“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.
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.
Table 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.
The 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.
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]
Cleckly 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.
The Freudian, Kinsey-Guyon view of sexuality
(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 )
Illustration of Ibn al-’Arabi | Image source: www.en.qantara.de/
INFRAKSHUN 