Sorry, you need to update your flash player to view this flash animation. You may download the flash player from here. However, you should still be able to view the rest of this page.

Below- Israel Hated for Flattering reasons (scroll down)

Children Need More Patriarchy Not Less

August 1, 2014

OJS.JPG(Left, OJ Simpson's father was a homosexual who left his mother
for a man when his son was three-years-old)

Almost 20 years ago, psychology professor David Gutman wrote
about the unintended consequences of single-mother families.
Boys need fathers in order to detach from their mother
and overcome juvenile feelings of omnipotence. Otherwise, their
oedipal complexes will result in violent, anti-social behavior. 

"Developmental disorders are a given when viewed through the lens of psychiatry."

--Russell, who sent this article.

"Mother Nature may be female, but she is not ... a feminist. She does not accredit parenting arrangements that flout her laws, even if they are promoted-in thunder-by a self-anointed Sisterhood."

Makow comment- Mankind is in the thrall of a satanic cult that inverts nature, truth and morality. The assault on gender and family is part of a long-term program to dehumanize and enslave the human race.

by David Gutmann
In the Absence of Fathers
First Things Feb 1995
(abridged/edited by

The gender feminists still don't get it... Ever since Philip Wylie wrote his angry text on American "Momism" back in the thirties, various astute commentators, ...have been saying that American children, and especially boys, need more patriarchy-in the best sense of that term-and not more "empowered" matriarchs. These children particularly need fathers who are...tough without being macho brutes, stern without being petty tyrants, and yes, affectionate-but on the whole, less nurturing than their wives.

I can write these heresies without fear of reprisal from the politically correct: I resigned long ago from the American Psychological Association, and at my age I no longer worry about building a career...

Thus, as we consider the new uniparental or bi-maternal parenting (for example: "Murphy Brown"/single mother households or lesbian couples) we have to evaluate not only the well-being, freedom, and rights of [the adults], but also the developmental requirements of the children that they presume to raise.

What is good for General Motors is not necessarily good for the country; and what feels good to new-style or homosexual mothers is not on that account necessarily good for their kids. Mother Nature may be female, but she is not ... a feminist. She does not accredit parenting arrangements that flout her laws, even if they are promoted-in thunder-by a self-anointed Sisterhood.


Let us begin with one of Mother Nature's clear ordinances, a developmental imperative that is recognized, in both ritual and common practice, by all successful human societies. In order to mature as distinct individuals and as future fathers, ... boys have to separate, in the psychological sense, from their mothers-whose biological destiny they do not share.

Men's work is done on the communal periphery; thus, before they can become creatures of the perimeter, and long before they can begin to think of themselves as reliable parents, boys have to free themselves from the sense that they are extensions of the mother-that they are no more than their mothers' home-hugging little sons.

At the proper season, patriarchal fathers-fathers, that is, who are different from admirable mothers in their own impressive ways-play a unique role in fostering their sons' psychological migration away from the Magna Mater and towards some worthy role on the periphery. The competent father, seemingly adequate to all challenges (very much including provocations from his son), stands forth in the son's eyes as enviable but also admirable: a pillar of strength.

ABAranda-2.jpgAs such, he spreads an umbrella of security under which the son can temporarily shelter, even as he slowly declares himself to be a distinct person, separate from the mother. ... Traditional societies typically organize rights of passage, ordeals of one sort or another, to mark the boy's passage from the status of "mother's son" to that of "father's son." ...  If he endures with some grace the punishment that the fathers mete out, then he has earned the right to be their son, the apprentice who will some day inherit their special powers....


The fathers' role in bringing civilization in the form of the superego to their sons has been clarified by many psychoanalysts, the leading students of what is known as the "Oedipal" track in child development. In their narrative, little boys, charged up with untested illusions of omnipotence, are driven early on to challenge the prerogatives and possessions of the father.

If they come up against true patriarchs, fathers who are neither antagonized nor intimidated by their small sons' enmity, these same little boys are quickly (and with real relief on their part) introduced to some basic propositions of the masculine reality principle: "You are not big, powerful, and supremely competent; instead, you are small, puny, and completely unready. However, matters can change; and if you pay him proper respect, your father will help you escape from your unfortunate condition."

Thus, when the small sons of patriarchal fathers realize-however grudgingly-that they cannot win the father's prerogatives and powers by force, they are ready to receive another bulletin from reality: "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em." Young sons give up infantile fantasies of co-opting the father's powers by violence in favor of a disciplined filial apprenticeship. From then on, a boy's self-esteem will be based increasingly on experiences of real mastery, rather than on hectic fantasies of omnipotence...

From now on, his enemies will not be found in his own house or significant community, but will come to him from the outside, from beyond the periphery. Fathers' sons can be very good killers, but not of their kin, or their neighbors. Mothers' sons by contrast are indiscriminate: they are murderously aggressive within the home as well as outside of it-they are apt to abuse their aging relatives, their wives, and their children.

But while the admittedly square and even priggish sons of patriarchal fathers may grow up to patronize the women of their house and town, they very rarely assault them. Instead, they are protective (sometimes overly protective) of their mothers, wives, girlfriends, and daughters: when killing is involved, they kill the men who come from the outside to hurt their women and children.


What is the fate of sons who grow up without a father, or with a father who is little more than an androgynous, often ineffectual, clone of the mother?

momenough.jpegOne consequence is clear: in the absence of a compelling father, the mother's presence fills not only the outer domestic frame, but also her son's interior psychic space. These boys-the offspring of single women, lesbian couples, or devalued "pops"-will not, in the proper season, attain psychological distance from their mothers. But children without fathers will usually find alternative, though less trustworthy ways to cut the golden cord. Boys who cannot achieve psychological distance from their mothers fall back instead on unreliable substitutes: physical distance and social distance.

In its essence, this could be the story of O. J. Simpson, whose case is being litigated as I write. Simpson is certainly not a typical product of misogynist patriarchy, taught by his seniors and locker-room companions to bash women. Quite the contrary: at age forty-seven, he seems to be the prototypical "mother's son," now wrecked by the troublesome passage into midlife. We have been studying casualties of his sort-black and white, rich and poor- in my clinical service for middle-aged and older adults for the past fifteen years.

Despite his celebrity O. J.'s history is in no way atypical of the syndrome. for starters, the father, known in the neighborhood as "Sweet Jimmy" Simpson, was hardly your stereotypical patriarch. Instead, he was a reported homosexual, who apparently left O. J.'s mother for a man when his son was three years old, and who died, probably of AIDS, in 1986. Left alone, O. J.'s tough and devoted mother overcomes daunting odds to raise him.

Nevertheless, as a teen-ager he predictably splits from her into the world of gangs and dope. Far from being corrupted by patriarchy, he is rescued by a celebrated black man: hearing that a potentially great athlete is screwing up, Willie Mays shows O. J. the exciting world that could be his. Thus sponsored by a "father figure," O. J. finds a route away from the mother's world that does not lead through the dangerous streets. He accepts the patriarchal discipline of coaches and locker rooms, goes on to win the Heisman Trophy, and becomes the legendary "Juice."

Simpson's violent urges towards women do not really bloom until he retires from football, when he quits the locker room. Having lost the masculine cosmetic of the sports world-the fatherly coaches, the male allies, of the NFL-Simpson (like many of our midlife patients) is then probably threatened anew by his unsundered ties to the mother within, and to her feminine exemplars in the outside world.

Once again he is in danger of becoming a "Mama's boy." Having lost the "patriarchal" or sportsman's route away from the feminine, he seems to fall back on his last-ditch, emergency buffers: behaving much like a threatened teenager, he interposes physical and social distance between himself and the dangerous women. Thus he divorces two wives, he is certainly violent towards Nicole Simpson, and driven by his pathological jealousy-the usual fears of a man insecure about his masculinity-he may have killed her. The troubles of a poorly fathered son can afflict not only his childhood and adolescence, but his later years as well.


Even as new-wave mothers congratulate themselves on their own boldness and "growth," their sons, and eventually they themselves, will be at risk. The child-rearing revolutions that, in the name of women's liberation from patriarchy, diminish the fathers lead paradoxically but inevitably to the loss of women's freedom that results from desperate male violence.

Loud blasts from the trumpets of ideology temporarily drown out the muted but insistent voice of the reality principle, but nature denied eventually returns, usually in its most primitive forms. "Take Back the Night" protests will neither repair the damage nor reverse the social entropy that causes it.

A measure of patriarchy in the home is, paradoxically, the major guarantor of democracy in our public life. We may still have a choice: either recognize the special grace and status of the father within the family, or eventually suffer-and probably in this order-criminal anarchy, then the Police State, and finally the iron rule of Big Brother over our domestic and public affairs.


David Gutmann is Professor of Psychology and Education at Northwestern University and author, most recently, of Reclaimed Powers: Men and Women in Later Life (Northwestern University Press).

Thanks to Russell!

Related - Makow- Feminism Deprives Girls of Father Love
---------   On the Need for Patriarchy    (The Garbage Generation by George Amneus)

First Comment from Victoria:

All I can say to David Gutman's article is 'HEAR! HEAR!'   As the mother of two grown sons who come from a legacy of weak males, I can completely confirm what he says.  As the mother of a daughter who was not protected by such a father, I can also agree with it.  While my daughter has come out of it relatively well (though, unfortunately, with a tendency to pick male partners who seem to be looking for mothers rather than equals), her two brothers are both (I don't know for sure, but would guess) still virgins, uncertain of their way with women, and equally uncertain as to whether or not they are attracted to males.  What a mess...

The best parental method is for a mother to be more dominant with her daughter and less so with her sons, and the opposite is true for sons, who need a strong father figure to emulate and butt heads against, and a softer, gentler mother who can acquiesce to her growing son.  In the same way, it is important for a father to exercise the gentler side of his nature in dealing with a daughter for she will then learn to seek comfort from males, but to be held accountable by members of her own sex.  In the end, the whole thing is about balance and returning to the centre-point within ourselves.

Unfortunately, for society as a whole, thanks to a surfeit of 'feminism', things have gone much too far in the direction of 'strong' (i.e. overbearing) women.  I know, because I've been one myself, the result of seeking to balance a father who was, himself, overbearing towards females and a mother who adamantly refused to defend her sex against the onslaught.    So, yet again, we all need to work together to solve these issues by remembering that our only job in this life is to play the role we were given to play and to do so in the most balanced way possible.

You can find this article permanently at

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

Comments for "Children Need More Patriarchy Not Less"

Debra said (July 30, 2014):

The art of psychology white-washes events in an effort to explain the complicated by putting it into a neat box for closure. Using O.J. Simpson as an example to explain the benefits (even necessity) of patriarchy in our families / communities opens up a can of worms because being “black” is a contributing factor when it comes to developmental issues; and the psychologist never mentions the “black” issue (as presented in the article).

O.J.s demise may have started with his dad, but the fact that his skin is ‘black’ should not be ignored as if it does not play a factor in his life; particularly in that murder trial where his wife Nicole and the waiter from the restaurant were both brutally murdered.

People have become accustomed to “no closure” crimes, then pacified by psychology that is often regarded beyond the point of its ability to help on the scale that is needed.

Below- Israel Created Hamas to Stall Peace (scroll down)

Israel is Hated for Flattering Reasons

July 31, 2014

isr_flag-burning-prag_72414_539_332_c1.jpeg(Left, the so-called Star of David is a Cabalist, i.e. Satanist symbol)

Israeli snipers boast on Twitter of slaughtering Palestinian children
but Zionists say world revulsion is due to the "Divine role Jews play in history." The evidence suggests a less flattering role.

Zionists are congenitally incapable of admitting they are wrong. Why?
Zionism is a product of Cabalism (Illuminism.) Cabalists have reinvented
the world in their own image, and objective truth has no place in it.

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

If they discovered they were widely disliked, normal people would engage in self examination.  They might even change their ways.

But Zionists don't do this because they are not normal. They think they are "hated" for possessing some very admirable qualities.

This is evident from Dennis Prager's recent article, "Why Do People Hate Israel?"

pg-4-gaza-1-epa.jpgPrager begins by asking why, with so many the injustices elsewhere, the world targets its criticisms at Israel, which is "among the most humane and free countries on the planet. Moreover, it is the only country in the world that is threatened with annihilation."

Funny, I missed that. It's funny that when they are pounding Gaza into oblivion,  Zionists claim they are threatened with "annihilation."

Prager continues: "Why... is the world preoccupied with 600-some Palestinians [now 1400 killed, 8000 injured] killed as a direct result of their firing thousands of missiles in order to kill as many Israelis as possible?"

Perhaps it's because only a couple of Israeli civilians have actually been harmed? While most of the Palestinian casualties have been civilians?

Israel is one of the foremost military powers in the world. It is in no danger. This is like a thug pummeling an old lady. It offends our natural sense of justice.

No, Prager explains. Criticism is due to the "leftist" bias against Western countries.
"Israel is rich, strong and Western; the Palestinians are poor, weak and non-Western."

What happened to the Jewish tradition of championing the underdog? Only when the underdog is not under their feet. 


Prager says the other reason Israel is hated is because it is Jewish and Jews are the Chosen people

"As hard as it is for modern, rational and irreligious people to accept, Israel's Jewishness is a primary reason for the hatred of it. Ironically, this fact -- just as with the fixation on the Jew before Israel's existence -- confirms for this observer the divine role the Jew plays in history. Few Jews are aware of their role, and even fewer want it. But, other than the influence of the left, there is no other explanation for all the animosity toward Israel."

gazacasualties.jpgYou see, actual Zionist behavior has nothing to do with the hatred Israel inspires. For example, the head of a UN school where women and children were sheltering gave their GPS coordinates to the IDF 17 times, yet the IDF destroyed the school anyway, killing sixteen people and injuring 160 others. The UN official broke down in tears on TV.  Wounded babies have died because Israel bombed the power plant and cut off power to their incubators.

Couldn't this be the reason people hate Israel? Seeing Israelis celebrate this slaughter?  87% of Israelis support Netanyahu's actions.  No, Israel's critics must be "anti-Semites."

What about penning 1.6 million people in an open air concentration camp after stealing their property?

In its paranoia, the Zionists likely provoked the latest confrontation by killing those teenagers themselves and then launching a crackdown on Palestinians. The false flag always has been their MO. Israel does not want peace. It wants land. So periodically, it "mows the lawn," cutting back the Palestinian ability to resist.  But, no, this is not the reason they are hated.

Nor are Zionists hated for serving the Illuminati bankers, buying all the politicians and media, and taking over the governments of the West. 

Canadians, Americans, French, British, Germans, Australians now all need "national homelands." The Zionists have taken control of theirs.

I'm glad Dennis Prager set me straight. I was under the delusion that Zionists were hated for helping to start every major war in the 20th century and setting us up for World War Three in the Ukraine.  No, Zionists are hated because Jews are God's Chosen People.


Prager says people are trying to annihilate Israel. Isn't it the other way round? I'm sure the NeoCons and Mossad are partly responsible for the murder-mayhem in Libya, Syria, Iraq and the Ukraine. 
Baruch Levy's famous 1879 prophesy in a letter to Karl Marx is coming true.

beng.jpg"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition.

The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands"
- La Revue de Paris

I don't think the majority of Jews, or even Zionists are privy to this larger agenda. They are easier to manipulate if they believe
they're hated for a host of flattering reasons as Prager says.  Some Jews are standing up and disassociating from this agenda. But are they enough to escape the hatred Zionists are engendering?

thanks Jews! (Video)
In this War, Israel is the Aggressor

You can find this article permanently at

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

Comments for "Israel is Hated for Flattering Reasons "

Thomas said (August 1, 2014):

The God of the Jews is the Jewish tribal ego perfected and quoted in the OT.

Deuteronomy 20:16"15"Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby.16"Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17"But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you"

This was not instructions from any creative/loving entity. "And the beat goes on!"

Martin said (August 1, 2014):

Jewish atheist: "There is no God, and we are His Chosen people."



Thanks Martin

This is not really a contradiction given their leadership's goal to replace Him.


Dan said (August 1, 2014):

Last week a couple of women I do charity work with from church privately expressed to me their empathy for the obvious targeting of schools and hospitals. That's not 'hating' Israel, and it's not hating Jews. There's never any talk about "look at what 'the Jews' are doing". Both these women work with Jewish women in joint charity events and fund raisers, and one of them went on a church tour of 'the Holy Land' a couple of years ago. They actually believe Jews need Israel. They just want to see Israel live up to they're belief in it.

I can only conclude the Dennis Prager doesn't comprehend that there are other emotional reactions to massacres than 'hate'. There's empathy and compassion for starters. One can either feel one or another, not both.

This is an especially courageous article, Henry. Thank you. Never has courage of convictions been more needed than right now.

JG said (July 31, 2014):

When Israel established statehood in 1947 a lot of things changed for the Jews and really not for the better because it had increasingly made them more transparent to the world.

It's all out in the open now. They can kill, maim, and torture the people of Gaza, including it's children, at will without cause or reason. The day will come soon when it won't even require a false flag event to justify murder and invasion to the public because the public now is powerless and the leaders of the world are now wise to Israel and their deceitful means.

Homemade Chinese bottle rockets flying over one of the most sophisticated air defense systems on the planet striking Jerusalem is trivial. Maybe America can give them a better air defense system this time in the name of "Israeli Security". Maybe it was those same 19 Arab hijackers that did 911 that were behind the remote controls of these rockets of mass destruction. How am I doing here?

The nations of the world including America will complain to Israel about these present war atrocities in Gaza but we all know that Israel will not leave until it's good and ready and NOBODY will command them otherwise.

John said (July 31, 2014):

My own conclusion is that Jews are hated because Judaism makes it inevitable that Jews will be hated. A racist, tribalist religion that makes it OK to slaughter all other people as being sub-human can only result in hatred.

If you hate me I will hate you back, regardless of what Jesus is alleged to have said. It is only human nature. A religion based on racial exclusivity (real or concocted) and hatred of others cannot be accepted by others. Only Judaism is like that. Some like to hedge and say Talmudism but it is really Judaism.

The ideology of hate has become congenital to Jews since over time nurture becomes nature, and Judaism nurtures Jews on hatred and contempt for non-Jews, goys or cattle, fit only to live to be slaves of the "chosenites". Some Jews escape by refuting Judaism but the exceptions are too few. And it is very difficult to escape because that Judaism has been grafted into Christianity through the Old Testament.

Christians should reject the Old Testament since The New Covenant cancels the old one but there is a lot of confusion about that, unfortunately. If there ever was an oxymoron, Judeo-Christian is as oxymoronic as it gets.

Below- American Expat Considers Returning Home (scroll down)

Israel Created Hamas to Avoid Peace

July 30, 2014

blame-hamas.jpgIsrael does not want peace. Israel created Hamas

as a pretext to wage war on the Palestinians.  Hamas' rockets

are mere peashooters compared to Israel's air force but they provide

another excuse to kill Palestinians.

(Editor's Note- I re-post this for its timeliness, but reserve judgement.)

From 9/6/11

by David Livingstone

(abridged by

The Israelis created Hamas.  But before we explore why, let's be clear  that Israel does not want peace.  They want all of Palestine, and their belligerent settlement practices confirm that.

But the Israelis are posturing as being willing to talk "peace", only to actually stall that peace process, so as advance the further colonization of Palestine.

So anything that can be offered as an excuse, will be.  The most convenient ploy, presented with the sycophantic assistance of the media, is that of "terrorism".

The masses are naive, and fail to suspect the Machiavellian extremes that certain leaders will resort to.  This includes creating a false enemy, in this case, Hamas, whereby the right-wing leadership of the Israelis can point the finger to some "enemy" to blame for supposedly stalling the process.


The West's sponsorship of Islamic terrorism is nothing new.  After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the British and Americans filled the vacuum by providing their own versions of "Islamic" leaders.  This started with the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood through a grant from the British.  

Under British sponsorship, the Brotherhood today represents a powerful force in the Islamic world, and is behind almost every act of terror in the name of Islam. 

More correctly, the Brotherhood has been a tool shared by numerous Western intelligence agencies, starting with the Nazis, followed by the CIA, but also the Russians, French, Germans and Israelis.

Since the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, the Muslim Brotherhood has been used to rally naive Muslims under the banner of Islam.  In the post-war era, the Americans and others have been able to manage the Brotherhood like a rabid dog on a leash to keep the "atheist Communist threat"  at bay.

With the collapse of the Cold War however, the Brotherhood has been used as the bogey man which the Americans can chase into the Middle East and Central Asia, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan.


Israel's long-standing relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood was instrumental in the founding of an offshoot organization, Hamas.

According to Robert Dreyfuss, author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam":

"And beginning in 1967 through the late 1980s, Israel helped the Muslim Brotherhood establish itself in the occupied territories.  It assisted Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Brotherhood, in creating Hamas, betting that its Islamist character would weaken the PLO."

According to Charles Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet [Isreali domestic intelligence agency], which had a feeling that they could use it to hem in the PLO."

One aspect of that strategy was the creation of the Village Leagues, over which Yassin and the Brotherhood exercised much influence.  Israel trained about 200 members of the Leagues and recruited many paid informers.

New York Times Reporter David Shipler cites the Israeli military governor of Gaza as boasting that Israel expressly financed the fundamentalists against the PLO:

"Politically speaking, Islamic fundamentalists were sometimes regarded as useful to Israel, because they had conflicts with the secular supporters of the PLO.  Violence between the two groups erupted occasionally on West Bank university campuses. Israeli military governor of the Gaza Strip, Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, once told me how he had financed the Islamic movement as a counterweight to the PLO and the Communists.  'The Israeli Government gave me a budget and the military government gives to the mosques,' he said."

As Dreyfuss notes, "during the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza and the West Bank did not support resistance to the Israeli occupation.  Most of its energy went to fighting the PLO, especially its more left-wing factions, on university campuses."

After the Palestinian uprising of 1987, the PLO accused Hamas and Yassin of acting "with the direct support of reactionary Arab regimes... in collusion with the Israeli occupation." 

Yasser Arafat complained to an Italian newspaper: "Hamas is a creation of Israel, which at the time of Prime Minister Shamir, gave them money and more than 700 institutions, among them schools, universities and mosques."  

Arafat also maintained that Israeli prime minister Rabin admitted to him in the presence of Hosni Mubarak that Israel had supported Hamas.

Essentially, as analyst Ray Hannania pointed out, in "Sharon's Terror Child", published in Counterpunch, "undermining the peace process has always been the real target of Hamas and has played into the political ambitions of Likud.  Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step forward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and pushed the two sides apart."

In "Hamas and the Transformation of Political Islam in Palestine", for Current History, Sara Roy wrote:

"Some analysts maintain that while Hamas leaders are being targeted, Israel is simultaneously pursuing its old strategy of promoting Hamas over the secular nationalist factions as a way of ensuring the ultimate demise of the [Palestinian Authority], and as an effort to extinguish Palestinian nationalism once and for all."


The Muslim Brotherhood, and its many manifestations like Hamas, Al Qaeda and bin Laden, serve as an ever-present and manufactured "terrorist" threat, used constantly as a pretext to justify repressive measures at home and expanded imperialistic objectives abroad.

Because, despite all the rhetoric about the threat of "political Islam", unbeknownst to the general public, the manipulation of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the world is still a mainstay of American foreign policy.

David Livingstone's blog

Related - Israel's Longstanding Ties to Hamas 

and Israeli Roots in Hamas are Being Exposed 

and Dennis Cuddy - The Power Elite & the Masonic (Muslim) Brotherhood 

Son of the co-founder of Hamas who is a Christian, says the purpose of Hamas is not only to destroy Israel but create an Islamic Caliphate everywhere on earth, and they don't care about Palestinian lives, Israeli lives or anyone else, even their own since they consider dying for their cause a form of worship.

You can find this article permanently at

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

Comments for "Israel Created Hamas to Avoid Peace"

Marco said (August 1, 2014):

I think John hit the nail on the head in concerns to the Christian question in relation to Judaism and Israel. I won't comment on his judgement of Judaism itself, as I don't know enough about it. However, this whole Judeo-Christian 'thing' (I don't know what you would call it, maybe an imposter) has seemingly, and unfortunately infiltrated Christianity. I was discussing with my mother who is a Catholic just the other day about the Gaza situation, and even she believed it is the Jewish right to hold Israel.

This Christian-Jewish alliance has to be an entirely new thing, as I don't know of any other times in the history of Christianity when Judaism was looked upon favourably or as an ally. When the first Christian Crusaders fought for the Holy Land, they didn't fight for it in order to hand it over to the Jews and have it be called Israel.

One of the most unfortunate things in this strange religious situation is probably the Christian Zionists, who don't deserve to hold the name Christian, as they are more political assets of Israel and tools for foreign policy than they are spiritual or lovers of God and fellow man.

David said (July 31, 2014):

With Israel indiscriminately massacreing Gazans for the whole world to see, I hardly think Hamas is some kind of false opposition set up by the Israelis. Israel is bombing schools and hospitals on the rationale that Hamas is "embedded" among the civilian population and that is the only way to root them out. Hamas happens to be the legally elected government of Gaza.

This is the game Israel has been playing for over 60 years: "We can't negotiate peace with the Palestinians because we don't know which group to meet with". Then, when Gazans vote in a government in elections overseen by the UN and international observers, Israel dismisses them as terrorists and the bombing resumes, courtesy of the US government. No wonder the whole world hates us.



Since the US follows Illuminati Jewish policy, this hatred the US experiences is just an extension of hate of the Illuminati Jew.


John said (July 31, 2014):

Hi Henry! The article about Hamas I will file under the "too conspiratorial by half" category. Just like being "too clever by half", being too conspiratorial by half leads nowhere closer to truth and actually serves to mask the truth from those who claim to seek it. Hamas was created as a result of the PLO having been infiltrated and co-opted by Israeli intelligence to the point it was seen as a collaborator organization by the Palestinian masses. The PLO leadership was benefiting from cash inflows from the petro-dollar kingdoms while doing little or nothing for the Palestinian struggle. Hamas grew out of that rejection of the PLO by the Palestinians. Israel was quite content to deal with the PLO at Oslo the UN or other cushy conferences. The emergence of Hamas was not what Israel wanted at all. Trying to rewrite history and claim that Hamas was created by Israel is bizarre.

Dan said (July 31, 2014):

It's not complicated. Hamas continues to condone the firing of rockets toward Israel, which are the excuse for massive demolition of Gaza real estate, which new Israeli "settlers" will clear and build on next year. It makes about as much sense as Osama Bin Ladin destroying the World Trade Center, NY. Who benefits?

This summer's turkey shoot has had a 25 to 1 kill ratio, with 43% of the Palestinian dead under the age of 16. As information on Israeli targets has accumulated, it's clear to me that the IDF has been carrying out a strategic military operation to demolish residential areas and shut down infrastructure - water, power - hospitals and schools are deliberate targets, not 'collateral damage' from 'stray shells'.

The IDF doesn't miss targets. The photo here is typical.

Tom A said (July 31, 2014):

This message is to Marcos regarding his racist stupid idea [below] that Muslims are the trouble makers. Marcos do yourself a favor and quit watching have been brainwashed to the point I have no faith in you. Hope is lost with people like you. Israel murders kids and you blame Muslims? God help you and the Muslims from the satanic zionist state of usarael.
For those like Marcos who are in deep trance, Palestine is occupied as a whole. Move Israel to DC and kiss more of their behinds there. Marcos will be the first to lick Israel ass.

Molecule said (July 30, 2014):

I have no doubt that Hamas was created by the Mossad. According to my source, the Lebanese Druze community played essential roles in the creation of Hamas by the CIA and Mossad. In the 70s one of their contacts was a real estate developer in the Washington DC area.

But one does not need any "special insider information" to make a conclusive determination.

First, observe that the Mossad is not stupid. Nothing gets in or out of Gaza without knowledge of the Mossad. Period. Not even a toothpick. Not even a twinkie.

Knowing this, then a simple question arises, which answers all questions:-- How can Hamas soldiers be so smart, as to be able to sneak 5 and 6 foot long rocket tubes into Gaza, past Israeli security, by the thousands, while at the same time they are so stupid as to use them?

If nothing else, the least these "Hamas" soldiers could do, would be to duct tape a few goat pellets onto the nose cones of their rockets. With goat pellets dropping down from the sky, Israel could claim that Hamas was using biological warfare.

The idea that the Mossad doesn't have the first clue where these kilometer long "secret underground tunnels" are, is absurd. As standard equipment for their search for gas and oil reserves, the Israeli Mossad has access to the most advanced tomography radar equipment. It is capable of detecting changes in ground density down to depths of thousands of feed. An underground tunnel at 10 ft depth would show up like paint stripe. All wells, mines and tunnels emit methane gas, albeit to varying degrees. The microbes that generate it are in the soil. In order for a long tunnel to provide safe passage, they would need a lot of fresh air. That would require powerful pumps, which again would be easily detected. The idea that the Mossad doesn't know where the tunnels are is completely absurd.

The actual targets to follow destruction of Palestine, will be Lebanon and then Syria, then Jordan.

Peter said (November 23, 2012):

I find it amazing that people cant wake up to how they are being
brainwashed into feeling sympathy for Zionist murderers.
The simple truth is that more people are killed and injured every year here in the UK lighting fireworks to celebrate bonfire night than these rocket terror weapons supposedly from the "evil" Hamas.

If we were to subtract the number of rockets fired by israeli special forces into their stolen country to get the party started from the much smaller number of defender rockets flying around in Palestinian airspace we would all be asking "Is this Newsworthy?" yet the western media falls over itself to portray the scrambling old farts seen running for cover whenever a camera from a film crew shows up as being terrible hard done by whereas the really hard knocks were the one suffers by the murdered and bombed kiddies and women in the Crime
against Humanity known as operation cast lead, slaughter the like of which had not been seen since the Serbian Artillery barrages on civilian areas in Bosnia.

Marcos said (November 22, 2012):

One of the worst problems with conspiracy researchers is that, because they find some proofs of orchestration of events in the top levels of politics, they think that everything is a conspiracy. That's not true. The elite must use and manipulate current social and historic situations, they seldom create anything new from scratch.

A good case is Islam. Much more than a religion, Islam has been a political and social since the VII century. They hate the west and almost gobbled up Europe several times, and still hold fast to their dream of Jihad holy war and the control of the world through Sharia law, which means the destruction of freedom for all.

While it is true that Israeli leadership does not want peace, but a continuation of conflict to eventually start WWIII for the antiChrist to arrive, radical Muslims are crazy, wild fanatics by themselves. They climb on their roofs to cheer when rockets are falling in Israel, with disregard to their own safety. They train their kids to hate jews. They give a free pass to their leaders, forget about their poverty and corruption because they are distracted hating Israel.

To support savage Muslims against the civilized society of Israel because of the errors of some of their leaders is madness.


July 24, 2014




that a woman

capable of so much love

for a man

should lose him

in the senseless war

in Iraq

Women like Cats? A Defense of Cats! by Annette

July 13, 2014

img142.jpgLeft, A  photo of the sweetheart who protected our family as valiantly as any dog. The kids used to sneak her into the house. They placed the crown on her and took the pic. She deserved it.

Annette's Response to  "Men are like Dogs; Women Like Cats"

Oh brother Henry, I can't believe I am writing  you again over all this nonsense , but here goes again. Geeeez this business about women and cats... I won't start or even end my rebuttal on the woman part. I'm here to defend cats !

We have had four cats in our family and every one of them was an amazing loving being. The guy who wrote the article obviously not only hates women - he hates cats too !

All of my kitties were stray, abused or unwanted by neighbors. We loved them and treated them with respect and they returned everything a thousand-fold. Both of my female cats showed incredible loyalty and protectiveness.

One cat, if we were out in front as a family would run to the end of the driveway to attack any dog walking by in a show of protectiveness towards us. She put her life in jeopardy by doing that.

Other times when my husband would lose his temper with the kids, the same kitty would come and show concern and try to get in between my husband and our kids. Again the same kitty would follow me to a neighbor's where I took piano lessons and wait for me on the front porch until I came out and then escort me home.

My other female cat left my neighbors and came to live at our house because she had been abused by them. She was terrified of them and the dogs they had brought into their home, and yet in a display of protectiveness towards me, she would growl when she heard their voices over the fence. I think it was all show, as  she was very frightened and timid. But she was showing me where her loyalties lay.

These cats would follow us around the yard or house as we did work or chores just to be in our company.  Cats give back what you give them- that is my experience. 

Yes dogs have some wonderful qualities but they can be totally gross and obnoxious, and vicious. No animal control ever had to put a cat down for an unprovoked attack on a child or adult. Once again some guy had problems with women and instead of contemplating himself has to demonize not only women , but for god sakes cats too ! What a loser. I'm all for hearing genuine complaints from men, but this is misogyny and not worthy of linking to your site. The coward wouldn't even sign his name to the blog.
Remember this good for nothing cat that saved a little boy's life ?   I rest my case.

Carolyn Hamlett Replies to a Reader

July 10, 2014

Carolyn Hamlett (2).jpg

Carolyn Hamlett replies to a reader who asked
 how she had the nostalgia for America
described in this July 4 article, if she were
undergoing MK-Ultra programming.
(See, Underground Pedophilia: A Victim's Memoir)

Reader's Comment:

(Henry, off the record - I thought Carolyn Hamlett said that in 1958 she was being programmed with 'kitten' training by Illuminati handlers in secret underground MKULTRA facilities    -  did I miss something? I guess one of her 'alters' wrote the current article! )

Carolyn's Response:

Yes, you did "miss something", actually quite a few some things, but that is understandable. Many people are familiar with a few terms, such as "kitten", "programming", "alters", "handlers", MKULTRA, and yet not understand some of the very basics.  

First of all, I have never used the term, "kitten" to describe any of my programming.

I have mentioned an underground facility where one type of "education" took place. That "education" was a type of programming, but nothing compared to the complexity of other types of programming that I was subjected to.

Secondly, it appears that you are either under the assumption that programmed children do not have a life outside of the programming facilities, or that programmed children are not capable of blending in with other children and appearing normal in all ways.

It is true that some children lived at the facilities where training or programming took place. Those children had no life outside of the facility such as family and school.  I saw many such children.

There were other children who were taken from their homes at night, usually by adult family members, to various places for programming, experimentation and rituals. I was one of these children. I had a good life outside of the facilities.

Last year, Daniel Duval helped me lay down some highlights of my life story by way of 7 interviews (available on YouTube) and yet we only scratched the surface on some topics and other areas we didn't cover at all. Some of the areas not covered have to do with my early childhood programming and the areas I was used in. I was not used in just one capacity, I was used in numerous areas and experienced some very complex programming. I was fully capable of carrying out more than a double life. The only surface side effect I had was fatigue, which I ignored. Children like myself were trained to ignore pain and fatigue.

In answer to your comment that you "guess one of her [my] alters wrote the article!":

This last statement of yours most especially sounds like it is coming from a person who is totally ignorant of high level programming, ignorant of the selection process of those chosen to undergo high level programming and ignorant of the dynamics of alter systems.  

The best way I know to describe myself is that I have what some would say is a strong core personality. I do have alter systems and at times another alter or two will be in the front with my core. My core personality has always had the memories of the everyday life I led. The articles I wrote about my childhood memories are my memories, just as I experienced them back in the early years of my life.

Though I am now in the autumn years of my life, that little girl who lived in the late 1950's and early 1960's is still me. Maybe many people my age have forgotten our true golden years, but for me, those memories are forever etched in my very soul. I can not read my article about the 4th of July without crying. It's because I truly morn the loss of what America used to be! America was a country where common sense was common and the majority of the citizens were people of integrity having strong moral character. The fact that I was used in government projects did not affect my ability to love my life, my country and the people around me.  

When I wrote the articles, I was hoping to refresh the dying memories of the readers of my generation and at the same time, paint an accurate picture to the younger generations, of the days when life for most Americans was good.