicized; it's my intent to find out whether it had anything to do with what Makow claims of her.  You can read the particulars at the same site from which you linked the sexuality article, if you are so inclined.

Again, thank you -

-Daniel

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Adachi

To: Daniel

Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Subject: Re: Further Response to Recent Makow Thread

Hi  Daniel,

Thanks.  I was unaware of his battle there. It looks like he was set up to be sacked in the calculating and underhanded method usually employed by our feminist sisters.  They certainly are a spiteful and driven sorority.  I've spoken to many women who eventually realized that they ruined their life and spousal relationships by buying into the lies of feminazis. I knew deep within my soul, at a relatively young age  in 1970,  that the feminist movement was a Lie from end to end.  It was frustrating trying to convince the wife of my closest friend and one of my cousins that they were being led down the Primrose path. It did no good.They had to destroy their femininity, their softness, their sweetness, their desirability-and their marriages- in order to see that feminism takes you into a desert and abandons you there. What a waste.

Please keep in touch.

High Regards, Ken

---

 

© Copyright 2006 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.