The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.
I heard Mark Weber on a MSM interview saying that he’d believed there were gassings in one camp that is completely destroyed now. I forgot which one, though.
Is Irving looking for corpses in the ground? Will he find German soldiers buried somewhere and sell them as gassing victims? We know the German POWs in the Eisenhower camps were stripped off their dog tags, when they were starved to death.
In Eastern Europe, there must be 100,000’s of additional unidentified German soldiers in the soil. Or all the century old German civilian cemetaries that were destroyed by the Polish/Soviet governments in Pomerania etc. would perfectly serve as a “proof psyop”.
Today, David Irving’s webpage “Action Report” says:
Obviously, not looking for corpses. David Irving’s tours are for simpletons, and that is the market he is after for his books. He knows people like you and I will not accept his theories, nor will the politically correct mainstream types, so who is left? They are the ones he can still appeal to.
The other idea is to build up so much anticipation about the Himmler book that millions will buy it whether they agree with his positions or not.
Mark Weber is trying to get back into Revisionism after declaring it “irrelevant,” realizing he missed the boat. He is re-forming connections with old allies who are known to be “soft.” Can that amount to anything worthwhile? I don’t think so.
To the best of my knowledge it seems that after a flirtation with softening his Revisionist stance, perhaps due to political affiliations with the A3P that went limp by the time the 2008 election came around, Mark Weber is actually moving back toward outright Holocaust Denial. His recent appearances on the American Nationalist Network with Rodney Martin would attest to that. There are very few organizations out there aside from the ANA/ANN that are as unabashedly outspoken in regards to to lies perpetuated by the Jews in regards to past and current events, which includes their lies in regards to origins of Christianity. THAT is something almost no other White Association is out there doing and therefor betraying THEMSELVES as Jew corrupted thinkers who refuse to codify anything that passes as a moral code and true standard around which all Whites can rally. If everyone stopped shifting with the political winds and accepted that like God, the truth is immutable and unchangeable, THEN we would have a real movement instead of all this infighting and little men beating their chests that they are “leaders”.
Mark Weber wrote his article against holo revisionism, implicitly supportive of the Orthodox Jewish Version of the holo, in January 2009, one full year before A3P/AFP was launched.
He’d already spent fourteen years as director of the IHR, destroying the legacy and efficacy of that once most important organisation see the Piper shows devoted to the issue; beginning The IHR Files, Pt I: http://michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com/2011/02/21/the-ihr-files-pt-i/
Nothing says ‘little man’ more than turning a great thing into a pile of shit.
Irving’s a fascinating character who has pursued an anti-establishment tack right from the beginning. Unlike other ‘historians’ he shunned the comfortable armchair viewpoint right from the beginning and worked in a German steel mill to get to know the people and the language. From there he has always tried to get to firsthand documents and the people who have made history.
His many successes, though, led him to believe he could take on our ‘jewish overlords’ and succeed. They spent $13,000,000 defeating his case against Deborah Lipshitz, who, by the way looks very much like a man in drag. Irving in fact makes a typical dry, witty quip about her when he says something to the effect: ‘… when Lipshitz looks into her shaving mirror each morning …’
Carolyn, September 8, 2013 at 10:56 am wrote:
Obviously, no looking for corpses. David Irving’s tours are for simpletons, and that is the market he is after for his books. He knows people like you and I will not accept his theories, nor will the politically correct mainstream types, so who is left? They are the ones he can still appeal to.
————–
A good description except for one important word, ‘simpletons’. His audience are for people who have started to think that there is something seriously wrong with the status quo. In other words the opposite of ‘simpletons’. …
That said, I agree that Irving has seriously decreased his credibility in this aspect of history through his ‘damage control’ efforts and general back tracking efforts. Telling us that there were no gas chambers at the premier jewish gas chamber site, Auschwitz, while maintaining there were gassing at other sites is looking rather weak, if not pathetic, and certainly not acceptable to his jewish grand inquisitors.
BTW, the word he said in the video that you couldn’t quite get, was ‘cougar’, meaning an older woman on the prowl for younger men. A mainstream phenomenon of jewish social engineering/destruction.
Much more right than wrong, Carolyn, you’re an inspiration. Thanks.
Hi Katana,
Irving’s quip ‘… when Lipshitz looks into her shaving mirror each morning …’ is, to me, more of a personal slam at someone who beat him at his own game and he is bitter. He doesn’t stick just with the facts, but gets personal, something that the best revisionists try never to do. Just another sign that Irving is not constitutionally able to be a holocaust revisionist because you’re up against Jewish power. Truthfully, I think we should be talking more about Jewish power than facts about gas chambers, important as that is. It’s not facts, but simply Jewish power that keeps the holohoax in place.
I have never heard that use of “cougar” but I don’t doubt you. I had thought afterward that it must have been “cuda” as in barracuda, as I have heard women called barracudas.
Nick – thanks for posting Piper’s file on this … for those who can get through it all. Piper is really too verbose, as other people have told him and he accepts. But at least he tries to make the case. One thing that I don’t think can be argued with is, as you say, Weber destroyed the efficacy of that once important player in holohoax revisionism, the IHR. Anyone who can make excuses for Weber over that has got personal issues that over-ride the importance of destroying the big hoax.
I need to listen more closely to that radio podcast Rodney Martin and Weber did, as referred to by David.
David,
The most recent Martin-Weber podcast is Aug. 2 as far as I know. I tried to stomach listening to it sometime back, but didn’t hear what you are suggesting. I think it’s up to you to quote from the program just what you think reveals that Weber is “moving back toward outright Holocaust Denial.” I would really appreciate hearing that.
P.S. Now there is a newer one on 1939 Poland. I did not hear a word about the Holohoax, but I did hear Mark Weber go on and on about how tragic it was what Poland experienced from England and America, but not a word about Germany’s or German-Pole’s situation being tragic.
Carolyn, September 10, 2013 at 12:58 pm wrote:
Irving’s quip ‘… when Lipshitz looks into her shaving mirror each morning …’ is, to me, more of a personal slam at someone who beat him at his own game and he is bitter.
——————
Naturally he’s more than annoyed about being bankrupted, losing his house and so on. I’m sure he utters much more damning things under his breath! Regardless of the merits of his case, it was truly one of a David taking on the Goliath of International jewry. He, defending himself for reasons of cost and no doubt his large ego, was up against about 20 lawyers and unlimited jew money. So Lipshitz didn’t defeat him, it was her jewish buddies in high places.
He doesn’t stick just with the facts, but gets personal, something that the best revisionists try never to do. Just another sign that Irving is not constitutionally able to be a holocaust revisionist because you’re up against Jewish power.
—————
His quips on his blog diary are one thing and should be expected and welcome in order to get to know him.
He’s shown himself to be a celebrated historian up until he starts to question the big H. I think that has been and continues to be his undoing. It looks like he’s trying to eat the ‘Holocaust cake’ while trying to keep at least half of it. It’s not adding up.
Truthfully, I think we should be talking more about Jewish power than facts about gas chambers, important as that is. It’s not facts, but simply Jewish power that keeps the holohoax in place.
—————-
Those two things are so intertwined that one comes with the other. The immoral foundations of jewish power over guilt ridden Whites rests very largely on jewish ‘Holocaust’ lies. Complain about jewish crimes and they screech the Holohoax. So it depends on how informed the audience is.
I have never heard that use of “cougar” but I don’t doubt you. I had thought afterward that it must have been “cuda” as in barracuda, as I have heard women called barracudas.
—————
It’s a well know term among the Men’s Rights movements.
I’d say Irving point that Himmler was a victim of a ‘cougar attack’ has much merit. When you are 24 year old male, as was Himmler, and an ‘experienced’ 33 year old female lures you into very sudden marriage, there’s some cougar wiles at work for sure. That he later turned his attention onto a younger secretary, kind of confirms that. Nature at work.
Irving has an unabashed old view regarding females, that I think is not too far from the NS view. Women belong in the house making and looking after their offspring, while their man looks after them through his sweat and toil. Exceptions may exist but that is the norm, a harmonious balance of male and female natures and abilities. And I agree.
Irving’s ‘derogative’ female quips, fondness for young female assistants, and so on are all part of that and quite understandable given the nature of us males.
Oh, the poor men, they’re such victims! You have added two years onto Marga’s age, she was only 7 years older than him. Some men like older, very capable women and even want to marry them! H. met Margarete in 1926 in a hotel lobby (Wiki says 1927); they married in July 1928 — is that sudden? Does Irving make us think otherwise?
There is a picture of her here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Marga/index.html which shows her not unattractive in her youth.
H. was very interested in agriculture and the “back to the land” movement. He and his wife had romantic ideals of making a farming life. He joined the Artamanen society, a sort of idealistic back-to-the-land youth group, mixed with racial ideology. He became one of the leaders of this movement. Through this movement, he also apparently met Rudolf Höss, who would later preside over Auschwitz, and Richard Walther Darré, who would later work in the RuSHA (race and resettlement office) of the SS. [Höss and his wife had the same idea and lived in one of these communities.]
Marga sold her share in a medical clinic to buy them a small farm. But H. got busy with the Party and left her to take care of the chickens and livestock. Which she seemed to do. So who was doing the sweat and toil here? It’s men like you and Irving who turn women off to accepting the role you want to assign to them, never giving them any credit. I think she showed herself admirably after the war; she obviously didn’t give an inch to the interviewers who wanted her to “recant” and be “horrified” over what Germany had done. Could you have done so well?
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1999/may/05/features11.g29
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19450713&id=E_AZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IiMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2654,4237355
Carolyn, September 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm wrote:
Oh, the poor men, they’re such victims! You have added two years onto Marga’s age, she was only 7 years older than him. Some men like older, very capable women and even want to marry them! H. met Margarete in 1926 in a hotel lobby (Wiki says 1927); they married in July 1928 — is that sudden? Does Irving make us think otherwise?
———————–
Yes, my figures were wrong (relying on memory from Irving’s video and elsewhere), so sorry about that.
Had a look round the net and found out the following:
* Himmler was born on Oct 7, 1900, son of a Catholic school teacher.
* Marga’s birthdate from the only source I could find was 1892.
* Some sources say they was a 7 year age difference and some say 8 year difference.
So the worst case in age difference, assuming that Marga was born in Jan 1892, is 8 years 10 months (getting close to that 9 year difference!). Assuming she was born mid year then it’s 8 years 3 months. Assuming she was born near year end then that gets us to 7 years and 10 months.
They met, from some sources, in 1926 and from other sources in late 1927, and they married on July 3, 1928. So at worst they met and married in no more than 7 months. Or at best at 2 years 7 months.
There is a picture of her here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Marga/index.html which shows her not unattractive in her youth.
————-
Yes, she’s ‘not unattractive’, as you you put it. From what I’ve read, her blue eyes and blonde hair sealed the deal.
katana: Women belong in the house making and looking after their offspring, while their man looks after them through his sweat and toil.
Marga sold her share in a medical clinic to buy them a small farm. But H. got busy with the Party and left her to take care of the chickens and livestock. Which she seemed to do. So who was doing the sweat and toil here?
—————-
From what I’ve read, her parents provided for her share of the clinic and the small farm was put in her name (and rightly so as she/they paid for it). And her taking care of the chicken farm didn’t work out, resulting in Himmler, in some ‘histories’, being called a ‘failed chicken farmer!’ She remained the formal wife of Himmler while he rose to the top position in the SS. Rising and staying in the top position of the SS, required a degree of ‘sweat and toil’ that far beyond the efforts exerted by an estranged housewife, I’d say.
It’s men like you and Irving who turn women off to accepting the role you want to assign to them, never giving them any credit.
——————-
I don’t know where you get the idea that men like me (or Irving) never give women any credit or this business about assigning roles. Biology assigns the roles. Women’s primary purpose in life is to have and bring up children, while the role of men is to protect and provide for their women and children so that the cycle can go on. Of course there are exceptions, but we shouldn’t promote it as the norm.
Irving ‘cougar’ comment was that Himmler was taken in by an older woman. I agree with that from what I’ve read so far. Here’s a comment from the Axis History forum:
“Lina Heydrich said of Marga Himmler (in an interview to author Willi Frischauer): “Size 50 knickers. That’s all there was to her. She nagged her husband and could twist him around her little finger.” Himmler’s marriage to Marga was a train wreck. She was 8 years older than him and it seems that possibly she was the first woman who Himmler ever slept with…actually, we know Himmler was very late in having sexual relations through Gregor Strasser, who told Kurt Ludecke upon hearing of Himmler’s laison with Marga that it was “about time!” (Ludecke: “I Knew Hitler”). I think Himmler was rather dominated by this woman to the point of actually being stuck …”
A good thing out of the marriage was a daughter, Gudrun (‘Dolly’), who Himmler adored and even took her along on a visit to a concentration camp, etc.
But, Himmler obviously wasn’t satisfied with his wife and finally took up with his secretary who was 12 years his junior and subsequently had two children with her.
But Katana, we don’t know if you live any of this that you preach, do we. Are you using your manly abilities to protect and provide for your woman and children, or are you, like so many anonymous WN Internet warriors, still living in Mom’s basement (or the equivalent)? Women are often left to provide for themselves. Also, I guess, from your reckoning, that once the children are raised, not only the woman’s but the man’s job is completed; they have no more purpose. What then? The man simply takes up with a much younger woman and starts over again?
I can tell you this: The constant, sneering attack on wives who have been loyal and faithful to both their marriage and the ideology does not inspire the confidence of women. Don’t we have enough attacks coming from without? For instance: Your quote from Axis History Forum is confusing as to who said what. Most of it is from the commenter himself, and we don’t know who he is. There are only very brief phrases from Lina Heydrich and Gregor Strasser, taken out of their context and attributed to them from someone else.
P.S. At a minimum of 7 months from the time they met until they married — I don’t consider that a crash marriage, especially considering their ages. As G. Strasser is said to have said: It was about time.
P.P.S. If Himmler made a bad marriage (if it so turned out for him), isn’t it his fault? But amongst WN and male-chauvinist circles, it’s always the woman’s fault. You notice there are no statements from Himmler complaining about his marriage – he had more class than to do that. It’s possible Marga had the worst part of the bargain.
Carolyn, September 14, 2013 at 10:00 am wrote:
katana: Women’s primary purpose in life is to have and bring up children, while the role of men is to protect and provide for their women and children so that the cycle can go on. Of course there are exceptions, but we shouldn’t promote it as the norm.
But Katana, we don’t know if you live any of this that you preach, do we. Are you using your manly abilities to protect and provide for your woman and children,
———————
Yes, I am. I ‘walk the walk’, as they say.
or are you, like so many anonymous WN Internet warriors, still living in Mom’s basement (or the equivalent)?
——————
A lapse of judgement there Carolyn in suggesting I might live in Mom’s basement. In a sense I wish it were so as it would take me back a few decades!
Women are often left to provide for themselves.
——————-
Big Daddy (government) picks up that tab, one of the consequences of jewish inspired feminism.
Also, I guess, from your reckoning, that once the children are raised, not only the woman’s but the man’s job is completed; they have no more purpose. What then? The man simply takes up with a much younger woman and starts over again?
—————
A few might do that, but for most men bringing up one large family would be enough. Most men if given the opportunity would just discretely stray now and then if so inclined.
I can tell you this: The constant, sneering attack on wives who have been loyal and faithful to both their marriage and the ideology does not inspire the confidence of women.
—————
I don’t think that I’ve been doing that, and I wouldn’t condone such attacks. We’ve been talking about a specific person, Himmler’s wife and not wives in general.
Don’t we have enough attacks coming from without? For instance: Your quote from Axis History Forum is confusing as to who said what. Most of it is from the commenter himself, and we don’t know who he is. There are only very brief phrases from Lina Heydrich and Gregor Strasser, taken out of their context and attributed to them from someone else.
—————
Fair enough.
P.S. At a minimum of 7 months from the time they met until they married — I don’t consider that a crash marriage, especially considering their ages. As G. Strasser is said to have said: It was about time.
——————
I would consider 7 months ‘a crash marriage’ given the age difference and that Himmler’s parents didn’t approve of it. I think Strasser was talking about the liaison, not the marriage.
P.P.S. If Himmler made a bad marriage (if it so turned out for him), isn’t it his fault? But amongst WN and male-chauvinist circles, it’s always the woman’s fault. You notice there are no statements from Himmler complaining about his marriage – he had more class than to do that. It’s possible Marga had the worst part of the bargain.
—————-
I certainly don’t think it’s always the woman’s fault, as it’s usually a combination and sometimes the result of a fast marriage. As that old saying goes, and more often applicable to men, ‘Marry in haste and repent at leisure.’
Anyway, I think he made his statement at to what he thought of the marriage by him taking up with his secretary and having two children.
Summing up re Himmler’s marriage:
* Himmler appears to have had little to no experience with women until he accidentally met Marga, seven or eight years his senoir.
* He’s been described as socially awkward with women.
* Marga was a childless divorcee and about 36 when they got married.
* Marga was only able to have one child with Himmler and then adopted a child.
From all that I conclude that Marga was the more desperate party and pressured Himmler into a marriage that was unlikely to last. She took advantage of him in other words, motivated by her last chance to have a child. In her favor Marga provided him with a daughter that he adored; she went along with being officially Himmler’s wife; and didn’t betray him after the war.
I am really very glad to hear that! Thanks for answering.
I wasn’t suggesting, just asking … using a well-worn phrase re Mom’s basement. But this isn’t the first time you have questioned my judgement. It’s okay though.
Well, I was thinking before the onset of Jewish feminism, during the time of Heine and Marga. And not everywhere is such a thing assured.
You missed my meaning, which was that our purpose is to have and raise children (with the men in a protective role), so once that is accomplished by age 50 or younger, I guess we could lay down and die because we have no more purpose. It was not about straying. My point is that to define women and men in that way is pretty darn limiting. But it could be alright if you said it is their first purpose, but not the only.
You are doing it again to Marga. She was 32, not 36! Do you have trouble with math? lol
If H were socially awkward with women, then he was possibly grateful to find Marga, in order to “break him in.” This is often the case when a young man wants to marry an older woman. He is too shy without someone to guide him? Why didn’t Himmler’s family help him to meet a more appropriate mate, or his NS Party buddies? It seems everybody failed and now it can be blamed on Marga’s “predation,” which has never been proved. It’s all conjecture, which really turns me off. It makes a good story for David Irving, who loves to be witty and snide.
Carolyn, September 15, 2013 at 11:48 am wrote:
Yes, I am. I ‘walk the walk’, as they say.
I am really very glad to hear that! Thanks for answering.
————–
I’m pleased you approve!
A lapse of judgement there Carolyn in suggesting I might live in Mom’s basement. In a sense I wish it were so as it would take me back a few decades!
I wasn’t suggesting, just asking … using a well-worn phrase re Mom’s basement. But this isn’t the first time you have questioned my judgement. It’s okay though.
————–
I’m very grateful for your small indulgences, … lol. I question your judgement whenever I think it needs it. That said, I’m in agreement with the majority of your views, because they make sense to me.
You missed my meaning, which was that our purpose is to have and raise children (with the men in a protective role), so once that is accomplished by age 50 or younger, I guess we could lay down and die because we have no more purpose. It was not about straying. My point is that to define women and men in that way is pretty darn limiting. But it could be alright if you said it is their first purpose, but not the only.
———–
Well then, we fully agree! Progress.
* Marga was a childless divorcee and about 36 when they got married.
You are doing it again to Marga. She was 32, not 36! Do you have trouble with math? lol
————-
Despite your impressions, I really don’t have it in for her to the point of tacking on years to her age. My ‘calculator’ might be infected with some jewish software virus, but ‘if’ Marga was born in 1892 and got married on July 3, 1928, that still comes out that she was about 36 (all depending on what month in 1892 she was born).
* He’s been described as socially awkward with women.
If H were socially awkward with women, then he was possibly grateful to find Marga, in order to “break him in.” This is often the case when a young man wants to marry an older woman. He is too shy without someone to guide him?
———-
Very true, but ‘breaking him in’ didn’t require marriage but rather a short lived relationship until he got his confidence with women. The usual cause of older woman wanting to marry younger men, in this case, 7 or 8 years younger, is desperation on her part and sexual naivety on the male part. I think that well describes Himmler’s situation.
Why didn’t Himmler’s family help him to meet a more appropriate mate, or his NS Party buddies? It seems everybody failed and now it can be blamed on Marga’s “predation,” which has never been proved.
—————
The family disapproved and no doubt did what they could. A young man inexperienced in sex can easily fall prey to the wiles of a desperate, attractive (in his eyes) older female intent on getting married, especially when the woman sees it as her last chance at motherhood.
It’s all conjecture, which really turns me off.
——————
Sure it’s somewhat ‘conjecture’, but it’s the most likely conjecture that fits with what we know.
It makes a good story for David Irving, who loves to be witty and snide.
——————
Agreed. Irving is a mixed bag with a big ego and likes to be a charmer and all that. But a good story and the truth may not have much difference between them.
Where do you get Marga’s birthdate as 1892? Irving says she was 32 when they married, and Himmler 24-25. He turns out to be wrong.
“Heinrich Luitpold Himmler was born in Munich on 7 October 1900,” making him 27-going-on-28 when they married.
Is Irving knowingly changing the ages so he can portray Himmler as a young, inexperienced weakling of a fellow … and make a good story? At the age of 27, Himmler had his eyes wide open, certainly should have. From his later career, we know he was no dope and quite capable of holding his own.
Why is it impossible in your mind that Himmler WANTED to marry Marga? I know of a lot of these types of marriages and they are not gone into out of desperation on the part of the woman. Heine/Marga may have fit together well in the beginning, but it was not “a marriage made in heaven.” Marga’s growing physical unattractiveness had more to do with it than age. If she had given more thought to her appearance, things might have gone better. That was her failure, I think.
Where do you get Marga’s birthdate as 1892?
—————
One commenter on Axis History forum said that was the date. That was the only mention I could find, despite too much time looking.
It fits though with the two age differences given by various sources, i.e., 7 years or 8 years, depending how accurately you measure it (whether you include months). So I’d say she was likely closer to 8 years older, i.e., 7 years and 7 months minimum or 7 years 10 months max assuming she born in Oct, 1892. She was born in a different century after all.
Irving says she was 32 when they married, and Himmler 24-25. He turns out to be wrong.
“Heinrich Luitpold Himmler was born in Munich on 7 October 1900,” making him 27-going-on-28 when they married.
Is Irving knowingly changing the ages so he can portray Himmler as a young, inexperienced weakling of a fellow … and make a good story?
—————
That’s possible but more likely he just got mixed up with the million names, places and dates he has running through his aging mind while talking off the cuff to sympathetic listeners who aren’t going to be critical.
At the age of 27, Himmler had his eyes wide open, certainly should have. From his later career, we know he was no dope and quite capable of holding his own.
—————
Well, this gets back to lack of experience with the opposite sex, leading him to be not controlled by his sensible side but more his emotions and sexual drive.
Why is it impossible in your mind that Himmler WANTED to marry Marga?
————–
It’s not and never was. Of course he didn’t have a gun to his head and had no choice. I’d say he wanted to marry her because he was persuaded to by her. And like us all we sometimes do things that we shouldn’t have done.
I know of a lot of these types of marriages and they are not gone into out of desperation on the part of the woman. Heine/Marga may have fit together well in the beginning, but it was not “a marriage made in heaven.”
——————
Are you sure you’re not British, with that understatement, Carolyn?
Marga’s growing physical unattractiveness had more to do with it than age. If she had given more thought to her appearance, things might have gone better. That was her failure, I think.
—————
Yes, that would have helped, but only forestalled the inevitable. Himmler became among the very elite of the Riech with great power, and as such would have been an irresistible magnet to attractive woman despite his so-so looks. He obviously loved his daughter and wanted more children, and that was something his older wife couldn’t produce.
There’s that old saying, “Men age like wine while women age like milk.” I know that sounds cruel to woman but it’s true in its intended meaning. Women have their glory days compressed into their fertile years while men’s glory days are delayed but longer lasting.
The moral of this discussion for me is that young guys should think very carefully, if not avoid altogether, getting hitched up with “older women”, especially if the woman is approaching anywhere near the end of her fertile years. Young men are prone to thinking they don’t want children, yet several years in they then change their minds.
Another moral (while I’m on the soap box). Before getting hitched, listen to the people who know you best; your parents.
If all else fails become Reichsführer SS and have your evil ways with the secretaries!
You’re really not living in the modern world. Women used to age like that when they had one pregnancy after another, had hard work to do from morning to night, no access to beauty parlors or “health tips,” etc. But upper class women aged far better, and today women are aging very well. I aged fantastically well – it truly surprised me. You have some very rigid ideas.