Alfred Kinsey

World State Policies II: Fabianism: “With Fate Conspire”

“To play those millions of minds, to watch them slowly respond to an unseen stimulus, to guide their aspirations without their knowledge – all this whether in high capacities or in humble, is a big and endless game of chess, of ever extraordinary excitement.”

— Sidney Webb, founder of the Fabian Society.”


clip_image002Italy’s Antonio Gramsci, was one of the greatest Marxist intellectuals who played a large part in mainstreaming an Illuminist strategy for destroying Christianity and re-shaping Western culture. Since the communist revolution was only partly successful for a variety of vested interests, Leninist methods were ditched in favour of cultural Marxism that would initiate change from within, gradually and inexorably as a “long march through the institutions.” No domain of society would remain untouched. The jostling for New World Order advocates had become fused with ceremonial psychopathy allowing Illuminist inspired philosophies to reincarnate into political theory across Liberal, Conservative and Zionist ideologies, the latter grouping making up most of the progenitors of Marxist theory.

By the end of World War I the Hungarian Bolshevik Georg Lukacs had introduced the concept of “cultural terrorism” which further embedded the strategy within the minds of academia and the Elite. For Lukacs – like the industrialists who came after him – knowledge of psychology and sexual mores were integral part of social engineering towards a Marxist philosophy. Traditional perceptions of sexuality and the sacred were there to be fragmented and distorted – shattered into fragments in order to be remade towards specific aims. This would be taken on by later groups such as the Fabian Society and the massive social engineering programs of the Rockefellers and affiliated organisations.  The three streams of Establishment ideology were moving in the same direction but frequent in-fighting between factions meant that capitalist-collectivist thinking went through a variety of upheavals as it sought to find the ultimate tool for the mass mind and elite dominance.

By the 1920s, after a broadly unsuccessful attempt to change his native country Lukacs had gained a following in Germany which, with industrialist assistance, led to the creation of The Institute for Social Research based at Frankfurt University. This centre of Marxist theory later became simply The Frankfurt School a hugely influential think-tank which would become the social engineering hub for the Western mind. By the 1930s, Cultural Marxism had become a substantial force behind the scenes with psychology forming the basis of new advances in political theory. Intellectuals Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer were key in the development of culture as a primary force in shaping the trajectory of social perception. It was to be even more important than the emphasis on economic disparity which was so crucial to the theory of Marx. For Horkheimer, the proletariat was not the focus of future revolutions but culture as a whole. To make it work, the hybridisation of concepts was essential.

The psychoanalysis of Freud and cultural Marxism would fuse so that the concept of sexual repression and Pavlovian conditioning would eventually make the population pliable and compliant in the face of World State policies. It was to lay the foundation of a method of critical theory where social science and government institutions would be imbued with the bias of cultural Marxism inside a corporatist framework. Education meant adopting the correct attitude rather than universal morality or values. Oppression and victimhood – so much a part of the Zionist cause – was the precursor to so many “progressive” theories which value conformity, group consciousness and homogeneity at the expense of individualism and freedom. Zionism and cultural Marxism went hand in hand. As Jewish immigration to the United States gained momentum throughout the 20th century, media and entertainment were the natural focus of Jewish intellectuals since it was a double whammy of both political and cultural infiltration.

By the 1950s and 1960s the marriage of Zionism, cultural Marxism, advances in psychology and the left-over of seeds of a Nazi-imbued psychopathy were re-established with the support of the Anglo-American, liberal Establishment. It would be the crucible of change that would alter the social landscape of the US in ways unimaginable. While on the one hand eugenics was very much a part of Elite beliefs, the collective and group consciousness was promoted, so too the idea of a One World Order. Mixed in to re-shape sexuality were change agents such as Alfred Kinsey and the sexual revolution, all manner of New Age distortions and streams of the counter-culture subverted and contoured towards the same psychological conditioning. With the merging of psychoanalysis and cultural Marxism sexual perversity became normalised and instinctual drives went beyond the healing of repression to become the pinnacle of the pyramid to which all healing would aspire. Rather than “Free Love” it was free sex and liberation without limitation as an end in itself where traditional institutions and wisdom were thrown out in favour of bland mediocrity. It was indeed a Brave New World of sensation where humanism and later transhumanism and their vision of technocracy would develop the Marxist ideas into a sensate machine for the masses, the torch of Illuminism acting as a red herring and cover for core members of global occultism. The seeds of psychopathy that lay behind it never died.

Developed by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, an ideology was born from political and socialist economic theories, developed from his own interpretations of Marxist theory. He advocated taking power directly as a prelude to socialism. It was a “now or never” principle where the claiming of that power was of overriding importance; the details could follow later. The term “Leninism” was popularized in the early 1920s to denote a “vanguard-party revolution”. It is most clearly seen in a quote from the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx: “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” [1]

By 1905 Lenin and his Bolshevik revolution was overseeing a return of power to the proletariat and the destruction of anything that stood in its way. The bourgeoisie had reason to be afraid. An example of Leninist group-think would be Neo-Conservatism and Revisionist Zionism. [2] Individuals such as Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld represent this line of authoritarianism. For Leninist collectivists, the wolf is openly on show. Though they would never dream of describing themselves as Leninist, it is the principle at work here.

On the other side of the coin was The Fabian Society founded in 1884 by, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, along with English writer Edward R. Pease who also became a trustee for the famous socialist creation of the London School of Economics, also founded by the Webbs. Financing magically arrived from the Rothschilds as well other international bankers including Lord Haldane who summed up the purpose of the society succinctly: “Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State.” [3]A cross-fertilisation of humanism, theosophy, and Communism took place. Lord George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and Arnold Toynbee were some of the earliest members who shared their open views regarding how to shape the world on the anvil of their particular brand of socialist principles. Round table members if not directly part of the society would have been fully aware of the group as it evolved alongside at roughly the same time. More modern versions of Fabians – by nature if not always by membership – are Zbigniew Brzezinski, Gordon Brown, David Rockefeller, Robert Fuller, George Monbiot, Barack Obama and Maurice Strong.

The Fabian Society is the Anglo-American branch of cultural Marxism. Comprised of an elite group of intellectuals from the middle and upper classes a semi-secret society was formed for the express purpose of creating a socialist order without using the Marxist-Leninist methods of revolution but by facilitation and gradation – the gentle approach, much like the action of water eroding rock. They would do this by infiltrating government, education, media, law and commerce, with sophisticated propaganda playing a decisive role in their indoctrinations. The violence and direct confrontation of the Leninists was avoided, unless absolutely necessary. Established governments and institutions were targeted by the Fabians for a dose of social engineering to give qualitatively better and more enduring results. Drawing attention to the term “socialism” was considered counter-productive. Humanitarian principles such as welfare, medical care, workers rights, women’s rights, foreign aid and multiculturalism would serve their objectives without resorting to overt conflict and more importantly, the collectivist vision behind these ostensibly benign moves would never be seen for what it was, and thus easy to proceed without interference. Their hope was that their methods would spread throughout society by a form of direct and indirect educative osmosis which would then become the norm.

The late author Eustace Mullins described a social historian’s observations concerning the “rats” rather than the “wolves” of social engineering and what he considered to be the major development in the late nineteenth century: “… perhaps equivalent to the discovery of the wheel.” He was referring to the time when: “…charitable foundations and world Communism became important movements” and their new discovery: “… was the concept developed by the rats, who after all have rather highly developed intelligences, that they could trap people by baiting traps with little bits of cheese. The history of mankind since then has been the rats catching humans in their traps. Socialism – indeed any government program – is simply the rat baiting the trap with a smidgen of cheese and catching himself a human.” [4]

By 1900 the Fabian Society joined with the trade union movement which later became the political arm of the Labour Party which would eventually implement the framework of the welfare state (and some would say the normalisation of dependency and government responsibility). As a result, the Fabian Society still has a strong influence on government policy. After all, many Labour Party politicians have been Fabians including several Prime Ministers: Ramsay MacDonald MP, Clement Attlee PM, Tony Benn MP, Anthony Crosland PM, Richard Crossman MP, Harold Wilson PM, Tony Blair PM, and Gordon Brown PM.

The symbol of their elected method of gradualism is the turtle and the official shield of the Fabian Society shows an image of a wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolising the gradual shaping of society by manipulation. While Leninism is a Wolf taking what it wants directly, the Fabian ploy is by deception over longer periods of time, but a still a Wolf preying on the sheep, though it is doubtful stalwart Fabians would see it that way.

Allowing the easing of “social tension” is useful by employing socialist principles whilst maintaining the overarching capitalist system. The power inherent within the seeming dichotomy of National Socialism comprising the corporate state and Fabians’ welfare state is seen in a report from 1982 by Alan Pifer, then president of the Carnegie Corporation whom we shall turn to presently. Pifer stated there would be: “… A mounting possibility of severe social unrest, and the consequent development among the upper classes and the business community of sufficient fear for the survival of our capitalist economic system to bring about an abrupt change of course. Just as we built the general welfare state … and expanded it in the 1960s as a safety valve for the easing of social tension, so will we do it again in the 1980s. Any other path is too risky.” [5]

Nationalisation of land and government institutions, protectionism and resistance to free-trade are some of the beliefs of Fabianism. According to member George Bernard Shaw, the Society saw the enormous power of the environment as key to progressive change over time. He passionately drove this point home when he said: “We can change it; we must change it; there is absolutely no other sense in life than the task of changing it. What is the use of writing plays, what is the use of writing anything, if there is not a will which finally moulds chaos itself into a race of gods.” [6]  In their reality, we might have an inkling who will be sitting on the clouds of Olympus when these “gods” in waiting have finished offering the cure to such Hegelian chaos. To this end, Bernard Shaw designed an intriguing stained glass window for the Fabian Society. The window was installed at the Fabian Society’s headquarters but was removed in 1978 for reasons unknown. It came to light again during a sale at Sotheby’s in 2005 having been purchased by the Webb Memorial Trust and was later loaned to the London School of Economics. It depicts two men – possibly Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw – with large hammers pounding a globe of the world which rests on an anvil. Ten individuals kneel reverentially below while a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing displayed on a shield hovers above the world. There is also an inscription above the globe which reads: “Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

This line is from Persian poet and mystic Omar Khayyam:

 “Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits,

And then remold it nearer to the heart’s desire!”

Why is the Earth placed on an anvil? To reshape and transform it into something closer to the Fabian desires. First, the earth and its people must be “shattered to bits” via methods of the Wolf that is hidden behind sheep’s’ clothing and which dominates the earthly sphere. And certainly, the best way to shatter and re-order it into a collectivist’s vision is through the fire of war and the gradualism of “social reform.”

Perhaps one of the most famous proponents of this kind of was Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells in his The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution (1928) where the seemingly laudable aims of socialism are merely used as a backdoor for something quite different. Wells, like so many of his colleagues formed the rival camp of “scientific technique” as the antidote to the Neo-Platonists of the American and German occult-romanticism of the 19th century. It was they who believed in a singularly ecological form of social order. After all, Cecil Rhodes was inspired by a form of Germanic romanticism and English eco-fascism, poetically expressed by John Ruskin to form his secret society of the Round Table. Ruskin felt that faith in science led to serious errors, Wells, however, embraced scientific rationalism which will serve the idea: “… of a planned world-state … one to which all our thought and knowledge is tending … It is appearing partially and experimentally at a thousand points … its coming is likely to happen quickly.” [7]

And where have we heard such a reference to “a thousand points” and “a New World Order”? From none other than George Bush Sr. and his State of the Union address of 1991 entitled: “envisioning a thousand points of Light” in which he declares: “What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea—a new world order…” [8] The elder statesman  then proceeded to soar into unbelievable rhetoric of which Obama and Blair would have been proud. This is particularly nauseating as the speech was at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War, the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the carnage that followed.

What Bush was really signalling to his fellow brethren was a strategic phase in the establishment of a new reality, where the merging of cartel-capitalism with World State collectivism will transcend nation boarders and simplistic notions of left-right paradigms. H.G. Wells explains the nature of the “Open Conspiracy” where its political world:

“… must weaken, efface, incorporate and supersede existing governments … The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York … The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed… It will be a world religion.” [9]

FabianWindow_Large

fabian-socialist-wolf-in-sheep-clothingThis stained-glass window designed by George Bernard Shaw is on display at the London School of Economics (LSE), which was founded by Sydney and Beatrice Webb. Sidney Webb and Shaw are depicted striking the Earth with hammers echoing a quote from Omar Khayyam: “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE.”  A wolf in sheep’s clothing can be seen as the Fabian crest hovering above the globe, indicating its preference for gradualism (and deception). Once again, the end justifies the means, which echos both Neo-conservatism and Crowleyian occult principles. The only difference now is that we have it in a “socialist” context. Another Fabian symbol denoting the same is the tortoise. Lenin’s well-intentioned but “Useful Idiots” are lined up at the bottom worshipping at the altar of socialism which is meant to help those crushed under the flat foot of the State. Sadly, Fabian-socialists appear to offer equally damaging.


We are beginning to see at this stage its startling relationship to Illuminism and the replication of themes and principles which occur throughout literature, politics and social science. Implicit in such belief systems is society elevated to the position far above individual, community and the hope of natural networks that may operate as self-organised units, without the need of the State. By following the centralisation of government as the authority figure, society becomes so ill and pathologised that what the majority of well-intentioned capitalists and socialists appear to not understand is that Fabian manipulations on the anvil of their romantic but dangerous desires is just a tool for psychopathic ascendency. Forcing change by placing populations on an anvil of any ideology won’t work – not least if it is overshadowed by deception.

As author and journalist G. Edward Griffin observed:

If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. Religion encourages contentment and dulls the anger and passion needed for revolutionary change. … Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it should become the vision for better things in the next world. He said the new order must be built on the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. [10]

Build a seductive vision appealing to every human being’s limitless belief in the romance of greener pastures and you have an instant magnetic node to attract your faithful. Philanthropy and Communism were mighty pillars in their armoury of mass control for the Rothschilds and Rockefellers alike. Rather than any altruistic or ideological reasons for their support, knowledge of how these movements served to broker power was vital to the 4Cs.

The long-lived patriarch of the 19th century John D. Rockefeller who presided over Standard Oil and the rise of corporate influence over American society viewed Communism as just another chance to make mountains of dosh. It was the ultimate monopoly made manifest, where financing both sides of any conflict could only mean a self-perpetuating and eternal source of monetary extraction sourced from State oppression. Ever greater forms of monopoly were the driving force of Rockefeller’s power and remains so for the minds who have taken on his vision. China, as exactly the communist-capitalist hybrid currently staking its claim across the world is seen as the perfect template for a neo-feudal World State. This is why John D. Rockefeller’s grandson David Rockefeller as a “china Traveller” in 1973 would sing the praises of the Maoist regime despite the despot having murdered over 40 million of his own people. The Dewy-eyed David waxed lyrical about how “impressed” he was about the “sense of national harmony” and: “… Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded … in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive … The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose …The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.” [11]

It is this form of Communism that is so attractive to the globalist mind. It serves as the perfect model: a totalitarian Elite sitting astride a top-down capitalist system of highly centralised resource management. This love of Communism was in part, entirely misplaced by the McCarthyism of the 1950s as somehow the spectre of cold war infiltration. While the persecution of certain members of Congress, and members within the media and entertainment world was inexcusable, there was, ironically, some justification for the “red menace” but a complete misunderstanding of the true cause.

Author Anthony C. Sutton reminds us that collectivism is indeed a creature of necessity in both belief systems:

It may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. An alternative concept of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features.

There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists – to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because academic historians have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. There are two clues: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose – and it is only hypothesis at this point – that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?  [12]

In order to usher in suitable conditions for their New International Order, certain programs were to be implemented in those very tax-exempt organisations and institutions so that Americans would eventually accept the creation of a world government. This is why the principle of collectivism via Communism, internationalism, globalisation and group endeavour has been promoted by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Carnegie Endowment Centre for National Peace and the Lucis Trust. Even by 1913, there was concern by many in the US government of the day that industrialists and their philanthropic creed were not all they appeared to be. The rapid ascendency of the corporation has been achieved by the ruthless application of the 4Cs. The philanthropic foundation, though offering many altruistic peoples a platform for good deeds is still birthed from a perception that is not remotely interested in furthering the social emancipation of ordinary people. Foundations have taken advantage of the naturally growing altruism present in the normal population having expanded from a mere 21 to more than 50,000 by 1990. [13] This has been commensurate with the take-over of government by corporations and most importantly, educational policy which historically has always been the target. Such was the concern at the evolution of these strange corporate entities and their focus on education of the nation that the 662nd Congress created a commission to investigate the role of these new foundations. After one year of testimony their conclusion was definitive:

“The domination of men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social services of the nation. […] The giant foundation exercises enormous power through direct use of its funds, free of any statutory entanglements so they can be directed precisely to the levers of a situation; this power, however, is substantially increased by building collateral alliances which insulate it from criticism and scrutiny.” [14]

Yet these conclusions were to highlight the apathy and fecklessness of Congressional power, not least the relative ease to which they submitted to bribes by the Elite in return for legislative support.

An interview conducted with Norman Dodd in 1982 by writer and film-maker G. Edward Griffin, provides an interesting confirmation of the above. From his work as staff director of the Reece Committee a Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations named after Congressman Carroll Reece, Dodd was tasked with investigating “un-American” activities rumoured to be circulating in large tax-exempt foundations and other institutions within America. This had been prompted by certain editorials and opinion pieces within newspapers and foundation newsletters perceived to have been unduly supportive of communist ideology. Dodd under the Reece Committee defined “un-American” as: “… a determination to effect changes in the country by unconstitutional means. …any effort in that direction which did not avail itself of the procedures which were authorized by the Constitution could be justifiably called un-American.” [15]

Before his appointment to the Reece Committee Dodd worked in banking and financial consultancy through the 1929 depression up to his appointment by the Reece Committee in 1953. His interest in seeking methods by which he could contribute to: “… the educational world to … teach the subject of economics realistically and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterize our country.” [16] His networking with individuals who thought the banking system was not working in the US and his obvious capacity as both a member of the stock exchange and international financial advisor brought him into contact with those at higher levels of commerce. One of these was Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation. After meeting Gaither in New York for what he assumed would be an informal and friendly welcome the CEO revealed something to Dodd that almost caused him to “fall off his chair”. An extract from the transcript follows, (or you can watch the full interview here).

“Mr. Dodd, we’ve asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves?” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and said:

“Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war. We’ve had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”

I said, “Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know,” whereupon he made this statement to me: “Mr. Dodd, we are here operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” […]

“Well, Mr. Gaither I can now answer your first question. You’ve forced the Congress of the United States to spend $150,000 to find out what you’ve just told me.” I said: “Of course, legally, you’re entitled to make grants for this purpose, but I don’t think you’re entitled to withhold that information from the people of the country to whom you’re indebted for your tax exemption, so why don’t you tell the people of the country what you just told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing.” So then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you’ve forced the Congress to spend this money in order to find out what you’ve just told me.” [17]

After that experience it’s understandable that Dodd found himself accepting a post on the Reece Committee.

In 1954, Norman Dodd had been able to study the minutes of meetings from a twenty year period which he found implicated the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other organisations in an intentional manipulation of the United States into World War I and explicit control of US education in order to subvert and distort history towards a collectivist ideology. Though this is one man’s testimony and much like the Kay Griggs interviews open to criticism, they are compelling for their sense of authenticity and factual confirmation. Dodd had nothing to gain from his claims and indeed the details merely confirm the beliefs and actions of the protagonists in question which derive from many other sources.

The Carnegie Endowment for international Peace, (now an international peace and foreign-policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C.) began its operations in 1908 and officially in 1910 with a $10 million gift by its founder, industrialist and J.D. Rockefeller buddy Andrew Carnegie, giving his trustees “… the widest discretion as to the measures and policy they shall from time to time adopt” in carrying out the purpose of the fund. [18]According to the minutes of this meeting the discussion revolved around the question as to whether there was a more effective means than war to change the lives of an entire populace. They concluded that there was not. In the following year the second question asked in the meeting was how could they involve the United States in a war? They decided that the control of the State Department was necessary to achieve such an aim and for that to be successful the channels of diplomacy would also have to be controlled.

During World War I another meeting took place where they decided to send a telegram to President Woodrow Wilson advising him not to end participation in the war too quickly. By the time the war had ended in 1918 their focus had shifted to how best they could mould American society towards their objectives, deciding that education with specific attention to American history must be reshaped and reformed. That was when the Rockefeller Foundation came aboard, presumably with great enthusiasm. Domestic operations would be handled by the Foundation while educational concerns at the international level would be handled by the Carnegie Endowment.

After being turned down by many academics when asked if they would “alter the manner in which they present their subject” they finally adopted the tactic of creating their own group of historians for this express purpose. The Guggenheim Foundation was found to be amenable to their designs and agreed to grant them fellowships on the Carnegie Endowment board’s say so. Eventually, twenty potential teachers of American history were sent to London, effectively told what was expected of them: securing posts that were fitting for the doctorates they had been generously granted. These twenty historians ultimately became the core grouping within the American Historical Association. Dodd states further that by the end of the 1920s:

“… the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) for a study of our history in a manner which points to what this country look forward to, in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence, a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is this: the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with characteristic American efficiency.” [19]

The minutes were transcribed by Dodd’s colleague Kathryn Casey onto dictatone files. These might reside, according to Dodd, somewhere in the US House of Representatives or Congress.

Norman Dodd succeeded in making his mark against the true “un-American” activities existing in the United States at the time. The second Congressional investigation of foundation tampering with schools and American social life ran into vociferous criticisms from corporate and political quarters which caused its disbandment soon after. Nevertheless, the committee offered their findings from an almost one-thousand page report which stated:

The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. Its various forms of patronage carry with them elements of thought control. It exerts immense influence on educator, educational processes, and educational institutions. It is capable of invisible coercion. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts, academic opinion, thought leadership, public opinion.

The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in education and the social sciences, with a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. This Interlock has some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of education.

It has come to exercise very extensive practical control over social science and education. A system has arisen which gives enormous power to a relatively small group of individuals, having at their virtual command huge sums in public trust funds.

The power of the large foundations and the Interlock has so influenced press, radio, television, and even government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of anything the Interlock approves to get into news channels—without having first been ridiculed, slanted and discredited.

Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution of our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of professional employees of the large foundations. Even the great sums allotted by federal government to social science research have come into the virtual control of this professional group.

Foundations have promoted a great excess of empirical research as contrasted with theoretical research, promoting an irresponsible “fact-finding mania” leading all too frequently to “scientism” or fake science.

Associated with the excessive support of empirical method, the concentration of foundation power has tended to promote “moral relativity” to the detriment of our basic moral, religious, and governmental principles. It has tended to promote the concept of “social engineering,” that foundation-approved “social scientists” alone are capable of guiding us into better ways of living, substituting synthetic principles for fundamental principles of action.

These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in political activity, not in the form of direct support of candidates or parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully calculated political concepts.

The impact of foundation money upon education has been very heavy, tending to promote uniformity in approach and method, tending to induce the educator to become an agent for social change and a propagandist for the development of our society in the direction of some form of collectivism. In the international field, foundations and the Interlock, together with certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling research through the power of the purse. The net result has been to promote “internationalism” in a particular sense—a form directed toward “world government” and a derogation of American nationalism. [Emphasis mine] [20]

The early days of American education are soaked in corporatist-collectivist group-think and One World indoctrination which has only become more entrenched and sophisticated in its camouflage. There were constant warnings about this pathogenic infection throughout the 20th century but the strength of the funding and corruption both in Congress and in the education system itself was too strong.  It is important to take note that though this appears to be a “communist plot”, collectivism alongside corporatism are products of the genesis of evil, known in ponerological terms as “ponerogenesis.” Psychopaths are merely using the most convenient tool s to achieve their ends, a fact which has been reiterated throughout this blog so that the reader does not fall into a waiting belief-trap. An example of this can be seen in the scapegoating of the public regarding child molestation and paedophilia and the witch-hunts that followed. The climate of fear and persecution was also famously present at the McCarthy hearings. These are both examples of seriously flawed attempts to address pathocratic influence and the latter’s successful methods at countering it.

It seems the most effective way of ensuring pathocratic dominance through the application of collectivism is by co-opting education of the masses. As we have seen in the testimony of Norman Dodd this is exactly where they have focused their intentions most effectively. Fabianism is synonymous with social engineering and it is the Rockefeller Foundation that took up the gauntlet of not only helping to contour human sexuality and psychology but to target schoolchildren and therefore subsequent generations of adults in the ways of vertical collectivism alongside the principles of the 4Cs.  We also see why there were so many Fabians within Alice Bailey’s Theosophical branch of occultism which promoted the memes of group consciousness and a New World Religion sourced from the United Nations. Same ideology different societal domain. You a method of psycho-spiritual manipulation for every conceivable preference. (Obviously we cannot forget that this hugely benefits the theocratic aims of Zionism whose agents work across the whole 3EM to varying degrees. Cultural Marxism and collectivism are the most useful examples to Zionist and authoritarian Jewish leaders since it fuses seamlessly with anti-Semitism propaganda).

clip_image008

The late Norman Dodd, former Congressional Investigator during an interview by G. Edward Griffin.

To fulfil their these objectives J.D. Rockefeller’s and Frederick T. Gates’ General Education Board founded in 1902 was given the task to redesign American education in way that could not be accomplished by the Carnegie Endowment or Guggenheim members alone. When combined with other Rockefeller social engineering projects, the sheer ambition and scope of their mission cannot be understated, nor the consequences of their obvious success. When you read the mission statements and objectives of The General Education Board several themes become evident all aligning themselves towards the very principles we have been exploring. Such thinking is in plain sight, with alternative possibilities entirely absent. The themes on show are actually the antithesis of good schooling. Dressed up in euphemisms for the common good we have a clear doctrine for creating an ideological system – “system” being the operative word. The intention to encourage and implement:

1.An agenda to minimize learning and understanding in favour of a specific collectivist belief.

2. The reduction of intelligence in favour of endless specialization.

3.A default emphasis on class distinction.

4. To erode and finally eliminate schooling traditions, customs and academic excellence that may lie outside of The General Education Board’s objectives.

5. The reduction of parental influence.

6. Clear indications of eugenic undercurrents, group think, homogeneity and conformity with the loss of individuality and originality.

7. The politicisation of education.

Through the 1920s and 1930s the rolling clouds of collectivism, corporatism and eugenics were beginning to form over education in America and to a lesser degree in Europe. Rockefeller agent Professor John Dewey from the Colombia Teachers College had his Progressive Education Association set up by 1920 which was to spread the Humanist philosophy and eugenics-based doctrine over educational policy. He co-authored the Humanist Manifesto in 1933 which called for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.”Co-signer C.F. Potter stated in 1930: “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” [21]

By 1947, that pivotal year for collectivist social models, the PEA would become the American Education Fellowship where Dewey renewed his call for the: “… establishment of a genuine world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority …” Another Colombia professor Harold Rugg supported Deweys’ statements and society’s need to mould the child’s mind via a new scientific imperative where “a new public mind is to be created.” This was to be achieved:

“… by creating tens of millions of individual minds and welding them into a new social mind. Old stereotypes must be broken up and ‘new climates of opinion’ formed in the neighborhoods of America. Through the schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government—one that will embrace all the activities of men, one that will postulate the need of scientific control…in the interest of all people.” [22]

Rugg’s vision was among many who saw a scientific elite ready to: “… create swiftly a compact body of minority opinion for the scientific reconstruction of our social order.” His fervour no doubt impressed the Rockefeller Foundation, enough to fund his prolific texts via the Lincoln School and the National Education Authority, both bastions of a social science that would later be known as Social Darwinism (eugenics).

And it is this “scientific control” that we will turn to next.

 


Notes

[1] The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest) commissioned by the Communist League originally titled Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei) and published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It laid out the League’s purposes and program.
[2] Francis Fukyama once a Neo-Conservative supporter stated that Neo-Conservative s “…believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.” Fukuyama, F. ‘After Neo Conservatism.’ New York Times Magazine. February 19, 2006.
[3] See Eric D. Butler, The Fabian Socialist Contribution to the Communist Advance, (Melbourne: Australian League of Rights, 1964), pp. 19, 20.
[4] op. cit. Mullins (p.191)
[5] op. cit. Taylor Gatto.
[6] ‘George Bernard Shaw’. SpartacusEducational. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jshaw.htm
[7] p.243; Ecology in the 20th Centur:, A History, By Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989. | ISBN 0300045212
[8] George H. W. Bush’s State of the Union Address, ‘Envisioning One Thousand Points of Light’ Given on Tuesday, January 29, 1991. Infoplease.com
[9] The Open Conspiracy by H. G. Wells, 1928 The revised and expanded version arrived in 1933.
[10] ‘Secret Organizations and Hidden Agendas’ The Future Is Calling (Part Two) 2003 – 2011 by G. Edward Griffin Revised 2011 July 18. http://www.freedomforceinternational.org
[11] ‘From a China Traveler’ By David Rockefeller, The New York Times August 10, 1973.
[12] Wall Street and The Bolshevik Revolution By Antony C. Sutton, 1974. See also online version here: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html
[13] p.9; Private Funds, Public Purpose: Philanthropic Foundations in International Perspectives
edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler, Published by Klewer Academic / Plenum Publishers, | ISBN 0306-45947-7
[14] The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling By John Taylor Gatto, New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001 |Online edition. Chapter 12: ‘The Daughters of the Barons of Runnemede.’
[15] ‘The Hidden Agenda: interview with Norman Dodd’ By G. Edward Griffin 1982. http://www.realityzone.com
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements by Edmund Jan Osmanczyk and Anthony MangoLondon: Routledge, 2004.
[19] op. cit. Griffin.
[20] ‘The Reece Committee Hearings Before the Special Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organisations – House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, Second Session on H. Resolution 217’ 1954.
[21] Humanist Manifesto, written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and published with 34 signers. Refers to humanism as a religious movement meant to replace previous, deity-based systems. Cosmology, human nature, biological and cultural evolution, epistemology, ethics, religion, self-fulfillment, and the quest for freedom and social justice. This latter, stated in article fourteen, proved to be the most controversial, even among humanists, in its opposition to ‘acquisitive and profit-motivated society’ and its call for an egalitarian world community based on voluntary mutual cooperation. The document’s release was reported by the mainstream media on May 1, simultaneous with its publication in the May/June 1933 issue of the New Humanist” (Wikipedia)
[22] The Great Technology: social chaos and the public mind by Harold Rugg, 1933.

Advertisements

Puppets & Players IX: The Rockefellers

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

– David Rockefeller


The Rockefeller Foundation may be remembered as the primary financier of Alfred Kinsey’s “scientific” studies which helped to usher in massive changes to US and European society in the 1950s and 1960s. The much cultivated origins of their philanthropic deeds are still going strong in the form of the Rockefeller Foundation now based at 420 Fifth Avenue, New York City. However, the Rockefeller legacy has had more to do with public relations and the continuance of an ideological brand of corporatism than the official, mission “to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.” The dynasty has funnelled vast amounts of money into areas as diverse as construction, medical health, population sciences, agricultural and natural sciences, arts and humanities, social sciences, oil, education, economics, conservation and international politics, they have exacted an unparalleled influence over American society.

clip_image002

The Brothers Rockefeller (from left to right) are: David, the last surviving Grand-child of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller. Until recently he was Chairman of the Board of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop (deceased); John D. III (deceased) Nelson and Laurance. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) was set up in 1940 to fund international, philanthropic endeavours. The Rockefeller Foundation has a more independent remit.

The Rockefeller family made its largest fortune in the oil business, primarily through their company Standard Oil during the late 19th and early 20th century. Their long financial association with the Chase Manhattan Bank and JP Morgan finally merged their interests to form JP Morgan Chase in 2009. Alongside Goldman Sacs, they profited hugely from the 2008 financial warfare that consolidated and centralised their global wealth into trusted mergers. No one knows the combined wealth of the family’s assets and investments but with the backing of the Rothschilds since the days of Milner and the Round table, it is likely to be very much more than substantial.

The same old boys’ network is in evidence within the banking fraternities from whom the Rockefellers extract maximum financial dividends traditionally passed only to male family members. Shares in the successor companies to Standard Oil, real estate holdings and many other diversified investments are overseen by a hand-picked and powerful trust committee headed by a revolving door of high-profile individuals drawn from Wall St., commerce and academia. A whole team of professional money managers are employed to look after the principal holding company, Rockefeller Financial Services which falls into five main branches:

  • Rockefeller & Co.
  • Venrock Associates (Venture Capital)
  • Rockefeller Trust Company (Managing hundreds of family trusts)
  • Rockefeller Insurance Company (Managing liability insurance for family members)
  • Acadia Risk Management (Insurance Broker for the art collections, real estate and private planes.)

The total philanthropic donations from two generations of the family amounted to over $1 billion from 1860 to 1960. In November 2006, the New York Times reported that the present family patriarch David Rockefeller and his total charitable benefactions amount to about $900 million over his lifetime. [1] That’s an extraordinary figure. However, the question of whether the philanthropy was (and is) an unsullied wish to assist mankind or merely another manipulative mask in a box of corporate tricks could be argued long into the night. True philanthropy is surely unconditional and without an agenda of any kind. Everything the Rockefellers do has its origins in the desire to shape humanity’s development towards its own perception of reality. As author and journalist Gary Allen observed in his book The Rockefeller File: “By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the ‘public good’ and ‘public interest.’” [2]History shows this to be the case so we can logically assume that the legacy of philanthropy has been extremely successful in offering a cover for their less well known activities throughout American and British socio-cultural change.

There were some who saw through the mask of philanthropy to the real consequences of his actions.


41QCVLcm9mL

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

– David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

***

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

– David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

***

“But this present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.”

– David Rockefeller, speaking at the Business Council for the United Nations, September 14, 1994

***

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

– David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973


The early part of the 20th century saw John D. Rockefeller and his brother William Avery carve out a permanent place in US history to all but replace the Presidents’ heads carved out of the mountains at Rushmore. With many social “face-lifts” to fit  the culture of the day, the Rockefellers have been responsible for funding and promoting some of the most potent social engineering projects in America over the last one hundred years. The reason was to create an American populace that is preoccupied, docile, apathetic and ultimately accepting of a new form of global feudalism; this has always been the aim of the family and its agencies. Monopolistic control of business and people was the key driver of its ascendancy. Since politics and money are synonymous to the Rockefellers, they have been particularly busy influencing political candidates and their parties towards the goals they hold so dear.

In 1927, as a prelude to the coming Great Depression New York City Mayor John F. Hylan didn’t mince his words in an interview he gave to the New York Times. They remain as relevant now as they did then:

“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self-created screen … At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”

It was the ruthlessness and unswerving passion for making money that probably drew the attention of the House of Rothschild in using the Rockefellers as yet another agent for its global financial Empire. The Establishment families have an incestuous relationship across all domains, which is why so much of their funding has been thrown at political organisations and institutions that they either helped to create or best served their financial, political and ideological interests. Its support for a virtual “Who’s Who” of the Establishment speaks volumes.

Standard Oil CartoonJohn D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil company characterized as an evil octopus a common sentiment of the time. | Reproduced by the National Humanities Center Research Triangle Park, NC, 2005. Courtesy Library of Congress.


The promotion of cartel-capitalism is the Rockefeller’s’ overriding principle of world advancement. Many of these groups and their beliefs are unknown to the public and outside any democratic framework despite exerting a powerful “invisible hand” on political discourse. Most candidates in successive US administrations have been members of or affiliated to these organisations, a fact which should cause concern. As well as its funding of the Council on Foreign Relations War and Peace Studies that advised the US State Department and the US government on World War II strategy and forward planning, other long time beneficiaries include a legion of think-tanks, trusts, foundations, organisations, NGOs, and federal agencies. The most well-known of these is the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London; London School of Economics; the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the Brookings Institute and the World Bank.

These tentacles also reached a number of Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Colombia, McGill and Princeton University and the University of Lyon in France who benefit from grant funding, in particular the research in social sciences, natural sciences and medicine. Steady support for ideologies dear to their hearts include the Population Council of New York; Social Science Research Council (funding for fellowships and grants-in-aid); National Bureau of Economic Research; the new building of the medical school during the 1920s-1930s and the Trinidad Regional Virus Laboratory. An emphasis on economics, social science and population control is always evident.

jdr-senior-jr

John D. Rockefeller Senior and Junior, 1921

The Rockefeller Foundation is ranked among the most influential NGOs in the world with 2010 assets totalling $3.5 billion with annual grants of over $139 million. [3] With a state charter for the foundation being granted by the New York Mayor in 1913 along with their many trusts that would emerge over the intervening years, this allowed a large portion of the Rockefeller’s fortune to fall outside the requirements for inheritance tax and therefore insulated from government and IRS control. When big money meets politics behind closed doors you can be sure that notions of transparent democracy cease to apply. In its first decade of socio-political influence, the Rockefeller foundation concentrated entirely on the sciences, public health and medical education. They knew that in order to affect long-term change according to their own agenda, it needed to be comprehensive and seemingly benevolent mask rather than at its core, an ideological and political one.

It was also in 1913 that the foundation set up the International Health Commission launching the foundation into international public health activities and forging the reputation to fund research into diseases in fifty-two countries on six continents and twenty-nine islands. The Commission established and endowed the world’s first school of Hygiene and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University and later at Harvard. It then spent more than $25 million  developing other public health schools in the US and in 21 foreign countries, helping to establish America as the world leader in medicine and scientific research. In the same year, it began a 20-year support program of the Bureau of Social Hygiene, whose mission was research and education on birth control, maternal health and sex education. Once again, this emphasis was key.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became the foundation chairman in 1917 and a year later, established The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, named after his mother, shifting the focus of philanthropy more deeply into the social sciences, stimulating the founding of university research centres and creating the Social Science Research Council. This memorial fund was subsequently absorbed into the foundation in a major reorganisation in 1928/9.

rockefeller6The foundation also supported the early initiatives of notorious geo-political manipulator Henry Kissinger, such as his directorship of Harvard’s International Seminars and the early foreign policy magazine Confluence, both established by him while he was still a graduate student. Kissinger is the equivalent of the Shakespearian character of Iago in “Othello” whose job it is to play one group, government or individual against each other without them ever discovering the source of the intrigue. As an agent of the Rockefellers, Kissinger has been involved in every shady, geo-political form of skulduggery since he was National Security Advisor to Nixon and is seen as an elder geo-political statesman – the public face of those we rarely, if ever get to see. He has perhaps done more than anyone in contouring American politics and society towards Rockefeller and Elite objectives. It was he who spear-headed the concept of food as a weapon forged from the very same think-tanks and organisations we have been discussing.

1954 was a pivotal year for David Rockefeller’s global aspirations. The Bilderberg Group was founded and The Conference on International Politics, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation was convened in Washington, D.C., in the same month. The leading lights of post-war political science were brought together including: Walter Lippmann, Kenneth W. Thompson, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth N. Waltz, Paul Nitze, Arnold Wolfers, and Reinhold Niebuhr among others. The Rockefeller Foundation’s president chaired the conference while Waltz and Thompson helped to organize the meeting and discussions. The official objective was to explore “the state of theory in international politics” [4]

Though some commentators believe that there was a failure to arrive at a consensus towards unified theory of international relations, this was never the intention. By gathering together so many luminaries in the field of neo-realism as per the Rockefeller formula, their target was to assess an exact state of play in order to begin steering societies in the required direction at certain junctures. What better way to do this than to scan the greatest minds and extract the information? Perhaps even head-hunt the best and brightest to join the Foundation?

Kenneth W. Thompson was obviously singled out by the Foundation as a useful tool. In 1955, less than a year after the first Bilderberg conference he began working for the Rockefeller Foundation eventually becoming Vice President for International Programs, specialising in the area of institutional philanthropy and no doubt contributing – knowingly or unknowingly – to the Rockefellers’ fine-tuning of the field. As author Nicolas Guilhot observes: “One might reasonably ask whether, had he not played a crucial role within the Rockefeller Foundation for several decades, the field of IR would be the same, or whether it would exist at all.” [5]And that is surely the most obvious point of the whole conference: it was an exercise in establishing a dominant view of international relations under the cover of exploring diversity and economic prosperity. As political scientist professor Robert E. Muller Jr. comments, the conference may have helped establish:

“… a discipline separate from political science and rooted in an understanding of power politics and national interest dictated by the exigencies of the moment. And in this way, it may have invented the international relations theory that guided the thinking of American policy-makers well into the Vietnam era.” [6]

This is exactly where the Rockefeller Foundation excels.

210px-29_-_New_York_-_Octobre_2008

Symbolic of the family’s titanic aspirations: Rockfeller Center’s GE Building, New York | Photo: Martin St-Amant (wikipedia)

A familiar political philosophy for the Elite families is derived from the fusion of Marxism and Capitalism; collectivism and fascism. These beliefs are attractive to corporatist families like the Rockefellers because they offer what they consider to be the best of both worlds. China is the best example since it incorporates both which is why the Rockefeller Foundation played an important role in rebuilding intellectual ties across the Atlantic after the Second World War. They did this by using their vast storehouse of money to be the self-appointed catalyst for increasing the hybridisation of Western capitalist ethos and communist-Marxist ideas via intellectual refugees and American thinkers. It is this literal capitalisation of economic ideologies and their applications that most interests true corporatists. In their minds, it offers the best framework by which a global neo-feudalist state can manifest.

Rather than the “universalist” credentials that the Rockefeller Foundation liked to promote it was actually a mask for this economic hybrid. Rockefeller president Lindsay F. Kimball offered his own advice as to the perception of the foundation in his report from the 1950s:

“The Senate and FBI investigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations [a Rockefeller beneficiary] and the charges proffered by Representative Cox indicate the belief in at least a few minds, that the Rockefeller Foundation is either unwittingly giving support to the enemies of our country or is itself fuzzy-minded, unrealistic, and even pinkishly inclined.” [7]

Though unfashionable in its day due to the spectre of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this belied the fact that the Rockefellers were much more than “pinkishly inclined” but an active promoter of World State influences and communist ideology, unbeknownst to Kimball himself, though his highlighting of these conclusions were obviously borne from his own concerns. This was unlike many artists and intellectuals of the day who genuinely saw socialism, communism or Marxism as at least a new possibility for social change and a step away from the relentless materialism which had engulfed America.

Indeed, the communication between top level staff at the Foundation indicated that they were favourable towards socialist and communist intelligentsia. The most important field of enquiry for the Rockefeller Foundation is best summarised by Hugh Wilford, discussing the Foundation’s influence in his book: The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution, where he asks the question: “Are thoughts organically formed? Is it possible to control or manipulate thoughts externally to make them fit into the goals of organisations such as foundations?” [8]

The answer is an unequivocal “yes.”

To that end, another significant program within the Rockefeller Foundation was its Medical Sciences Division, which extensively funded women’s contraception and the human reproductive system in general. Other funding went into endocrinology departments in American universities, human heredity, mammalian biology, human physiology and anatomy, psychology, and the pioneering studies of human sexual behaviour by Dr. Alfred Kinsey whom we looked at in the Sex Establishment.

This brings us to the core belief system of the Rockefellers and their comrades: social control largely based around eugenics – a pseudo-science as strong as it ever was in Elite circles. The Rockefellers have been responsible for funding social engineering projects with just such a belief at their root. In 1933, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, proclaimed that “The social sciences … will concern themselves with the rationalisation of social control …” and this has remained so ever since. [9]

In 1952, John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council the presidency of which just happened to be none other than Frederick Osborn, leader of the American Eugenics Society who held the position until 1959. Nine years later he wrote: “Eugenic goals are most likely to be achieved under another name than eugenics.” And so it is. From Social Darwinism to the now to the more academically bland social biology and genetics.

General Motors, the Ford Foundation, IBM and others were all involved in supporting the Nazi regime that was both ideological, logistical and material. [10]The Rockefeller family was perhaps the most active in providing assistance to the Nazi Third Reich contributing to the speed of its rapid ascent to power. It is still largely unknown that right from the start of its creation by John D. Rockefeller, the Foundation served as a principle financier of the German Eugenics initiative and even funded the program on which Josef Mengele worked before he went to Auschwitz. [11]Successfully joining financial forces with the Carnegie Institute and the Harrimans,a host of American academics from prestigious universities such as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton happily embraced a racist, and fascist philosophy and practice existing in America at the time. The authoritarian nature of the eugenics belief was the basis upon which many of the institutions of the 1940s came into being.

When we understand that the updated, racist philosophy of Nazism is the driving force behind so called Rockefeller philanthropy and much of the Establishment’s world-view, we can begin to see the reasons for such support in a very different light. This is the reason why the Rockefeller Foundation’s main financial beneficiaries have been the very same organisations that have historically adhered to the same beliefs. Though it does not necessarily mean all subsequent generations of Rockefellers are cast in the same mold. However, the trajectory of the family and its objectives remain the same regardless of whether this is merely misguided results of brainwashed beliefs or the symptoms of inherited psychopathic traits.

NYC_-_Rockfeller_Center_-_Atlas_Statue

New York Rockefeller Center with statue of the God Atlas. The Rockefeller institutions are often saturated in mythological and occult symbolism.

The Rockefeller Foundation underwent a significant re-organisation in 1928 giving the opportunity for an agriculture department to be incorporated into the Natural Sciences division. In order to protect the family’s investments and to ostensibly guard against communist influence the Foundation gave a grant to the Mexican government for maize research, undertaken with the help of Nelson Rockefeller via the US government. Applying the principles of John D. Rockefeller’s meteoric success with Standard Oil the science of corn propagation and the new agriculture was to mark out the early 1940s as a landmark in the rise of large-scale mono-farming joining together with the commensurate rise in mechanisation and fast food economy in the US.

With close assistance from the Ford Foundation Latin America and India were the next in line to “benefit” from the vast experiment in agribusiness which would soon to be labelled the “Green Revolution” and the ultimate answer to poverty. In reality, expanding crop yields created the exact opposite by displacing farmers and their communities, creating ecological catastrophes, reducing biodiversity, lessening soil fertility and saturating the environment with pesticides from the new offshoot businesses of the agrichemical industry. In concert with international banking and commerce, far from solving the world’s poverty it served to increase it, even though the existence of food mountains would be a feature of modern farming methods parallel to famine and interstate war.

For the Rockefellers, searching for ever more efficient means of making money and redesigning humanity to a sophisticated serfdom meant using corporatism grafted onto the global ecology –  stream-lining Nature’s bounty into a vast production line. It was only natural for the Foundation to support the advances in genetically modified organisms (GMO) foodstuffs and transgenic crop production where the eventual patenting of Nature herself became the economic goal. This conveniently merged with the ideas on eugenics and population control (as all goals towards centralisation ultimately do) best espoused by the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation who finance corporate-led, scientifically dubious vaccination and agriculture projects.

There is an important crossover towards the control of populations and how food, agriculture and technology can influence an outcome that is aligned to the belief system of the Rockefellers and their associates. The radical change from localised subsistence farming to the placing of power in a handful of agribusiness corporations has been in part, thanks to considerable Rockefeller funding. (Breaking the independent clusters of family farmers has always been an integral part of Elite-sourced technological “revolutions,” as we saw in “The Courage to Critique”) .To that end, generous financing has been poured into biotechnology research personified by trans-national corporation Monsanto which has a record of worker rights, environmental and business corruption unparalleled in corporate practice.

The wholly erroneous and disingenuous assumptions that GMO can solve the world’s food crisis, has nonetheless been given a healthy dose of support in industry and the MSM, where in reality, it is nothing more than another corporate tool of exploitation. For this to work members are activated within the auspices of humanitarian directives found the United Nations, WTO, IMF and The World Bank. They also need to appeal to the spiritual and occult-minded Elite presently residing in its most public face: The Lucis Trust, an occult organisation firmly embedded in the United Nations and its affiliated agencies.

clip_image003

“In 1917, John D. Rockefeller could have paid off the whole US public debt on his own. Today, Bill Gates’ entire fortune would barely cover two months’ interest.”

It was to be during the years between 1956 – 1960 that the Rockefeller Brothers’ Fund financed the Special Studies Projectwith the help of then President Nelson Rockefeller and directed by the ever faithful Henry Kissinger. This was to be a blueprint for the future, not for America but for the “global community.” The studies were published in a now hard to come by book entitled: Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports. It is here that the full long-term nature of the World State philosophy can be discerned though suitably dressed up in euphemisms and platitudes. The objective of the studies were to create a long-term plan so that a progressive phasing in of a global government could materialise in a post-war environment. To do this large-scale social engineering was to take place using the Fabian method of gradualism so that the American people and eventually the world, would have no idea what was being sold to them. The future they have shaped has come of age.

(For more on these studies and Prospect for America please visit wwwredefininggod.com)

See also: James Corbett’s excellent series on Big Oil and the Rockefellers:

 


Notes

[1] ‘Manhattan: A Rockefeller Plans a Huge Bequest’By Stephanie Strom, The New York Times, November 21, 2006.
[2] The Rockefeller File By Gary Allen. Published by ’76 Press, 1976.
[3] Return of Private Foundation, or Section 4947(a)(1) Nonexempt Charitable TrustTreated as a Private Foundation 2010. Form 90-PF. | www. dynamodata.fdncenter.org/
[4] p.240; The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, by Robert E. Muller Jr.; Nicolas Guilhot, ed., New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
[5] op. cit. Muller (p.15)
[6] Review of The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, Edited by Nicolas Guilhot in Ethics & International Affairs, July 12 2012. http://www.ethicsaninternationalaffairs.org
[7] ‘The Rockefeller Foundation vis a vis National Security,’ By Lindsley F. Kimball, November 19, 1951, folder 201, box 25, series 900, RG3, RFA, RAC.
[8] p.117; The New York Intellectuals: From Vanguard to Institution By Hugh Wilford, Manchester University Press, 1995 | ISBN-10: 0719039886
[9] Max Mason quoted in ‘Mental Health, Education and Social Control’ Part 2 By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., September 2004 | http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/006/cuddy/mental_health-2.htm
[10] IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation. By Edwin Black, Second paperback edition, Washington, DC: Dialog Press, 2009 | ISBN 13: 9780914153108
[11] Ibid.

The Sex Establishment V: “Normaphiliacs” and Freudian Slips

“This condition had no name, under the pen of Freud it would become the Oedipus complex and create a universal pathology for the sole purpose that he could be less alone [with his creation].” […] Here is the key to the Freudian epistemology: the extrapolation of a universal theory from a personal adventure.”

– Michel Onfray, Le crépuscule d’une idole – l’affabulation freudienne (Twilight of the Idol – The Freudian Fable) 


In the 21st century we have the results of various social engineering programmes made manifest. Alfred Kinsey managed to contribute to the gradual detachment of sex from love, and the fragmentation of family and community cohesion by placing the sexual act at top of the pleasure pyramid as an end in itself. As we saw in the previous post, the pathologising and mainstreaming of minority orientation and encouragement of greater and more extreme forms of unlimited sexual expression produced the prevalence of promiscuity and body-centric values which then became a dominant part of culture. This went beyond mere tolerance and acceptance of different forms of sexual identity and preference. It has led to acts of perversion as cool, anonymous sex as normal and sacred union based on love as old fashioned and silly.

That is not to say that we must all toe the line of heterosexual sex or that there is a right or wrong way to express ones sexuality. The key issue here is being true to yourself and whether or not sexuality and sex has been engineered in a certain direction and if it has benefited societies. If that is so, as I believe, then the choices presented to us as we are growing up are not choices at all, but a product of perception management. Are we getting closer to a greater understanding of not just our sexuality, but our place in the world or are we experiencing one expression of an endemic pathology that is tainting our sexual and emotional selves under cover of “normality”?

Are we roaming further and further away from our innate human potential while believing the opposite?

By delving into the reality of psychopathy within our socio-political institutions we might be able to find the answer.


  nrm_1415950011-fifty-shades-second-trailer

Screen shot from the film ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ (2013) based on the book of the same name which involves a young woman’s exploration into sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). The book became a global best seller with 90 million sold worldwide by 2013.

Professor Amy Bonomi chairperson and professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies conducted extensive studies which show that young adult women who read “Fifty Shades of Grey” are more likely than nonreaders to exhibit unhealthy behaviours. These include: eating disorders, binge drinking, having verbally abusive partners and a predeliction for multiple sexual partners. In other words, when films and books glorify and thereby normalise a narcissistic and/or psychopathic perception of reality, we can hardly be surprised that young people begin to exhibit stress and personality deformations. Or as Miriam Grossman M.D. observed: “There’s nothing grey about Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s all black.” 


The sexual revolution was in large part a triumph of emotional immaturity and anonymous sex with women and men reflecting a caricature of their gender roles: literal objects to use and consume as a true reflection of our consumer society. Sure, there was also genuine examples of a mystical liberation through sex to which our pagan ancestors connected. There is no doubt that nature and the body was synonymous with a spark of ecstasy, a way to commune with God which developed into the cults of Dionysus and Bacchus and other body-centric, sensual rituals. The body as a bio-chemical conduit for achieving altered states can give that mystical “high” in the same way that drugs can bypass the brain filters and introduce to dimensions beyond the five senses – even if for a moment. Sometimes that’s enough to initiate dramatic change. But it is a short cut to a spiritual union that usually requires years of self development and inner work. Which is why drugs and sex magick tend to backfire. So, too the fire of sexual revolution which liberated more than just blocked emotions and neuroses. Could it be that the pendulum was allowed to swing much to far in the other direction?

As discussed, rather than feminism increasing the freedom of women’s rights in the West, under the elite-sponsored role of sexual emancipation it may have led to less rights for women and less happiness. The sexual freedom that women have rightly struggled for has proved poisonous where the modern woman is either trying to emulate the model of the alpha male in the corporate world or being caught between the false liberation of sexual promiscuity. In between those two poles lies confusion and doubt for women exemplified in the rise in narcissism.

This Kinseyian form of pseudo-scientific justification for abuse seems to be alive and well in the form of the American Psychiatric Association and the psychoanalysis tradition. Back in 2003, The American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debated whether “Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses.” Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco’s Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal.” They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously prescribed should not, for those reasons, be labelled mentally ill. These included exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism which are to be viewed as simply another form of sexual expression. They were also calling for paedophilia to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Further, that all of us “normophilics” should allow paraphilias the freedom to be who they are and to remove the label of a mental illness forthwith. Though in the minority, a significant number of members agreed.

Another speaker at the same conference exclaimed: “Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing…” and “…that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children…” noting that “many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as paedophiles.” [1] This debate has continued to the present day.

Firstly, the emphasis is not to ostracise and place a judgment upon those of differing sexual preferences but to assist and heal if these extremes exhibit pathology that is negative to both the individual and the persons who do not harbour the same sexual preference. Healing the self by practicing bondage sado-masochism (BDSM) in the privacy of your own home is fine. Propagandising such a fetish and/or accepting predatory behaviour and sexual confusion as a template for society isn’t the way forward either. A sexual interest can indeed be “Healthy and life enhancing,” depending on which lens we have decided to view reality. Our focus can be tinkered with in order that it may flow in a direction not of our choosing, yet, we follow it by rote all the same.

51lec-Zn-jL-horz

Mainstreaming pathology: You can buy yourself a Black Padded PU Leather Hood “Gimp Mask” for Sensory Deprivation Bondage or be lead round the house on a lead if you so wish.

BDSM_collar_backBDSM dog collar (wikipedia)

It is not a case of whether or not society should be free to choose how to heal and release what we perceive to be natural sexual expressions, but to explore why it is that those sexual preferences have arisen in the first place and if the various factors involved are indeed natural rather than carefully conditioned.

Ethics and values appear to be shifting in favour of a voting consensus that removes mental disorders without any safety net concerning rehabilitation and treatment, which begs the question: from what basis are these disorders or genetic predispositions decreed normal? What appears to be happening here is a spin that suggests that if it is defined as ill or pathological it is outdated and anti-progressive. If it can all be seen as just another deviancy and thus normalised we can all go home and stop being so retrogressive. If it is not an illness but one symptom among many drawn from narcissism or psychopathy, then we have clear and present implications for the safety of our nation’s health, especially children. The legitimisation of psychopathology via the Sex Establishment is joining forces with the politicisation of values that is reshaping our culture.

Paedophilia has qualities that align itself not only towards pathological narcissism but elements of psychopathy. It is interesting that there are a growing number of “scientists” of the behaviourist and psychoanalysis schools that advocate a redefinition of paedophilia rather than a redefinition of causes which could direct resources towards the treatment and prevention of child abuse. This includes learning every possible method of pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities be it psychiatrist, policeman or lawyer, making the whole question of science, law and sexual freedom an increasingly difficult equation to solve. For to do so, means that we must see the distortion and deformation of sexuality and the sexual predators that personify such a malaise. We must see this through entirely new eyes and as a web of relations intimately connected with psychopaths in power.

Paedophilia and related pathologies may well be a symptom of biological, environmental, and traumatic abuse. It may also be a choice. What is conspicuous by its absence in the above appeals for paedophile rights are the rights of children for whom we must, by virtue of our roles as guardians and protectors, take a positive discrimination in these matters regarding their welfare and safety. People with “sexually unusual” interests, said Charles Moser and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz “may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted,” which is entirely beside the point. The paedophile’s victims may not be quite so happy and well-adjusted after he has molested them. It is these kinds of remarks that feed into the mainstreaming” of pathologies under the guise of normality which may progressively alter the landscape of mass sexuality and under specific directives – then we have a problem, a problem that is not even the fault of those exhibiting sexual pathologies or otherwise.

We can regard all kinds of pathology and child trauma masquerading as healthy and well-adjusted living. This is not about making judgements about what is right or wrong in our sexuality but rather to question where we draw the line in favour of sexual expression that enriches society rather than infects it; where sexual boundaries are being pushed towards more and more extremes, rather than augmenting social relations.

Is the line between “healthy” and “damaged” becoming blurred here?

It is a contradiction that behind closed doors a select minority of paraphilics and a larger proportion of humanity seek to indulge their fantasies towards violence, fetishism, paedophilia, ritualistic sex and child molestation which may be indicative of a suppressed and learned behaviour caused by inverted and unresolved suffering. Meantime, an entirely different face is presented to the world at large. Genetics may play a significant role whereby traumas are imported down the generational line and impose “bombshells” on the next generation if no other role models exist. Yet what this means for society is the set up between the guardians of over-protection and the guardians of over-liberalisation with the resulting chaos created between the two, where opportunities for creative solutions are forever denied.

Noted luminaries were paedophiles or had paedophilic tendencies. There is certainly an historical basis in fact that much of the Establishment or “high functioning” individuals could be classed as paedophiles and/or child rapists. The nature of government, secret societies, occult fraternities, and religious institutions that offer protection of power and status as a class-based tradition may also offer a sanctuary for such people.

Is there a link that those with deviant sexual expressions gravitate towards that which can offer them cover?

This quote from The American Psychiatric Association sums up this conversive thinking in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: “302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’: ‘The essential feature of this so-called condition is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity (Criterion A). There is little motivation to seek stimuli and diminished frustration when deprived of the opportunity for sexual expression. The individual usually does not initiate sexual activity or may only engage in it reluctantly when it is initiated by the partner.” [2]

This illustrates the point and might be drawn directly from Kinseyian sexology. If you do not have sexual fantasies, a desire for sexual activity, little motivation to seek stimuli and little frustration when an opportunity for sexual expression comes your way, or even – horror of horrors – you have minimal interest in sex, then you are abnormal. You have a disorder. Notice too, that the idea of love being a factor in this purely mechanical equation is of little importance. If clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology “unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning,” then what is known as zoophilia *can be considered no more functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Even having sex with a deer can be considered fine and dandy in our paralogical reality as one Wisconsin man’s attorney claimed in his client’s defence that the:‘crimes against sexual morality’ statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses … “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Getting this man off is not the issue but the social and developmental factors governing his desire to see a carcass as sexually fulfilling is obviously the real point of contention. [3]  Paralogical and paramoralistic arguments are employed to suggest that it is perfectly normal for human beings to use animals for sex – be it dog, horse or the neighbour’s parakeet – should the desire be strong enough.

These are extreme examples. Nonetheless, what does this mean for more down-to-earth issues of sexuality? The fusing of definitions of acceptable and pathological become habitual and thus the propensity for normalisation. The manual’s criterion for mental illness appears to be getting both ever more flexible and increasingly restrictive. With a suitably biased psychiatrist, the manual can be used as a way to give undue credence to almost any abnormality or disorder depending on the required outcome. As a tool for removing subversive persons for example, a method to which psychiatry has long since lent itself. For instance, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition. A cursory look at the manual gives the impression that American psychiatry is sometimes a mix of culturally biased, reactive, class-driven moral judgements of what it considers to be abnormal behaviour.

Freud

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud believed that any and all symptoms of perceived dysfunction or neuroses could be sourced from repressed memories, irrevocably tied to a repressed sexuality. Although Freud offered intellectual insights into our understanding of human sexuality, the final analysis reveals that his psychoanalysis was an indication of his own neurosis and sexual abuse which he was busy burying under a grandiose schema of rationalisation.

While casting out any possibility of incest as predatory, he rejected the body in favour of an acute form of biological asceticism; a kind of clinical denial that strangely lent itself to the exact kind of religious conservatism that he was trying to avoid. It may be true that his victims’ pleas for understanding were merely absorbed into his own fragmented, mechanical view of sexuality by turning them all into variations on the theme of Oedipus. His rejection of incest as abusive or traumatic fit perfectly with future psychiatry and Kinseyian programming.  Proven cases of recovered memories were simply ignored. Repressed and false memories can exist but the battle between both is currently being expressed through their respective extremes with money and psychopathy as the deciding factor.

Freud’s simplistic associations have allowed pathocratic principles to burrow deeper into human consciousness and to drop our crumbling defences against the psychopath still further.  Author George K. Simon, Jr., writes in his cautionary book: In Sheep’s Clothing: “The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.” Simon further suggests: “We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much.” [4]

The whole basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytical movement rests is the wholly subjective notion that all psychological illness is rooted in repressed sexual impulses, unconscious incestuous fantasies, the spectre of death and the fear of castration, the latter of which appears to have their roots in the genital mutilation (circumcision) of the Old Testament.  Freudian psychoanalysis has given credence to the myth that girls secretly want to have sex with their fathers for example, which is crude, simplistic and on a par with the generalizations we can find in the Kinsey reports. In fact, if the denial of whatever sexual impulse is at work – whether depraved or perverted – then the basis for finding perversion distasteful must necessarily lie in one’s own unconscious desire for perverse practices. This is a both an intensely paralogical, materialist and nihilistic view of life that has no room for multiple psychotherapeutic dimensions of healing.

The psychoanalytical movement made claims that there’s was a new science when in fact it was nothing more than pseudo-science that developed a cult following. As Bob Altemeyer a Canadian professor of Psychology astutely sums up:  “One gets nowhere with a theory that can ‘predict’ whatever happened, after it happens. Having an answer for everything may make one a great used car salesman, but it rings the death knell for a theory in science. In science, the best explanations are nailed-down-testable.” [5]

814894886Freud: Father of the Cult of Psychoanalysis

While undoubtedly breaking new ground in tapping the unconscious fears that lie within the human psyche, these successes paled in comparison to the fear and loathing of both sexuality and the feminine that Freud seemed to set in motion. Freud’s own neuroses as well as the broader fears of the Jewish culture were injected into this new “science.”

Psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley illustrated the cult of psychoanalysis in this way:

Today celebrated psychiatric authors “plainly demonstrate” by methods widely proclaimed as scientific that the chief reason human beings came in time to wear clothing lies in the ever-present influence of a “castration fear” of which they all remain unconscious. Not for protection against the weather, primarily, we are told, or for purposes of adornment, did primitive men and women first don bearskin coats or grass skirts. According to high authority, the real motivation lies deeper, in a universal but unconscious terror felt by each male that a jealous father will amputate his penis. Concealing his genital organs with apparel offers him, it is claimed, a slight measure of protection from this inescapable anxiety. The female (unconsciously), believing herself already dismembered as a punishment for (unconscious) incestuous aims, hastens to cover her mutilation and veil her shame.

Much of the reasoning and investigation classed as dynamic depends upon verbal constructs which can be readily manipulated by the accepted rules to furnish a bogus proof for virtually any assumption the human imagination might contrive. […]From the standpoint of modern operational logic, a theory must be expressed in such a way that it may be proved. This is surely the case with the Freudian theory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of modern methodology, the evidence or experiment which is designed to prove the theory must he one which could have a possible negative outcome and so disprove the theory. At the present time, many of the concepts of psychoanalysis are undoubtedly developed in such a way that only proof and not disproof is possible …[6]

And it is this “bogus proof” and extreme subjectivity that gave the perfect cover for psychoanalysis to gain dominance in psychology, psychiatry and culture. It lent itself not only to misuse but acted as a gateway for any and all interpretations. Disagreements with Freud’s and his associates’ interpretations were summarily dismissed as products of “resistance.”  This was a word used by Freud to illustrate the reluctance patients showed in speaking of painful or humiliating experiences during the process of analysis. He believed this resistance: “… often utilized the mechanism of repression to remove or to withhold from consciousness impulses or memories which the patient found it particularly unpleasant to accept and admit as his own.” [7] Therefore, when the medical psychology community did not accept these chief concepts Freud put this down to the theory of resistance thereby placing constructive criticism into a box he could padlock at will.

In the early part of the twentieth until the post war period, psychoanalysis firmly stamped its mark on the subconscious of the West. Although the diversity of psychology, psychotherapy and alternative medicine has diluted Freud’s power the legacy of his influence lives on as it did most strongly in the 1950s.  As Cleckley outlines:

If a psychiatrist cannot accept as adequate the evidence Freud offers for his claim that at age four this patient was intensely motivated by a specific desire for his father to practice sodomy upon him, and was restrained in these inclinations by a fear of castration, he must be prepared to defend himself against the argument that similar (unconscious) desires and fears are determining factors in the dissident opinion. So, too, the critic who cannot accept the popular concept of universal bisexuality lays himself open to suspicions that an unrecognized homosexual tendency within himself, probably one of more than ordinary magnitude, is playing an important part in his alleged failure to accept evidence and react to it normally. [8]

Dr. Cleckley highlights the fact that Freud’s cherished beliefs do not necessarily equate with rigorous science. Politics and religion are bastions of such authoritarian, fear-based thinking that imposes the same fundamentalist beliefs upon others. Psychoanalysis is no different, which is why it has fallen out of favour in more recent times. The idea that those who disagree with the methods of the Freudian approach are somehow expressing resistance and respond: “…with unconscious longings to emulate the very thing being criticised is obviously a ridiculous simplification. The idea that the roots of all neuroses are from the repression of the procreative, biological sex impulse is equally fallacious.”

Perhaps the most revealing legacy of psychoanalysis is offered from author and consultant on abusive men and family issues, Lundy Bancroft.  He wrote about Freud’s discovery at the turn of the 19th Century, of just how many of his female patients revealed instances of incest by their fathers and brothers. Early in his career Freud came to the conclusion that child sexual abuse was a key issue in emotional illness in adult women which resulted in his famous paper: “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” He reminds us it was at this juncture that Freud, so keen to be accepted by his peers found himself ridiculed and rejected for proposing such a thing. How could it possibly be that pillars of society with unimpeacable reputations could be perpetrators of incest? It was unthinkable. The results of this shock to Freud’s intellectual pride and the consequences for the future of psychology were enormous:

Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men. Once abuse was denied in this way, the stage was set for some psychologists to take the view that any violent or sexually exploitative behaviors that couldn’t be denied—because they were simply too obvious—should be considered mutually caused. Psychological literature is thus full of descriptions of young children who “seduce” adults into sexual encounters and of women whose “provocative” behavior causes men to become violent or sexually assaultive toward them.”

Bancroft is under no illusions that the cultural influence of psychoanalysis remains strong and offers an anecdote from his experience to illustrate the point:

A psychologist who is currently one of the most influential professionals nationally in the field of custody disputes writes that women provoke men’s violence by “resisting their control” or by “attempting to leave.” She promotes the Oedipus complex theory, including the claim that girls wish for sexual contact with their fathers. In her writing she makes the observation that young girls are often involved in “mutually seductive” relationships with their violent fathers, and it is on the basis of such “research” that some courts have set their protocols. The Freudian legacy thus remains strong.”

We shortly discover just how strong this belief really is as we look further into the various expressions of abuse presently rising to surface within society.

 


* Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, “animal”, and Philia, “friendship or love”) is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. See Appendix 3 for further paraphilias.

Notes

[1] “Should These Conditions Be Normalized?” American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses By Linda Ames Nicolosi, http://www.narth.com/
[2] American Psychiatric Association’s DMH  (p. 496)
[3] ‘Sex With Dead Deer Not Illegal – Lawyer Argues’ The Register, November 11, 2006.
[4] In Sheep’s Clothing – Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People by George K. Simon, Jr. PhD. Published by AJ Christopher & Co. 2000.
[5] p.54.The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 2006 by Bob Altemeyer
[6] op. cit. Cleckley (p.112)
[7] Ibid. (p.117)
[8] Ibid. (p.118 / p.99-100)
“Freud’s long report published under the title From the History of an Infantile Neurosis can, I believe, be taken as a typical example of this work. In it a dream recalled by the twenty-six-year-old patient as having occurred when he was four years of age is confidently interpreted. The chief conclusions reached about this patient appear to be based fundamentally on this interpretation. Freud reports the entire dream as follows:
‘I dreamt that it was night and that I was lying in my bed. (My bed stood with its foot towards the window; in front of the window there was a row of old walnut trees. I know it was winter when I had the dream, and night-time.) Suddenly the window opened of its own accord, and I was terrified to see that some white wolves were sitting on the big walnut tree in front of the window. There were six or seven of them. The wolves were quite white, and looked more like Foxes or sheep-dogs, for they had big tails like foxes and they had their ears pricked like dogs when they are attending to something. In a great terror, evidently of being eaten up by the wolves, I screamed and woke up…
’The only piece of action in the dream was the opening of the window; for the waives sat quite still and without any movement on the branches of the tree, to the right and left of the trunk, and looked at me. It seemed as though they had riveted their whole attention upon me,Freud draws from this dream a number of conclusions by interpreting its various items symbolically. From its association with a few fairy tales familiar to the patient in childhood and with some not particularly extraordinary early memories he devises an astonishing explanation of the patient’s illness. Freud confidently states that the dream reveals in considerable detail an experience the patient was subjected to approximately two and a half years earlier, when he was eighteen months old.
Fragment after fragment of the dream is used by Freud to derive proof that the infant at that time saw his parents while they were having sexual intercourse.He is quite confident that the dream reveals that the parents had intercourse three times in succession while the infant observed them and also that the a tergo position was chosen for their activities. He maintains also that the patient, at eighteen months of age, was so affected by this scene that he had a bowel movement as a pretext to make an outcry and interrupt the parents in their still enthusiastic love-making. In this interpretation the number of the wolves, which the patient recalled as being six or seven, is regarded as an effect of the dreamer’s unconscious processes to disguise what he had really seen—that is to say, the two parents.
The fact that the dream scene is quite stationary and the wolves make no movement is accepted as evidence (by reversal) for vigorous coital activity by the amorous couple.The appearance of keen attention noticeable in the dream-wolves who stood in the tree, according to Freud, indicates an intense and absorbing interest on the part of the infant in what he was watching. The fact that the four-year-old boy experienced fear of the wolves in his dream is said by Freud to represent a terror experienced earlier by the infant at the sight of his mother’s external genital organs when seen as an infant of eighteen months.
The interpreter assumes without question that this alleged sight contributed to the belief that the mother had been mutilated sexually. From these points Freud reaches the confident conclusion that when the boy at four years of age had the dream he was suffering from a profound dread of castration by his father. The fact that the wolves who appeared in the dream are remembered as having particularly long tails is considered sound evidence of an opposite state (taillessness) and hence a substantial confirmation of this disquieting dread.
This preoccupation is said by Freud to have been the chief deterrent to this four-year-old boy’s dominating impulse, assumed to be a specific and strong yearning for his father to carry out upon him sexual relations per anum. In the entire report no item of objective evidence is offered to support these conclusions. Freud appears, however, to be completely convinced that all this is correct and adequately established. In fact, he insists that his whole study of this case must be ‘all a piece of nonsense from start to finish, or everything took place just as I have described it above.’

[9] Bancroft, Lundy; Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men published by Berkley Books (2003) (kindle edition)

The Sex Establishment IV: “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” (SARS)

[Alfred Kinsey’s] “…methodology and sampling technique virtually guaranteed that he would find what he was looking for.”

– James Jones, Kinsey biographer,


Keeping our ideas of ponerology in mind, it seems what Reisman calls the “Sex Establishment” was tasked with a progressive ponerisation of our attitudes to sex and love. As we will discover in later posts, this may have been a spoke in the wheel of a much wider social engineering agenda.

The pioneering academic sex study centres under scrutiny are The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) – thereafter called the “Sex Institute”- which offers extensive training and advanced degrees originally directed by Penthouse Forum Board member and Kinsey co-author, Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Hustler Magazine contributors, Drs’. Ted Mcllvena and Erwin Haberlae. The accreditation curricula includes a wide variety of Kinsey inspired material such as the Sex Institute’s degree program which includes:“ ‘advanced graduate’ studies such as: ‘erotic sensate and massage therapy,’ and focuses most of its scholarly training on student viewing, using and even making, ‘erotic’ films … And the “training in the design and implementation of ‘sex education curricula’ for all ages.”  [1]

Kinsey6Alfred C. Kinsey

So, we have Dr. Pomeroy, co-author and a Kinsey Institute principle, who recommended incest as beneficial to the juvenile to adult readers of Penthouse, Chic, and other magazines and for whom a belief in “positive incest” allows him to still teach child sexuality.

What is more interesting is that:

“These now-accredited Sex Institute experts commonly testify for sex offenders and for businesses which specialize in the production of … pornography. ‘Experts’ from the American Sex Establishment regularly testify in courts and provide their expertise to legislatures and other public agencies.  For example, in 1980, Wardell Pomeroy testified for a pornographer in Happy Day v. Kentucky, a court case in which Pomeroy admitted under oath to seeking funds from the sex industry to produce his own child pornography.” [2]

This may go a little way in explaining the present chaos in the European and US courts in cases of child abuse and custody cases. Though courses under the IASHS curricula offer historical, psychological, anthropological and psychodynamic training, the overwhelming mission is a distinctly Kinseyian one.

One particular form of sexual education in the San Francisco “Sex Institute” and in other universities comes under the formal sounding Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) (now known as “Restructuring”). According to wikipedia entry SARS “is not a traditional academic experience designed to disseminate cognitive information, nor is it psychotherapy directed toward the resolution of personal problems”. What apparently SARS proposes to do – though this is without a citation – is to provide: “… an opportunity for participants to explore and understand their beliefs, attitudes, values and biases within the realm of sex and sexuality.” And according to Kinseyian principles, of course.

Promulgated by Pomeroy himself this process is said to achieve a shift in pedagogical attitude and teaching by incorporating specific images of a hard and soft-core nature which also happens to: “scars the viewer’s brain as it short circuits his and her conscience.” This is particularly interesting in light of ponerological aspects of psychopathy that inflict a progressive dissonance that effectively cuts off the ability to express higher feelings such as empathy. The entrainment of SAR is said to erode “emotional refinements by using high resonance images that “psychopharmacologically and neurochemically mold, coarsen and reform viewer’s brains, minds and memories.” In effect, it channels sexual energy to a strictly mechanical and animalistic perception of sexuality and in Pomeroy’s words: “The SAR is designed to ‘desensitize,’ that is to disinhibit, all viewers.” [3]

This has a particular resonance with the CIA-led mind programming operations under the generic term of MK-ULTRA in the 1950s and 60s. Kinsey himself was indirectly associated with some of the main proponents of such mind experimentation. With Rockefeller funding, one cannot help but wonder if these are offshoots of that same secret research which became purposely mainstreamed into academia.

eatenawareness

© Infrakshun

Even before Kinsey left his intensive study of Gall wasps and launched into the field of sexuality, he was an ardent eugenicist who “recommended that a portion of the ‘lower classes’ be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.” [4]  It becomes more worrisome when eugenics appears so frequently as a prominent principle behind Kinsey’s drive to collect “data” as it does with so many of the academic and intelligentsia of his day. For instance, Dr. Herrmann Muller, a co-worker at IU for several years had done research at the “Sex Institute” in Berlin, since it was illegal in the United States. It was also at a time when the German Eugenics programs had full academic approval since before the 1920s, as a definite precursor to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.  In 1943, fellow eugenicist and infamous “scientist” Dr. Ewen Cameron became a fellow Rockefeller guarantor. In 1973 as president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Cameron was a covert CIA “mind-control” researcher who conducted human experiments outside the borders of the United States, at McGill University in Canada, for CIA director Allen Dulles.

Satanist, Aleister Crowley, American Nazi George Sylvester Viereck, aforementioned French paedophile Rene Guyon and occultist film maker Kenneth Anger were all friends and acquaintances of Kinsey. Anger commented on Kinsey as follows:

“Kinsey was obsessed with obtaining the Great Beast’s (Crowley’s) day-to-day sex diaries … To obtain grant monies and maintain the support of the university, Kinsey needed the excuse of research to validate his twenty-four-hours-a-day obsession with sex. However, Prok’s (Kinsey’s nickname) battle cry of ‘Do your best and let other people react as they will’ seemed a variation on Crowley’s ‘Do what thou wilt’ maxim. i.e. ‘Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law’ ”. [5]

Granted, we have no way of knowing the truth of Anger’s claims but the historical saga does not end there. With eugenics, Nazism, and Sex-Magick topping the Kinsey bill, this already heady brew may account for the suspicions which eventually surrounded the so called father of the “Sexual Revolution” and which contributed to an equally dubious counter-culture. His personal and professional life, clearly exhibited a pathological obsession with the mechanics of sex. When you mix a sexual obsessive with the above mentioned friends and acquaintances then it becomes clear that Kinsey’s influence could have contributed to the sexual ponerisation of society more than any other single individual. But as we know – no-one acts in isolation.

It is interesting that Kinsey’s research conveniently excluded incest and physical abuse/battery yet focused entirely on the more salacious aspects of deviancy giving them undue credence, effectively normalising them to the point that perversion and pathology is often a part of mainstream culture. For a man famous for harbouring some very dark sexual demons indeed (and regaling his party friends with the fact that he could insert a toothbrush into his penis, bristle-end first (?) it is safe to say that the type of science he carried out and the subsequent Sexual Revolution he birthed bears the same indelible stamp. [6]

The Kinsey sex studies reported that: “95 percent of American males had violated sex laws seriously enough to put them in jail, 85 percent had experienced premarital sex, 69 percent had used prostitutes, 45 percent were adulterers, as high as 37 percent had experienced orgasm in a homosexual act, and that 17 percent had had sex with an animal.” While this may appear pedestrian to the sensation-saturated 21 century, in 1948 it was shocking in the extreme. [7]

We see the same play-offs between the Christian-right and the liberal left, the former seeing him as a child molesting monster and the latter as a great pioneer and deliverer from the last throes of Victorian values and sexual Puritanism.

In reality, neither is correct.

He was very likely used by such overseers as the Rockefellers for his talents and his well-placed sexual psychopathy to act as one of many shapers of society. Persons such as Kinsey and his sponsors may have played on the lowest instincts in man and brought them to the surface to play an active part in the erosion of family, community and for a laissez-faire mentality to reign. Many of these ex-Kinseyian staff and sexologists are now within the court system pronouncing judgements on who is fit and proper to look after children in custody cases or whether or not sex offenders should be locked up or released into community care…

The effects of the Kinsey reports cannot be underestimated. They were after all, used as education templates within academia, government, charities and non-governmental organisations such as UNESCO where official documents incorporated and promoted an elite package of  humanist, eugenics and Kinseyian themes.

The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University haven’t rested on their laurels. They are still carrying out further “studies” with great gusto.

kinseyapp

Screenshot of the “Kinsey Reporter” a mobile smart phone app which logs random data on sexuality for reasons unknown, but certainly not for scientific knowledge.

At kinseyreporter.org/ they have produced a smart phone app to track sexual activity of users across the globe. It is difficult to know what purpose it serves other than the reinforcement of Kinseyian themes and titillation With a proven flawed metholodology for which the Kinsey Institute is most famous, this hasn’t stopped them from producing a: “… global mobile survey platform to share, explore, and visualize anonymous data about sex.” And where these “scientific”
reports “… are submitted via smartphone, then explored on this website or downloaded for off-line analysis”. None of the information generated qualifies as research or science since there is nothing scientific whatsoever in this data collection. In the same way as the Kinsey reports were completely random and unscientific in their methodology as well as a blatant example of well-funded social engineering, the Kinsey Reporter app follows the same low standards for maintaining the momentum of behavioural change through unrepresentative, unreliable and unverifiable methods which are inherently open to imagination and fabrication.

In summary, the Kinsey Institute reinforces its lack of credibility with more attempts to claim it is conducting scientific research. However, if we view the Kinsey Reporter as another tool of SMART society and the perfect avenue in which to promote Kinseyian sexualisation for societies around the world, then this is a very effective tool. It is another example of how pervasive Kinseyian beliefs have become.

Though it would seem that the most vociferous Kinsey critics are predominantly right wing, “apple-pie” conservatives, they do have considerable justification for their outrage. Admittedly, while foaming-at-the-mouth with Christian indignation doesn’t help and may even obscure the truth, it would be extremely foolish to write off all of their objections as prudish “judgment day” invective. Similarly, it could be said that Kinsey did provide partially valuable data regarding the sexual mores of middle America and that he was genuinely interested in such “research” it is highly likely that he used this as a convenient method by which he could satisfy his paedophilic fantasies and sexual obsessions of sado-masochism, voyeurism, child pornography and molestation.

According to biographer James H. Jones, he was “among the most influential Americans of the twentieth century.” If so, then you can be sure he was used for a specific purpose. Many sexologists and academics dislike having their beloved godfather of sex toppled from his mantle, but when the evidence is carefully pondered, Kinsey’s own sexual demons suggest they had become the driving force in his research, fully exploited by those who provided funding. When one puts the Rockefeller foundation in the driving seat it leaves a decidedly uncomfortable feeling that Kinsey’s detractors are onto something, yet they are shackled by accusations of fundamentalism and undue adherence to parochial, middle-American family values.

In 1948, Dr. Kinsey publicly advocated that adults engage in sexual relations with children, making the “scientific” finding that they “derived definite pleasure” from sexual use by adults. Kinsey wrote those children’s screams of pain, their striking and struggling to get away from their “partner” were all supporting evidence of the child subject’s pleasure from sexual contact with an adult “trained observer.” Dr. Reisman wrote that: “While it is clearly established that these above children’s responses were obtained by adult male child sex offenders, the Kinsey group accepts child offender/evidence re: the child victims.”

Knowing that the nature of the sexual predator in our midst is highly manipulative and with an almost supra natural cunning, it is not without good reason that this is exactly the kind of niche post that such individuals seek out where their molestations can then proceed undetected through a variety of ingenious covers. Teachers, priests, occult students, government officials and sex researchers cloaked by science: all offer the potential for secrecy and Establishment protection for psychopaths to “do as they wilt.”

Mr. Kinsey at no time allowed the question of morality to determine what was scientifically acceptable and went way beyond the bounds of perceived bourgeois repression and conservative restrictions. Perhaps the doctor did indeed have his own mandated stamp of approval that allowed him to do as he pleased and strengthened by the social naiveté concerning the dynamics of psychopaths at the time, which was even more in awe of academic and social status. Which makes the following quote from the Doctor even more delusional:

“We are the recorders and reporters of facts — not the judges of the behaviors we describe.” – Dr. Alfred Kinsey

Clearly, Kinsey was a follower of the Goebbels propaganda principle that “… when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it.”

And the Kinsey Institute have carried on this legacy to great effect.

 


Notes

[2] op. cit. Reisman (pp. 172-174,)
[3] Ibid. | See also pp. 174-175 and the following extract: “In December 1982, George Leonard reported his Attitude Restructuring (SAR) experience in Esquire magazine. [Esquire: The End of Sex, p. 24]   Noting at least 60,000 people trained in colleges and university by the SAR beginning in the early 1980s, Leonard expects his experience is typical: The sensory overload culminated on Saturday night in a multi-media event called the F—korama … in the darkness … images of human beings – and some-times even animals — engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, squeals, moans, shouts, and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto.  Some seventeen simultaneous moving pictures … Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group.  The subjects were nude,..I felt myself becoming disoriented … was she kissing a man or a woman?  I struggled to force the acts I was watching into their proper boxes … and now I couldn’t remember which was which.  Wasn’t I supposed to make these discriminations?  I searched for clues.  There were none.  I began to feel uncomfortable.  Soon I realized that to avoid vertigo and nausea I would have to give up the attempt to discriminate and simply surrender to the experience … The differences for which lives have been ruined, were not only trivial, but invisible.  By the end … Nothing was shocking….But nothing was sacred either.  But as I drove home, I began to get a slightly uneasy feeling.  It was almost as if I had been conned … by my own conditioned response of taking the most liberated position … whatever my deeper feelings…. love had not been mentioned a single time during the entire weekend.”
[4] p.57; Alfred C. Kinsey :A Public/Private Life by James H. Jones, published by W W Norton & Co Inc. 1997 | ISBN: 0393040860.
[5] ‘Sex Experiments of Alfred Kinsey.’ by Jim Keith. 1999.
[6] ‘Alfred’s brush with pleasure’ By Roy Porter , professor in the social history of medicine, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 November 1997.
[7] ‘On Kinsey’s German, Nazi Pedophile Aide; The New York Times Asks: “Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?’ By Dr. Judith Reisman, ‘The Kinsey Coverup’ February 4, 2007 | http://www.drjudithreisman.com/

The Sex Establishment III: The Kinsey Legacy

“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”

– Alfred C. Kinsey


As the US government gives Viagra to paedophiles and Europe offers Prozac to children, we could be forgiven for thinking that the world is indulging some very dark humour. Bizarre contradictions and paramoralistic laws are in place to facilitate such oddities. [1] Meantime, utter confusion of identity and sexual orientation is being normalised with the fostering of sexual expression that is nothing short of perverse; where pain, suffering and degradation are just “normal” indicators of a “liberal” society finding itself at last. Something is being found all right, but it doesn’t seem to be along the path to a more creative society.

Psychiatry that twists the nature of paedophilia and child molestation to pander for narcissistic desires seems to have partially taken root from the research of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. He and his co-researchers shaped our perceptions of sex and sexual habits and eventually inaugurated the “sexual revolution” and the age of “free love.” Under ponerological influences however, this could never end well. The time was certainly ripe to explore Western sexuality but it seems, once again, this need for awareness and healthy exploration was hijacked.

This culminated in Kinsey’s highly influential book: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male published in 1948 where 200,000 copies of the book were sold within the first two months of its publication. It was followed by his 1953 companion volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which was seen as pioneering by most in the scientific Establishment, proof of which was sealed when Kinsey appeared on the cover of Establishment mouth-piece Time magazine in the same year.

To some he is one of the great minds in the science of sexuality. To others, he is merely one of many sexual psychopaths given the task of ensuring that our sexuality remains irrevocably distorted.

Kinsey-Time-1953-08-24

Alfred Kinsey on the cover of Establishment rag ‘TIME’ in 1953

The UK’s Channel Four television programme Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles, first broadcast in October 1998, revealed some interesting facts about Kinsey’s research where the so called “normal sexuality” of test subjects was displaced in favour of an inordinately high number of persons imprisoned for criminal sexual deviancy. Interviews took place with prostitutes, child molesters, rapists and an assortment of petty criminals and the collected information entered into a database as normal examples of the population. There were suspiciously high levels of homosexuality and bestiality. Under the new spirit of “scientific” sexual emancipation however, this wasn’t deemed so…sexy.  Moreover, his research department staffed by young males and females were expected to reveal their sexual histories and participate in explicit sex movies that were shot in Kinsey’s attic … All for research purposes, of course. In summary, the scientific methodology of data collection, statistical analysis and the results that followed were all deeply flawed. [2]

What was perhaps most controversial were the methods by which Alfred Kinsey obtained child orgasms. He stated confidently: “We have now reported observation on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrusts, and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys ranging between infants of five months and adolescence in age.”

Come again? Did anyone at all consider this a red flag? Apparently not.

table34Table 34 from ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’

This included the use of stop watches and “stimulation” of children’s genitals in order to time the duration of response leading to orgasm. His claims that infants “measured in the nursery with special instruments, were found to experience orgasms at the age of four or five months” and that “[o]ne preadolescent child had 26 orgasms in 24 hours,” apparently never caused researchers concern as to how he gathered this data. Indeed, Kinsey’s obsessions with infant and child reactions to stimulation was due to his own paedophilic tendencies.John Bancroft, M.D., emeritus director of the Kinsey Institute, confirmed this preoccupation as the driving forc behind his research in his paper, “Alfred Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research” by stating that Kinsey was “particularly interested in the observation of adults who had been sexually involved with children.” [3]

What is even more worrying about the experiments, and certainly Kinsey’s own ability to interpret basic human distress is the descriptions he gives associated with infants and children during and after orgasm: “sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) … extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting …,” “pained or frightened” expression, and “violent attempts to avoid climax …” [4] Testament to Kinsey psychopathology or ambition (or both) despite these reactions, he concluded that children, “derive definite pleasure from the situation.”

One wonders whose perception of “pleasure” he was really talking about.

According to arch Kinsey critic Judith A. Reisman’s research: “… anywhere from 317 boy infants and 2,035 total children” were subjected to the sex experiments for the Kinsey data in Chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes of his reports. Kinsey’s methodology could be seen as obvious forms of abuse yet this did not seem to worry academics at the Indiana University of his day, nor those who are happy to highlight what might be labelled Reisman’s religious even conservative beliefs, but do not have answers for the questions she raises. The very nature of his research that focused on detailed charts of orgasmic toddlers and infants must lead us to re-evaluate the motives of such research.

It is now common knowledge that Kinsey’s sources for this data came from none other than: “… habitual paedophiles whom Kinsey encouraged to keep careful records of their ‘contacts’ with children, even suggesting that they time the ‘orgasms’ which these children supposedly experienced. One such Kinsey correspondent was a man who claimed to have molested hundreds of children, while another was … a Nazi storm trooper who sexually exploited children in occupied Poland and was eventually accused of murdering a 10-year-old girl in post-war Germany.” [5]

To say that there there were gargantuan flies in the ointment of scientfic rigour would be an enormous understatement.

What were the real reasons that lay behind Kinsey’s sponsored obsessions and why was his own paedophilia, and sadomasochistic preferences overlooked so comprehensively?  Even before the more bizarre aspects of Kinsey’s methodology came to light, the source of his funding provides a clue.

kinseyThe original patron of the Kinsey research in 1938 was the publicly funded Indiana University. In this case, it was the National Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation who have had a long pedigree in social engineering under the cover of philanthropy as well as Nazi business dealings and psychological experimentation via none other than Joseph Mengele (an individual we will explore further in later posts).  The Rockefeller patriarchs also pioneered the support of eugenics in Germany and America and the belief in depopulation as an answer to poverty and “bad breeding.” Marketed as a philanthropic family with its many charitable and educational organisations, its history tells a somewhat different story.  [6]  Reisman states: “…The Rockefeller Foundation’s knowledge of the research flaws [in Kinsey’s data] is certain; however, they continued to fund its use in the Model Penal Code anyway.” [7]

They did so because their objective wasn’t to improve society’s sexual habits but to impose their own agenda.

She continues:

The continuously repeated misrepresentation by Rockefeller and Indiana University that Kinsey had a “well-developed methodology” is refuted by the 1950 report from Warren Weaver, then director of the Natural Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation.  He documented for the Foundation what would have been an insurmountable fact for honorable men: that Kinsey’s data were totally invalid statistically. However, this stubborn scientific fact did not stop the official actions of the Rockefeller Foundation. By 1950, Rockefeller was funding the American Law Institute with the mission to re-craft “fixed” American law including the state laws regarding sex offenders based upon Kinsey’s invalid research. [Emphasis mine]

Without the support of the Rockefeller foundation it is unlikely that Kinsey’s work would have been allowed to come to fruition. What is important to keep in mind is that Rockefeller and Kinsey were on the same perceptual page, a belief that went far beyond the idea of liberating humanity from sexual repression but actively encouraging sexual mores that would inevitably swing to its polar opposite. To understand this better one needs to get inside the beliefs of the Rockefellers and others of their ilk, something we’ll come back to later on in this series.

Although Judith Reisman certainly has her own religious belief, she is more than qualified both academically and from her own experiences of abuse (her daughter was abused at 13) to offer compelling evidence that Kinsey was not what he seemed. She illustrates the depth of Kinsey’s subterfuge and the historical forces behind his placement via an extensive and meticulous research into what has been called the “Kinsey model” which is now used in many institutions and law courts all over America, often by proponents and advocates of Kinsey’s findings. Mix in narcissism, misguided feminism, reflexive political correctness, erroneous psychiatric evaluation atop endemic corruption and it is difficult to see how progress can be made under the current social engineering that makes up our current system of laws.

Reisman summarized the Kinsey Model in the following list from which the Kinsey team suggested to Americans that if they follow their conclusions derived from the analysis of human sexual conduct, American society would benefit in innumerable ways.  Kinsey’s “findings” included the following, suitably buttressed by the traditions of Freudian psychoanalysis to help them along:

  • All orgasms are ‘outlets’ and equal between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and boy, girl, or baby – for there is no abnormality and no normality.
  • As the aim of coitus is orgasm, the more orgasms from any ‘outlet,’ at the earliest age – the healthier the person.
  • Early masturbation is critical for sexual, physical and emotional health.  It can never be excessive or pathological.
  • Sexual taboos and sex laws are routinely broken, thus all such taboos and sex laws should be eliminated, including that of rape and child rape, unless serious ‘force’ is used and serious harm is proven.
  • Since sex is, can, and should be commonly shared with anyone and anything, jealousy is passé.
  • All sexual experimentation before marriage will increase the likelihood of a successful long-term marriage and venereal disease and other socio-sexual maladies will be reduced dramatically.
  • Human beings are naturally bisexuals Religious bigotry and prejudice forces people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.
  • Children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth (‘womb to tomb’); are unharmed by incest, adult/child sex, and often benefit thereby.
  • There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.
  • All forms of sodomy are natural and healthy.
  • Homosexuals represent ten to thirty-seven percent of the population or more. (Kinsey’s findings were always very fluid on this point.) Some educators have interpreted his findings by saying that only four to six percent of the population are exclusively heterosexual so the ‘heterosexual’ bias in the US should be eliminated. [8]

Reisman provides evidence that these “findings” and the 1948 Kinsey model as a whole, were swiftly incorporated into the educational establishment, including the health and social services, the military and most commonly from a Kinseyian “variant” sex model that draws heavily on the above. It is not difficult to see how these models have contributed to the effects we now see in our societies.

The net psychological fallout from this was not merely the hope of releasing sexual hang ups and “blockages” that might be interfering with one’s sexual identity or the ability to lead fulfilling lives. No one would say that this could not be viewed as positive. But what the Kinsey report actually served to do was to create a climate that was sourced not only from faulty data but to inculcate a preference for the pathological.

kinsey505x476

Alfred C. Kinsey

Inhibition and experimentation with a loving partner was one thing, but if you didn’t feel like indulging in sado-masochism, husband/wife-swapping, pederasty, fetishism, gay sex and orgies then of course there was clearly something wrong with your newly liberated self. After all, half of America was at it, shouldn’t you be too? The man and woman in a loving heterosexual relationship were wondering whether such normality was actually pedestrian.

Perhaps the standard sexual expression of the male-female and loving intimacy was passé?

Following the publishing of the Kinsey reports came in a veritable flood of old and new literature to imbibe the sexual revolution with suitable largesse – or guilty perversity, depending on your focus. As we have seen, the psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley goes into a lengthy discussion in Caricature of Love on the nature of the intelligentsia’s art –  including literature – which had a profound effect on the sexual consciousness of pre and post-war America and Europe. He included examples from Baudelaire, Huysmans, Strindberg, Whitman, Wilde, Swinburne, de Sade, Swift, Gide, and others, finding a remarkable common theme of antipathy towards women at best, and downright loathing and derision at worst. In fact, all authors exhibited pathologies of the perverse and delighted in an overt or passive aggressive narrative toward the feminine, the advocacy of sexual deviancy in general and the denigrating of normal sexual relations between a man and a woman.  (We might say that “normal” here, is where an affectionate and/or loving relationship exists with some form of commitment to each other. Mechanical sex as an end in itself is not the primary motivator).

Again, this is not about prudish aversion to different forms of sexual expression but the intent behind the sexual revolution that was set in motion.

Cleckley cited a number of books that took hold of the public’s newly acquired curiosities immediately after the bombshell of Kinsey’s findings. One of these books he listed was The Ethics of Sexual Acts (1934) by Kinsey’s friend author and occultist Rene Guyon and very pertinent to the mind-set under discussion. In the introduction to the book a doctor breathlessly presents the man as a sex philosopher and an expert in matters of passion, eroticism and sexual freedom serving as a welcome antidote to the anti-sexual puritanism. For this gentleman, the “science” of the Kinsey reports confirmed the doctor’s view that Guyon was a sexual visionary of the highest order.

For instance, he writes:

“… it is amazing how frequently Kinsey’s cold objective figures bear witness to the truth of Guyon’s assertions and tend to support his ideas, which at times may seem extreme.”

The same physician informs us:

“…that Neither Guyon nor Kinsey can find justification for the terms “normality” or “abnormality” in the sexual life of man.”

He also warns us:

Both Guyon’s and Kinsey’s books are high explosives. They are likely to blow sky-high many of our most sacred notions. What arguments can the anti-sexualists and professional moral-izers—forever on the warpath against men like Guyon—advance against Kinsey’s figures and charts? …

Faced by Guyon’s disconcerting candor (and also by Kinsey’s unimpeachable figures) even the liberal-minded scientist, believing himself quite free of prejudices, may suddenly discover that he too has retained childhood inhibitions and that his reasoning is impaired by some deeply embedded, ecclesiastical taboos and subconscious repressions. [9]

Rene GUYONCleckly reminds us that this individual was clearly elated with the antidote to all that repression that he believed Guyon and Kinsey were offering, as whole generations were. In part, of course, this was true. In the introduction refers to Kinsey as standing: “… closely behind Guyon, ready to back up this early crusader with science,” which is false. What this really meant was an exclusively mechanistic, Darwinian and Freudian theory of sexuality, heavily influenced by sex magick and paedophilia.

What the Kinsey report sowed in the mass consciousness and sexual identity was more than just the permission to indulge in sexual acts that could become as extreme as one liked. It was more than seeing the instincts as caged tigers to be let loose in pretty much in any way that men and women felt inclined, to be exacted on anyone who fitted the bill of one’s sexual desires, it was the imposition of a perception of sexuality as a mechanistic function devoid of higher possibilities and thus an open door to pathology. Now, the only limits on the proffered banquet of sexual acts is the landscape of our imagination overflowing with instinctual hunger and valueless desire but isolated from any hope of true intimacy.

Cleckley continues:

“By this theory the author repeatedly ‘proves’ that any and all means by which ejaculation can be attained are equally ‘natural’ ‘A sexual object,’ he announces, ‘is not essential or indispensable for the full satisfaction of the sexual sense. For this purpose, any one mechanical process may be as good as any other, whether this process involves the use of an object or not.’ […]

This being so, if the anal, oral and sexual mucous membranes are all equally suited to play their part in the mechanical process, they are all of equal value, and it is no more necessary to delimit these specific zones than to compare their relative efficacy …

In reality, all this amounts to nothing more than that the anal and oral zones behave like the genital zone …This behavior derives its value from the fact that the cavities in question have all more or less the same form; but we know very well that in onanism the prehensile members [hands] show themselves quite capable of creating an artificial cavity which serves the same mechanical purpose.” [10]

Cleckley highlights the theme of this “mechanistic theory of sexuality,” revealing that just as Kinsey believes “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform” so Guyon attempts to prove the same, where exhibitionism, incest, paedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, and coprophilia “are healthy and equally satisfactory expressions of biologic impulse, entirely normal and commendable.” [11] 

If the object of desire is a sentient being with consciousness rather than just a screw in a machine; (no pun intended) – a set of orifices that must be penetrated – then there is always a chance for the connection to responsibility, values, ethics, empathy, and the deeper potential of love to come into play. But this is not the case. In normalising the pathology listed above it places the mechanical, chemical dominator of instinct squarely in the human consciousness as the destroyer of principles and limits. Narcissistic sex for sex’s sake is to be not only natural, but hip and cool; the forerunner of “free love” and a free society. Is that really what the new flares of psychedelic and sexual freedom were about? Was it free love – or just a free for all? Healing our sexual selves by releasing repression in the Freudian tradition seems to have spilled over into something entirely different.

Guyon, after encouraging the enlisting of prostitutes to pad out the numbers for a good old fashioned orgies states: “It goes without saying also that its justifiability is never called into question by those who have rebelled against repression and have deliberately rejected it from their system of sexual ethics.” In other words, the system sexual ethics actually involves the absence of any ethics at all. Anything goes and you need not be concerned about consequences or the deeper substratum of the human being. Which goes surprisingly close to the idea of “Do what thou wilt,” the maxim of which forms the lynchpin of a particular Satanic occult practice we will look at presently.

tumblr_n7qhr6Ulo71sfie3io1_1280

The Freudian, Kinsey-Guyon view of sexuality

tumblr_nhrpkdBfkR1sfie3io1_1280(public domain: New Old Stock)

Those who see such free-spirited emancipation as something other than freedom of the body and mind are accused of prejudice, anti-sexuality and retrogression. While the prudish and puritanical are also part of the problem, the issue here is of psycho-subversion by pathological constructs paraded as sexual emancipation. Or, as Cleckley explains, Guyon sees: “…The psychology of these extraordinary acts [which] can be explained as a simple manifestation of preference, and cannot be looked upon as “morbid,” since it has a perfectly natural source…” where: “… all methods are equally normal.”

Now place this worldview in the context of how one views women as literal objects to penetrate and domesticate and man as nothing more than alpha-pistons re-fuelling their engines of desire to conquer and consume. What this perception increases is the idea of a world of consumption, without sexual limits, sex for its own sake and the erosion of values that surround the hope of loving, more cohesive and strengthened relations. Moral distinctions and thus values between communities and society play no part where sensation and the orgasm is the defining factor of liberation. It is a road map for a psychopath’s view of sex, as Cleckley reiterates:

Every mechanical means of producing sexual pleasure is normal and legitimate; there is no room for moral distinctions between the various available methods; all are equally justifiable and equally suited to their particular ends…The personal characteristics of the sexual partner have nothing to do with the physiological manifestations of sexual pleasure itself; the importance attributed to these characteristics is a matter of convention…. […] …the ‘sexual pervert’ has no real existence, nor any proper place in the nomenclature of disease . . . these are not pathological cases; they are, on the contrary, people who have remained in much closer touch with nature, truth and health than those who, willing or otherwise, have succumbed to repression. [12]

These books and others like them, set out to explore sexuality not always in favour of true freedom but to redefine sexual taste and change the normal person’s incentive which is naturally lacking towards what can be safely defined as pathology. Such strains of literary psychopathy infiltrating and warping cultural mores is defined by Łobaczewski as both essential psychopathy and in the case of some of the more literary classics: “asthenic psychopathy”: “This type of person finds it easier to adjust to social life. The lesser cases in particular adapt to the demands of the society of normal people, taking advantage of its understanding for the arts and other areas with similar traditions. Their literary creativity is often disturbing if conceived in ideational categories alone; they insinuate to their readers that their world of concepts and experiences is self- evident; also it contains characteristic deformities.” [13]

Thus, as part of a larger method of social engineering by psychopathological influences, this helps to contour such “tastes” towards their singular preferences – starting in childhood.

We are now in the early part of the 21st century, where we will be able to gauge how successful this direction has been.

 


Notes

[1] ‘US government gives free Viagra to paedophiles’ Times Online, By James Bone, May 23, 2005.
[2] Methods, Sex and Madness by Julia O’Connell Davidson and Derek Layder. Published by Routledge 1994, this edition 2001. ISBN 0415-09764-9.  See Chapter 4 The Survey Method p.83.
[3] Bancroft, J. (2004). Alfred C. Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 1-39.
[4]Kinsey, A. (1998). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
[5] ‘Kinsey’s Crimes Against Children’ By Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Post, May 1999.
[6] For further reading on the Rockfeller dynasty’s relationship to Nazi eugenics and research in psychology read: ‘Rockefeller, Nazis, The UN, & Genocide’ by Anton Chaitkin educate-yourself.org and Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust by Edwin Black. Published by Dialog Press; First Edition edition, 2009. ISBN-10: 0914153099 / War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black Published by Dialog Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0914153056.
[7] p. 201; Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme Third Edition, Judith A. Reisman, Published by IInst. Media Education, 2003 | ISBN-10: 0966662415
[8] Ibid. Reisman (pp. 170-171)
[9] op. cit. Cleckley (pp.182-183)
[10] Ibid. (pp.183-184)
[11] Ibid. (p.184)
[12] Ibid. (p.187)
[13] op. cit. Lobaczewski, (p.94 )

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_Cleckley

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.

 


Notes

[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. joekort.com/articles50.htm(Originally published in In the Family magazine Fall, 2003)
[3] op. cit. Howitt (p.46)
[4] Kinsey Institute – ‘The Prevalence of Homosexuality’ http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/bib-homoprev.html
[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)