Sex, Lies and Society V: Minorities

“… if propaganda can bring whole nations to war, why should the sexes be immune?”

– Hervey M. Cleckley M.D.

The belief in homosexuality as the primary link between the sexual abuse of boys and girls has proven to be baseless time and time again, yet the myth persists. [1]

Paedophilia requires the object of desire to be a prepubescent youth so that his or her sexual fantasies may be fulfilled. This may or may not translate into action. Rarely do paedophiles develop an attraction for adults. Paedophilia is more of a sexual fetish and a narcissistic distortion of erotic-love, whereas the child rapist seeks to dominate and regain a sense of power through the sexual abuse of the weakest and the most vulnerable. What is more important for the paedophile is access to young children over and above issues of gender.

Psychologist Anna C. Salter makes the link that there is ingrained cultural association with homosexuality and paedophilia. Therapist Joe Hort agrees: “When a man molests little girls, we call him a ‘pedophile’ and not a ‘heterosexual.’ Of course, when a man molests little boys, people say outright, or mutter under their breath, ‘homosexual.’” [2] As social scientist David Howitt stated: “It is wrong to assume that homosexuality characterizes a fixed and identifiable proportion of the population: the situation is far more complex than this allows.” [3]

Such simplifications feed into false avenues of morality useful for political control. It does not mean a homosexually oriented psychopath cannot traverse all manner of sexual preferences in exactly the same way as the heterosexual psychopath. This does not mean that homosexuality automatically means paedophilia just as it does not mean that heterosexuality equates to preying on underage girls. The key point here is how does psychopathy subvert  – whatever orientation?  The power of sex has always been a socio-political commodity, as we shall see.

The Kinsey Report data on Human Sexuality which gave a “scientific” justification and promotion of a certain type of “sexual revolution” is pertinent in this respect. The Rockefeller funded authors sold the idea that homosexual experiences were common even in sectors of the population who saw themselves as heterosexual. According to Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) his data revealed that reported that:

  • 37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm;
  • 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response.
  • 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview. [4]

However, most of the data, methods and sources by which this statistical information was gathered have since been thoroughly disputed if not debunked. With the help of the Rockefeller’s obsession with social engineering and financial clout, the Kinsey reports have been used for comprehensive psycho-sexual conditioning of the populace – including homosexual men.

In 1994, a UK study using statistical criteria and sources far superior to Kinsey’s dubious methods found that the true rate of homosexuality was about 1 percent which “received considerable adverse criticism.” This tells us more about how entrenched the findings of the Kinsey report had become than any objective analysis of the data. Regarding paedophilia: “One implication of such low rates, of course, is that homosexuals are more marginal than suggested by previous studies and less than a numerically substantial minority.  Such low estimates also have implications for interpreting the high rates of boy-orientation among paedophiles.” In summary: “knowing the nature of an adult’s sexual involvement with children says little or nothing about their orientation to adult men or women.” [5]

sexual minorities© infrakshun

The question that also needs to be asked is: how much of our sexuality is contoured toward orientations which are socially engineered rather than a result of natural development? When Rockefeller social science is involved you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a vested interest in changing Western societies. (We will explore how and why in later posts).

What seems to be key is this: it matters little whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual but how the individual is manifesting an encouraged sexual psychopathy. Sexual preferences can be ponerised and used as tools of mass control just like any other human orientation. Minority rights can be co-opted and used for purposes which are entirely counter to promoting basic rights and defence against prejudice. Psychopathy subverts and distorts “normal” homosexual relations within society exacerbating and feeding an already sensitive state prone to disequilibrium due to the nature of same sex relations as a minority orientation thus against the tide of the majority. Inversions graduate to places of influence on the public at large due in part to the nature of the deviancy and those who are aware of mass psychology and can use it to further their own ends.

Nonetheless, sexual psychopathy transcends orientation with the resulting promotion of psychopathological preferences taking over loving, intimate relations. Some argue that homosexuality is more open to such influences due to an “unnatural” biological pairing of male to male or female to female. Such speculation cannot be proven either way and is a fruitless line of inquiry. Psychopaths infiltrate and dominate sexuality if there is a potential for loving adult relations whatever the sexual orientation. Yet, it may be the case within a minority belief system of sexual orientation this fact alone can be used to mainstream and promote a propaganda of divide and rule, confusion and dogma under the guise of minority rights as stated.

Where that potential exists you will find expressions of a long and concerted attempt to contour the normal homosexual and heterosexual relations towards an entropic view of sexuality. And this means replacing the creative, feminine, receptive and nurturing qualities of our society towards the narcissistic, cynical, hateful, sadistic-masochistic, brutal, violent, nihilistic and animalistic qualities that resonate along the reality pathway of the psychopath. In other words, the object of distortion and hatred is the embodiment of the feminine: in both men and women; it is the cooperative and inclusive ideals which are under attack. And if you follow the history of monotheistic religions and patriarchal structures that arose out of such mass programming you will see that the defining factor in such “progress” is the subjugation, the degradation and gradual desacralisation of all that we associate with healthy relations between men and women, sexual minorities and by extension, our place in society and the natural world.

Cleckley’s Instructive Mistake

Homosexuality has always been a part of the human experience and always will be. This post is not about taking issue with person’s natural orientation, the rights of which I’d always defend. What I’d like to do here is to explore the concept that psychopathy can work through any grouping and have the potential to subvert its laudable aims. This will prove to be much more pertinent and in the context of Establishment abuse which will be further explored in future posts.


Hervey M. Cleckley

Hervey M. Cleckley is known for his out of print but ground-breaking book on psychopaths: The Mask of Sanity. His lesser known work: The Cariacature of Love (1957) tackles the subject of homosexuality. It is a product of its time in that he was unapologetic in his conclusion that it was a mental illness and thus in need of treatment, which would partly explain why this book is not in print. [6] However, the obvious anti-homosexual position is not the real reason that the book has disappeared from view since it holds valuable information as to how psychopathy can manifest through a minority sexual orientation. Cleckley was not aware of the dynamics of ponerology at this time and made the mistake of attributing homosexuality in general as a pathological expression rather than examples of essential psychopathy grafted onto sexual orientation and working through it. It is these extremes that caught his attention in the book. 

To illustrate this point, look at this example from Cleckley in which I substituted “homosexual” for “psychopath” and “homosexuality” for “psychopathy” as indicated in parenthesis:

But it is not only with such overt examples of [psychopathy] as a theme for popular or highbrow art that we must deal. People buying these books, for instance, know what they are getting and, presumably, buy them for that very reason. Where the phenomena of [psychopathy] are brought right out in the open, the non-[psychopath] at least has the chance to orient himself before exposure. The problem raised by Belvedere* is that most people who watch his antics don’t know what he is. His character and his incidental predilections are left intact; it is only the fact of his specific sexual anomaly that has been excised. Thus it is those books, movies, magazines etc, where it is not clearly labelled for all to see—that raise the delicate and difficult question: what pervasive influence, subconscious or otherwise, does a steady diet of [psychopathically]-motivated art have upon the non-[psychopath / pathological narcissist]? [7]

[…]  Art arising from pathologic and perverse viewpoints seems to have immediate and specific appeal to men and women suffering from similar emotional illness. Those who find the normal goals of human life unacceptable or distasteful are likely to greet with enthusiasm poetry or philosophy that reflects an appraisal similar to their own. If they find the ordinary premises of life hateful they are likely to hail as truth and beauty expressions of rejection by another. Perhaps it is not surprising that such reactions and tastes appear as achievements of exquisite discernment, as a precious wisdom available only to the elect, to coteries of sexually distorted and often brilliant intellectuals who in each generation are drawn together through veneration for the morbid. [8] [Emphasis mine]

Regardless of whether narcissistic, post-modern thought or gay identities are operating, the impetus behind these influences is mainstreamed categories of psychopathy:

… Our altered attitude toward [psychopathy], whether fostered by [psychopaths] or the result of an enlightened tolerance toward them, … has brought about a new kind of Gentlemen’s Agreement, by which the minority seeks to impose its views of life and love upon the majority. The reluctance on the part of creators, critics and informed audiences to utter the “nasty word,” or the implication that it has no bearing if they do, is the cause; and a gradual effeminization of artistic and sexual values, the foreseeable result.

If it is true that some of the very greatest poets and philosophers and artists were sexually disordered, and the evidence for this seems strong, there is little doubt that some deviated geniuses are able to express profound matters in human experience without reflecting primarily the distortions and abnormal evaluations so common in their disorder. In current literature, nevertheless, and in well-known works from the past, many examples demonstrate the dispirited, perversely cynical, and one might say life-hating, reactions and judgments that I believe are typical of the brilliant and aggressive homosexual.[9] [Emphasis mine]

And the “aggressive homosexual” that the author mentions is in all probability exhibiting either pathological narcissism, if not full–blown psychopathy with the consequent re-modelling of our cultural norms. In other words, it is merely psychopathy appropriating homosexuality as one convenient medium through which to ponerise society. It is also interesting that this type of “aggression” is directed at the feminine qualities in man and womankind in general. Similarly this same aggression manifests in various groups and organisations across the spectrum of culture and politics. Subversion and distortion comes from narcissism and the gamut of psychopathic anomalies which push a noble idea  into its shadow side.

Cleckley gives varied examples in literature of the early part of the 20th century to illustrate the misanthropic, woman-hating themes on show. Commensurate with sexual pathology and the Don Juan conquistadores of the sexual predator, a loathing of the feminine and the qualities therein underscores a threat to the dominance of the male – a complete distortion of the relationship of male and female polarity, or in Cleckley’s words: “…these men condemn her as a biologic fraud, a ghastly and detestable blunder of nature. […] They can only point to woman as a biologic monstrosity. Discovering that insofar as she is genuinely woman she is not a sexually perfect man, they perversely see in the very features that give her status as female only the most revolting deformity.” [10]

A theme that runs throughout the history of psychopath’s domination of both gay and heterosexual men and women and the attempts to engage a more loving, receptive mode of living to emerge, where the man’s real role as supporter and protector of the woman simultaneously allows the feminine qualities to reside within him and the masculine to reside in the woman in equal “quantities” without imbalance. Love is cynically marginalised as quaint or fake. Nihilism,  mechanical sex and instinct replaces it.

Cleckley was describing the cultural milieu of the late 1950s but the psychopath’s propaganda has continued unabated causing confusion, loss of identity and the burgeoning of extremes across the psycho-sexual spectrum:

The truth is this: if one wants to be in the know as far as poetry, fiction, the theatre, magazines and movies go these days—woman or no woman—one has got to expose oneself to art which is [pathological / psychopathic] in nature. But this raises the question: How much exposure does it take before infection, mild or otherwise, sets in? Can women continually see members of their sex destroyed, mocked, isolated and humiliated; pictured as shrews, whores, idiots and mantraps, and retain any self-confidence or sense of personal worth? And can non-[pathological] men swallow the same amount without eventually corning to think that their wives, sweethearts, sisters and mothers have something of the “menacing, aggressive Poles” about them? To say “no,” is to conclude that art has no effect whatsoever on the people who give their attention to it. We know this is not true, and if propaganda can bring whole nations to war, why should the sexes be immune?  [11]  [Emphasis mine]

When such narcissism and sexual psychopathy became normalised in society it is little wonder that normal gay men just like heterosexuals also exhibited the ponerisation of that sexuality as a whole. Once again: if propaganda can bring whole nations to war, why should the sexes be immune?”

It appears that sexual perversity in all its forms is concerned with aggression, violence, degradation, fear and defiance rather than love. It is the reaffirmation of the pathological ego and its power which is seen as something to celebrate in popular culture. And how do love and the sense of the sacred compete with such “norms” when seen as entertainment, whilst politically correct channels are entirely unaware of the nature ponerogenesis and indeed, fuel its manifestations further? Cleckley believes: “… that perversions are aberrations of the impulses of aggressiveness and domination directed towards a sexual object. Their character is a blending of a large proportion of ego-drives with a minor quantity of sex-urge,” [12] and which traverse all sexual orientations.

The defining factor is a greater narcissism and psychopathology encouraged to multiply within society.



[1] op.cit; Howitt: “While some paedophiles are homosexually orientated towards both adults and children, this does not in itself demonstrate a causal association between the two. There are a number of issues: (1) Uncertainty about the rates of paedophilia in heterosexual and homosexual men; (2) Uncertainty about the rates of homosexuality among adult men; (3) The apparent sexual preference of some heterosexual people for adult females while offending against boys. […] “It is important to distinguish homosexuality directed towards adults from that directed towards underage children. This allows us to see that adult-orientated homosexuals are no more likely to become sexually involved with children than are heterosexuals.” (p. 47).“There were no peer-oriented homosexual males in our sample who regressed to children. Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine … In any case, in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.” (p.48).
[2] ‘Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False link’ by Joe Kort, 2004 | www. published in In the Family magazine Fall, 2003)
[3] op. cit. Howitt (p.46)
[4] Kinsey Institute – ‘The Prevalence of Homosexuality’
[5] op. cit. Howitt (p.48)
[6] The Caricature of Love: A Discussion of Social, Psychiatric, and Literary Manifestations of Pathologic Sexuality by Hervey M. Cleckley, M.D.,Clincial Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology Medical College of Georgia Chief of Service, Psychiatry and Neurology University Hospital Augusta. The Roland Press Co. New York. 1957.
[7]    Ibid. (p.198)
[8]    Ibid. (p.219)
[9]    Ibid. (p.199)
[10]  Ibid. (p.230)
[11]  Ibid. (p.203)
[12]  Ibid. (p.285)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s