By Henry Makow Ph.D.
August 03, 2003

"It seems that guerrilla warfare is a real thing. Too much looting, assaulting Iraqi women, too much Muslim-bashing. No discipline in the US forces and the commanders have a hard time in controlling their men. Protestors are to be shown to be "die-hard Baathist supporters of the evil Saddam" and show pictures of a "commando" camp with pictures of Saddam and anti-US slogans." (June 12)

Since April, The Barnes Review News web site (http://www.tbrnews.org/) has posted memos like this from an executive at a major TV network to selected News Division staff.

If they are authentic, these memos represent the most important revelation of government deception since the Pentagon Papers, and suggest the "news" is little more than mass psychological control. There are shocking references to cover-ups of government domestic terrorism, SARS, Mad Cow, and events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran and much more.

In mid-March TBR Webmaster Walter Storch received an email from a man who claimed to be a mid-level executive at a major U.S. TV network. He said he had "serious doubts" about the strict control of the media by the government.

He sent Storch a disc containing 1500 pages of memos dating back to 2001. All were on corporate stationary signed by the sender and recipients in the News Division.

Storch asked for current directives and was able to ascertain that they were followed both in print and on TV. He posted the memos in excerpt or in full and watched "as ordained news was created before our eyes."

"We are now printing the more outrageous and serious aspects of the incoming papers with the hopes that this will cause serious public relations problems [for] those directly involved," Storch wrote recently.

Named for "revisionist" historian Harry Elmer Barnes, TBR sees accepted history as propaganda by the winners. Presumably the TV executive thought this web site would have the courage to expose contemporary propaganda as well.

The memos so far have created a minor sensation. TBR news gets 3,000-10,000 viewers of this item per day, about half foreign. About 95% of the email response is positive while 5% are from government and press people who are "outraged by the implications. "

The memo writer is probably an executive at a media conglomerate in New York charged with coordinating with government. His directives seem to be followed by other networks and newspapers, although he refers to "unreliable" newspapers (June 2).

He decides what to suppress ("blackout"), what to promote ("puff pieces"), what angle to take on anything controversial. About SARS, which did spread to the US but was called pneumonia, he says," Get the usual medical people and give them the usual script." (May 25)

He has a cynical, conspiratorial, chatty style and makes the newsmen feel they are "in the know." They do not include the public in this charmed circle.

RECENTLY A CHANGE OF TONE

In July, the memo writer starts to distance himself from Bush policy in Iraq, which is becoming a quagmire like Vietnam. He implies that "our circle" predicted this from the start. This suggests that his master may be the Rockefeller-CIA-CFR elite network.

For the first time, the writer urges a "completely neutral position" in case Bush goes the way of Richard Nixon. On July 12, he tells the executives to follow the example of "bellweather" New York Times. On August 1, the New York Times described Bush's performance at a recent news conference as "vague and sometimes nearly incoherent.... [he gave] rambling non answers."

On July 17, the writer says, "The White House is moving into a bunker mentality, very much like Nixon during the end of the Watergate business." The elite media may be getting ready to dump George W. Bush. Why would they report every U.S. casualty in Iraq when they have blacked out Afghanistan?

Iraq may be Bush's Watergate. He may have been tricked into invading Iraq, just as Nixon was tricked into sanctioning Watergate. The whole affair from Sept 11 to the Iraq war may be designed (like Vietnam) to bleed the U.S. taxpayer, destroy American morale and undermine the US's stature in the world.

SHOCKING REVELATIONS FROM WWW.TBRNEWS.ORG:

Ultimately you will make your own mind up about the authenticity of this material.

For me it reads like the script of a play I have been seeing. Play down North Korea. Black out Rachel Corrie. It's all followed. I have always been disturbed by the uncanny uniformity of the three TV network newscasts.

Go to www.tbrnews.org and click on "Controlling the News". The latest reports are at the bottom of Storch's introduction. There is a link to about 10 pages of excerpts since February. You can subscribe to a full service for $5 a month.

Here is a sample:

"Speculations of the actual nature of SARS are not under any circumstances to be permitted. Keep in mind the currently in- place rules following the outbreak of "Legionnaires Disease." (March 30)

"If this gets any credence, it could wreak havoc with the US cattle industry, not to mention the fast food and restaurant business. Mad-cow has been in the US before and kept very quiet. Let's see if we can't repeat this now." (May 24)

"Regarding North Korea, it is urgently requested by the White House that any reference to the President’s determination to remove the existing leadership of that country be downplayed. It should be mentioned as an "option" rather than the intention of the President." (April 19)

"Re. Enormous amounts of US currency found in Iraq. Under no circumstances, it has to be stressed, should any mention of amounts in excess of the publicly stated $600 million be made. And absolutely no mention of the possibility of these $100 bills being counterfeit." (May 3)

"The decision to proceed against Iran has been taken." (May 25)

MARTHA STEWART: "BETTER THE SMALL FRY GET COOKED"

Re. Martha Stewart: "Better the small fry get cooked than the really important ones. Campaign funding? Hah, hah!" (June 7)

"There is a black-out on guerrilla attacks in Afghanistan. The fear is that these are part of a coordinated attack in the Arab world." (June 12)

"The Administration has gotten burned by attacking [Ariel] Sharon. It won't happen again." (June 13)

"North Korea is a back issue for now. We are pulling troops away from the DMZ in case we have to nuke Pyongyang..." (June 13)

"SARS is officially dead. Monkeypox is replacing it. We have beaten SARS to death so it is best to keep the file footage for when it comes back with a bang this winter. With no vaccine in sight, buy masks, kids! If SARS combines with something else, watch out on this one..." (June 14)

"Unemployment is soaring but let's keep this minor key unless some trouble breaks out over it. Justice has evidence of serious labor unrest, especially among ghetto minorities." (June 15)

"Serious problems with the growing resistance movement in Iraq... Iraqi oil is being interdicted before it can be shipped out of the country. Casualties cannot be concealed but can be minimalized....[No pictures of] Iraqis that appear to have been beaten." (June 15)

DIRE MEASURES PLANNED IN IRAQ

"The most severe methods of interdiction are currently being indicated including setting up detention camps, curfews, the issuance of ID cards, the closing of mosques, the detention of religious leaders...An order is being prepared to exclude all foreign media..." (June 16)

"For a decade, the establishment has taken a very dim view of the Internet. It is seen as a method by dissident elements to propagandize the public and publish material that might cause great disruption in the public mind..." [Counter measures are discussed.] (June 16)

" Nailing the people at the tabloid press in Florida was a shot across our bows…the media had best shut its mouth or look what can happen to you. There is no substantive control over the military and official Washington is terrified that they could pull another Northwoods game again..." (June 22)

" Bush was warned repeatedly by Pentagon experts that there was the strong probability of dangerous insurgent activity [but] he and his close advisors such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz discounted it. ... Pacification could take years, not weeks or months, and with elections coming up next year, inside White House sources have said the President and Rove are in a panic." (June 28)

"The best way to cover this [fraudulent claims of uranium sales to Iraq ] is to be strictly neutral in comment and we must now maintain a completely neutral position in all of this. If Bush has the same problems Nixon did over Watergate, our viewers cannot see us as being blindly partisan. We have to have plausible deniability in this. The NYT is now beginning to crack the wall of silence surrounding the Presidency and as they are the bellweather, best to watch them closely. " (July 12)

"THE IRAQIS WOULD GET NONE OF THEIR OIL SALES"

"The major disaster for the White House is that they cannot get oil out of Iraq. The plan always was to root out Saddam, occupy the country after securing the oil fields first and then put a CIA trained and controlled local governments into place. This puppet government (let's face it gentlemen, that is what it would be but we can call it Iraqi autonomy) would graciously grant to the US the right to protect their oil resources and assist them in recovering their pre-Desert Storm production levels. In fact, the Iraqis would get none of the proceeds of the oil sales...(July 13)

"The Administration is over a barrel on this [prior warnings of Iraqi guerrilla resistance] because if they try to make too many scapegoats, someone will let the cat out of the bag over who really knew what and what kind of specific warnings the White House had actually received…the same scenario as the 9-11 warnings..." (July 13)

"There is a growing fear in counter intelligence circles that if the resistance movement in Iraq is not stopped, the resulting very bad PR might cause an "incident" somewhere in the US just before election time to whip the voters up to vote for Bush as a "wartime leader" who can put a number of draconian laws and edicts in place to "protect the American people." Someone in the FBI said to one of our people, entirely off the record, that quote it will probably be the Statue of Liberty endquote.

There must be no speculation on this subject under any circumstances. If some rigged incident does happen and we comment on it in advance, new regulations could cause us serious problems... If this happens, it will be Rumsfeld who plans and executes it. This will give the President the usual deniability. It is more than likely that we will get some advance notice of such an action and then decisions can be made relative to going to the public. On one hand, it would be a magnificent media coup guaranteeing ratings off the chart and on the other, a death sentence..." (July 14)

"OPEN MUTINY"

"The White House is now moving into a bunker mentality, very much like Nixon during the end of the Watergate business. With mounting Iraqi opposition and facing a very capable guerrilla movement, supplied by Syria and Russia, the US has run into the stonewall we all predicted. His personality will not permit the President to withdraw in good order; the neocons and the oil people will simply not let him. Bush is stuck between the rock and the proverbial hard place... Serious growing unrest in the troops coupled with very low morale, growing death tolls, lack of rotation, real fear of being fatally attacked are all leading to a situation that our Pentagon source informs us could actually erupt into open mutiny.

Couple all of this with the terrible economy, the insistence of the Bush people on insane tax cuts (to help out corporate America), the obvious right wing political and religious fanatics supporting the President and we have the makings of serious, probably fatal, domestic problems. The fear is that a frantic Administration could connive at some kind of domestic terrorism if and when they perceive the President slumping badly in the polls. He already is and it looks like it might go like the economy. Today, a 65% favorite; tomorrow matching [Grey] Davis' 20%. " (July 17)

"We have to sit on stories of serious physical abuse of Iraqi citizens. Most sensitive (and we put the blackout on this subject) are the numerous rapes and sexual assaults against Iraqis. Interesting are the unreported but fully known homosexual rap... the real problem here is that US GI minorities are mostly responsible for these and Bush needs these votes in November so on with the lid... we don't think they can keep this shut up for too long... the Okinawa syndrome all over again." (July 20)

By Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 27, 2003

(Reader's Note: This summer I am revising important articles that predated my web site.)

"Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy ... The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp."

--George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.

Betty Friedan, the "founder of modern feminism" pretended to be a typical 1950's American mother who had a "revelation" that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.

What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn't say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See "The Communist Manifesto" (1848).

Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States." In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.

Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority "seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals."

Betty Frieden doesn't want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her "revelation." She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of "Red-baiting."

Why? Because her book "The Feminist Mystique" (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge -- pretending to be just like us. This is the "Popular Front" strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.

Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920's and 1930's and referred to them as "my innocents clubs". He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities ("fellow travellers.")

In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg "was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the 'enlightened' moral agenda of his era." (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)

In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:

"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break." (Koch, p. 220)

Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic "Popular Front." The very name, "the woman's movement" and claim to be for "equality" are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family "a cornerstone of women's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." ("Feminist Politics and Human Nature," 1988)

The "Congress of American Women," a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a "foreign agent" by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the "CAW's agenda prefigured much of the modern women's movement that emerged in the sixties." (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)

The FBI kept tabs on the "Women's movement" but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.

"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive." (260)

By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, "The Broken Hearth" p.13)

The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?

The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.

Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a "new world order" (a.k.a. "globalization") in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.

Betty Friedan, take a bow.

August 02, 2003

Dear Dr. Makow:

My son is graduating from Penn State. He could not receive his degree without taking a course on Feminism (communism). I find this remarkable. He had to pay for this class and take it to graduate!!! Isn't that incredible?

I forwarded your writings on Betty Friedan about her communist agenda, which she adroitly hid from Americans (especially young females). I hope that he will visit your website (www.savethemales.ca) before his final next week in this brainwashing class.

He had to write a six page paper and three pages had to talk about the positives of marriage and three had to argue the negatives. At least two pages had to be devoted to the positives of cohabitation. When he sent me the paper to read I was horrified. I gave him research by Dr. Jan Stets of Washington State University that negates all the positives he had pushed down his throat for cohabitation.

It appears to me that whole idea of "university" and what the concept truly means is dead in America.

(name withheld)

July 26, 2003

by Mark Glenn
A History Teacher

From the beginning, the architects and
authors of junk history, decided that the Muslims
were going to take the fall for the events Sept. 11 (justly or not) we have been served a buffet of lies surrounding the religion of Islam and its history
with the West. Not just out of government mouthpieces,
but virtually the entire "conservative" talk show
parade as well as almost every big-name Christian
evangelist. Their message has been common and crude:
The religion of Islam teaches hatred for all other
faiths, most notably the Christian and Judaic. They
cite the "fury" with which the Muslims swept across the Mediterranean
lands, forcing the conversion of Christians and
Jews at the point of a sword. And now, these sirens
maintain, they are attempting it again.

This is a theme over which I am constantly battling
with the peoples in my circle. For the purposes of
posterity I must reveal here that I am not a
Muslim, but a conservative Catholic. By a conservative
Catholic, I hold to the notion that there is only one
faith, and therefore one would assume that it would be
in my interest, given these leanings, to jump on that
same religion bashing bandwagon that many of my
co-religionists have.

According to the readings I have done, (and I have
done more than a few) the facts concerning the Muslims
are these.

1. Within the religion of Islam, Christians and Jews
are not considered "infidels" as we have been led to
believe. In fact, a cursory study of the Qur'an will
reveal that Christians and Jews are referred to as
"peoples of the book," since we are all onotheistic
and trace our roots back to Abraham. The term
"infidels" is reserved for pagans, or those who do not
believe in the One God.

2. Christians and Muslims were not "converted by the
sword" as is commonly taught and believed. Christians
and Jews were allowed to keep and practice their
religion within those areas where the Muslims had
gained hegemony. Indeed, it was in the interest of the
various Muslim leaders and other secular authorities
to keep it this way, since non-Muslims were taxed at a
higher rate than Muslims. Obvious proof of this
tolerance exists today in the fact that in many
Islamic countries, including Iraq, Syria, Jordan,
Turkey, and Lebanon, there are millions of Christians,
and who knows how many churches.

3. The conquest of Islam was not a conquest of
religion, but, rather, was done in the same vein as
many of the Crusades, i.e., a conquest initiated for
the acquisition of territory and political power. In
fact, many of the Arabs that fought within the Muslim
armies in these wars of conquest were Christians and
Jews.

4. The conquest of lands that had been Christian was
not the blood-soaked struggle it has been taught to
have been. Due to dynastic infighting within the
Christian lands over who would rule, as well as
problems involving the incompetence, high taxes and
corruption within many of the Christian governments,
the Christian subjects themselves many times welcomed
the Muslim invaders who promised them lower and fairer
taxes, more efficiency, and more stability.

5. Those particular passages of the Quran that deal
negatively with the Christian religions deal
specifically with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
It is due to the complete devotion to monotheism that
the Muslims view the idea of 3 persons to be
contradictory and unacceptable.

These items are not difficult to find. Get yourself a
history book on the subject, and irrespective of the
religious affiliation of the writer, (excepting those
authors with the last names of Falwell, Swaggert,
Graham, Wolfowitz, Perle, Limbaugh, Savage, or Sharon)
the information will be about the same.

There are other items for my Christian friends to
consider here as well.

* In many Muslim countries, it is illegal to profane
the name of Jesus or of his Blessed Mother. Further,
one should consider that in several countries within
the Christian West, movies made depicting Jesus in a
blasphemous way have been shut down because of the
public outrage exhibited by, not the Christians, but
the Muslims.

* The Muslims believe in the Virgin Conception of
Christ and venerate his Blessed Mother more so than do
most Christians, particularly those of the Protestant
faiths.

* The Muslims believe in the miracles of Christ,
including his raising of the dead, healing the sick
and blind, and that he was the greatest of all
Prophets.

* Mohammed, the founder of Islam, considered
Christians to be the greatest of friends to the
Muslims, for in his words, the Christians were
"free from pride, and had priests and monks among
them."

There is enough evidence lying around that even the
most barely educated among us should be able to see
that this "Islamic hatred of everyone not Islamic" is
a sham.

So why do we hash over all this now?

My advice to fellow Christians in the US would be
this: Turn off Peter Jennings, Falwell, Robertson,
Limbaugh, and Hannity, get yourself a few decent
history books, and try thinking for yourself for a
change...

July 19, 2003

Hi Henry! Barry Curtis here.

I still think you're more than a little naive about perhaps the majority of women. I may come across as a misogynist, though I'm not. I'm just as observant and discerning about the behaviour of males.

You said "it is feminine to self-efface". But you are presenting only a part of the equation. By itself, it is false.

Read "Women who love too much", very popular here in the U.S. a decade ago. Women loved it, all seeming to identify with it. But if they had actually read the book, rather than just the title, they wouldn't have been so gleeful. The general idea was that women use the demonstration and pretence of love to gain power, control, and dominance in the family. In the early stages of the marital relationship, it's love (the carrot) toward the prospective mate. After marriage, "love" in it's various aspects is often offered as a "quid pro quo". After the children arrive, the "love" is directed at the children to gain their allegiance against and removing the father's leadership. Happens all the time. I know of no males who are not eventually dominated by the wife's needs, wants, and desires, her social calendar, and her choice of family friends. Self-effacing???? Ha! I think not.

The bottom line Henry, is that deep down in almost all woman, is a devious self-centred darkness that needs to be corrected. She needs to be saved from that craziness, though she won't see it and will deny it is there.

Men have to know what is right, value that more than their "woman", fight for the "right", and correct the woman when necessary rather than "wimp out" as most men do. Most men are wimps, unable to stand up to the illogical, twisted and self-cantered arguments presented by their wives. In the female armoury are denials, rationalizations, lies, "mind-fucking" or head screwing (changing the argument, bring up other issues, moving the discussion into an area they can win", blame, and if all fails, tears. Women eventually disrespect the wimps in their lives and take control.

Most men have become little more than wimps and donkeys, doing the "scut" work and heavy work for the women in their lives in exchange for a little sex and a few ego strokes of approval. It's both amazing and sad to see.

My idea of "possessing and cultivating" is maintaining what is right in "conscience" and common sense, and holding firm for that with merry eyes twinkling, while maintaining an even non-emotional temperament. No emotional or physical abuse!!! That's the "strength" that a good woman wants to protect herself from her dark unreasonable side. Women who are not "good" (they are legion), will run away screaming from such a man....good riddance!

Riding in crew limousines for years, listening to female flight attendants, it's very clear that most young women are looking for someone who will look up to them as a "goddess". A man "weak" for them, unable to say 'no' to their every whim or desire. But Goddess's control, and goddesses realize it! The easy way to control a man is to make him the "king" or "god" with ego support as needed. BUT, the kingmaker is really the dominant one in the relationship.

Many men, simply remain little boys, seeking the approval and sexual favours of their wives, while secretly resenting what they are becoming, more and more over time. The women, see the weakness of their men increase over time and begin to resent that more and more, also. I don't know any old men who have won the battle for dominance with their wives. Their secret resentment kills most of them them before their "time", or they are alive living in the basement with their hobbies, after years of avoidance through workaholism.

A "good" women raised by a good, yet strong and honourable father (there are few), is looking for an honourable man. She, and she alone will attach her life to his star and allow herself to be led...honourably, and with patience. She won't have the desire to dominate or look for a weak man who will accede to her every whim. Females with weak or less than honourable fathers will always seek the same in a man.

Instead of loving and leading their wives, most men are needing and seeking the approval of their wives and lovers. That is their weakness and downfall! A man strong in himself doesn't need the approval of a woman, mother, wife, or lover. He leads by doing what is right by conscience and common sense, and holds steadfast, with patience and good humour, against manipulation
or any other female wiles or guile.

Henry, www.savethemales.ca won't save any males unless the weaknesses of males are addressed. Males aren't being done in by feminism as much as they are doing themselves in by their own ignorance and egoist perversity
I feel sorry for today's boys and young men.

Dr. Laura of radio talk show fame said that she feared for her young son as today's young boys and young men were innocent sheep being led to the slaughter by today's girls and young women.

Take a peek at the newsstands! Lots of magazines for preteen and teenage girls, all with articles on how to "get him to do what you want" (manipulate). No magazines telling boys how to protect themselves from a lifetime of manipulation from these girls becoming women. The men's magazines are about how to become a pseudo male, a pretend male, to pump iron, drive a larger faster car, satisfy a woman, etc.....rrrrrmmmmm--rrrrrmmmmmm!! Men have become mere caricatures of what maleness is supposed to be, and I fear, so egocentric in the denial of their own ignorance, that they will be done in with this present generation.

Well, Henry, enough for now. I enjoy your articles. Thanks for listening!

From a hill in the Missouri Ozarks, Barry Curtis