homosexuality

In the Name of the Father II: The Pink Church?

“At the Vatican, a significant number of gay prelates and other gay clerics are in positions of great authority. They may not act as a collective but are aware of one another’s existence. And they inhabit a secretive netherworld, because homosexuality is officially condemned … For gay clerics at the Vatican, one fundamental condition of their power, and of their priesthood, is silence, at least in public, about who they really are.”

Michael Joseph Gross, The Vatican’s Secret Life


NBlHMRg© infrakshun

By the end of 2002, some 1,200 priests had been accused of abuse nationwide with millions of dollars of compensation being paid to victims. Although five US prelates resigned in the ensuing maelstrom, this is a rather weak result when set against the sheer scale of abuse. The same story has been repeated in Europe accusations of which led to prosecutions and a sprinkling of cases where evidence was lacking. Bishops from Argentina, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Switzerland and Austria were also forced out of the church. More than 80 per cent of the church’s victims were male.

It is worth noting that Catholic Church in Ireland has been particularly high up on the league tables of general crimes and conspiratorial wrangling. Humiliation, terror, violent rape and long term molestation matched the US experience when four decades of abuse by 21 priests at the Ferns diocese in the East Ireland town of Wexford was discovered. [1] The practice of moving priests away from positions which had become “unfriendly” for abuse, led to the molesters being placed in posts at schools or other local parishes. This was followed by allegations against a total of 27 priests who served in the archdiocese of Tuam, though six are now dead. Eight clerics left the priesthood in Tuam “after a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that child abuse had taken place was established. Three clerics have already been convicted of horrific child sex abuse charges. The earliest case revealed… date[d] back to 1940.”  Other claims against seven priests from other dioceses were also lodged. [2]

An April 2005 report in The New York Times gave details about a three-member panel appointed by the Irish government, showed that the Catholic Church hierarchy in Ireland: “… was only one part of a system that enabled cover-ups allowing known sexual predators to retain their positions within the church – and their access to young victims.”

The report continued:

“Before 1990, the panel found, the police were reluctant to investigate claims of sexual abuse by the clergy because they were fearful of challenging the privileged position of Roman Catholic Church authorities.
Most schools in Ireland are run by the Catholic Church, so even lay teachers found it difficult to sound alarms. In addition, public health authorities failed to follow up on some accusations of abuse and cut short other inquiries.
For nearly three years, the commission, led by a former Supreme Court judge, heard more than 100 accusations of abuse against 26 priests over a 40-year period in one diocese, Ferns, on Ireland’s southeast coast.

One-fifth of the report’s 271 pages are taken up by testimony, often verbatim and frequently explicit, from the victims. It includes accounts of priests at a Catholic boarding school who measured boys’ penises at night, of boys who were forced to perform oral sex on priests and of girls who were molested during confession, one even on a church altar.

An investigation of 60 accusations of abuse in the Dublin archdiocese began this week, and a public debate has begun about whether to end the Catholic Church’s role in the Irish education system. About 95 per cent of Ireland’s elementary schools are state-financed but run by Catholic authorities.” [3]

article_1231180_07608704000005D

In April 2002, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Church leaders finally summoned by the Pope told a news conference that they had all signed a letter vowing that: “we stand ready to take the steps needed to strengthen our past resolve and to keep children and young people safe for the future and to help heal those so tragically hurt by this abuse.” Obviously this was due to media pressure rather than any sudden development of conscience. Despite this attendance they felt that sexual predation by “men of God” did not merit a “zero tolerance” approach, although a handful of archdiocese took up the gauntlet.

Overall, the rules fell way short and once again, harked back to the same rapid back-peddling enacted by Ratzinger and Cardinal Law that prolonged the cover-up as a whole. A zero tolerance policy and a national policy on dealing with allegations of sexual abuse was formally agreed – on paper at least – at a U.S. Conference of Bishops in late June 2002. However, by June 2005, while setting aside a welcome $1 million to “partially finance a broad study of the causes of abuse within the nation’s largest religious denomination,” considerable tinkering with the wording of the national policy had taken place resulting in what many believe to be a somewhat diluted version. One leading victim advocacy organization said these new changes approved by the bishops weakened the abuse policies, first adopted in 2002. But the bishops, seemingly overjoyed by their “decisive response” dismissed the critics’ fears with Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, viewing such criticism issuing only from the “enemies of the church.”

Despite ostensible improvements in policy (which appear open to erosion) many critics cite the Church’s refusal to publicly identify all abusive priests; the failure to seek special penalties for bishops who abused minors or for bishops who failed to remove abusive priests from the ministry as yet more reasons to distrust the motives of Catholic Church hierarchy. Church bureaucracy and the implementation of waivers via their Statutes of limitations, along with the aforementioned revisions in national policies have caused serious concern among former victims: “George, the vice president of the bishops conference and the bishops’ lead negotiator with the Vatican on sexual abuse policy, said he did not believe the proposed revisions would lead to any change in the way bishops handle allegations against priests. And, he said, the National Review Board’s status would not change. He said that the board was never independent of the bishops and that all appointments to national posts by the bishops’ conference are already vetted by local bishops.” [4]

Did the rot not set in precisely due to the fact that there was vetting biased towards preferences and proclivities? George seemed to be celebrating the fact of the old boy’s network in action. An independent review board consisting of a mix of priests, theologians and civic representatives was obviously too threatening.

Reports from 2005 – 2007 found that hundreds of priests accused of abuse had been moved from country to country, allowing them to start new lives in unsuspecting communities while continuing to work in church ministries. Other findings reported in 2002 identified 200 cases involving clergy who had tried to elude law enforcement. Many priests remained free in one country while facing on-going criminal inquiries, arrest warrants or convictions in another. The research found that “Although most runaway priests remain in the church and should be easier to locate than other fugitives, police and prosecutors often fail to take basic steps to catch them. Dozens of priests who are no longer eligible to work in the United States have found sanctuary abroad.” [5]

It is also the fantasies of the “flock” that exacerbate the problem of bringing those responsible to justice. Many cannot bring themselves to accept that the dear old white, wispy-haired Reverend may have sat their niece or nephew on his knee for reasons diametrically opposite to goodness and service. However, investigations have been carried out where priests have been wholly innocent of any wrong doing. Accusations do seem to have the same effect of instantaneous guilt. Though looking at the history so far, the prevalence of the guilty far outweighs those who have been wrongfully accused. The case of Rev. Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany’s Diocese in New York, who was cleared of any wrongdoing with overwhelming support of his congregation, may be a case in point, or it may be more evidence of primary psychopathy.

com0403f

Rev. Bishop Howard Hubbard

From his staunchly Catholic and conservative stronghold the backing comes from what his congregation say is Hubbard’s consistent example that has shown in his work for the poor and oppressed. Indeed, in Rev. Hubbard’s own words: “I stand before you today with a clear conscience,”… “I am at peace with God and within myself, because there is absolutely no truth to the allegations which have been levelled against me.” [6] And there many members of Albany’s public who were not so quick to defend the priest. Nonetheless, there are still a host of questions to be answered which may prove to have a bearing on the Reverend’s denials.

Andy Zalay came forward with:

“… allegations that his brother Tom, who committed suicide in 1978, had a sexual relationship with Bishop Hubbard. On Friday, 42-year-old Anthony Bonneau said he was paid for sex by Hubbard.” […] Catholic Agnes Bopp said, ‘It’s terrible. The bishop is the most wonderful person in the world. He is the best bishop we’ve ever had.’” [7]

Born-again Christian, Anthony Bonneau, finally spoke publicly in opposition to the tide of support for Hubbard, whom he called “a Washington Park predator.” Bonneau claimed to have been a 16-year-old runaway “when the Albany bishop twice paid him for sex in Albany’s Washington Park. Bonneau told the Times-Union that he recognized Hubbard as one of his johns about ten years ago when he saw the bishop on television. At the time, he said he told only his wife.” [8]Like Andy Zalay, Bonneau had no interest in pursuing allegations to claim compensation. It was Hubbard’s public statement of denials which compelled him to come forward. His motivation was “out of a sense of Christian duty in hopes of protecting other children.”

Hubbard always remained adamant that he was innocent of the allegations made against him. What casts a shadow over his now successful quest to clear his name is the strange death of Fr. John Minkler who was found dead at his home on Sunday, February 15, 2004. Two days before, the dead priest had taken part in a television news programme which explored his own 1995 report addressed to New York’s Cardinal John J. O’Connor. What was interesting about this report was the fact that it contained information regarding “a ring of homosexual Albany priests.” This included Bishop Howard Hubbard’s alleged long-term homosexual relationships with two younger priests.

Journalist Paul Likoudis, writing for The Wanderer (an online Newspaper of the National Catholic Weekly) had worked closely with Fr. John Minkler for 13 years to “expose the corrupt clerical culture in Albany.” Minkler was one of four priests who provided the bulk of the chancery “inside information” for The Wanderer’s 1991, ten-week series, “Agony in Albany.” He related how, in his view, the death of Minkler was far from coincidental. He was certainly in the position to know, having been closely acquainted with the deceased.

abuse-victims

photos of eight victims out of many thousands

The story begins with the Priest returning from a retreat. He had been ordered to the Chancery for an urgent meeting by his friend and colleague Fr. Kenneth Doyle, Albany diocesan spokesman and a civil and canon lawyer. Minkler was presented with an affidavit by Doyle where it was declared that: “…he never wrote the letter to O’Connor; that he had never spoken with attorney John Aretakis (who handed out two copies of the letter to reporters, some of whom already had it) — which was true; that he had never made such allegations against Hubbard; and that he had “never, in writing or otherwise, communicated with the Archdiocese of New York regarding such allegations.”

The affidavit concluded:

“I make this statement of my own free will and I know that making a false statement is a crime.” Contrary to Fr. Minkler’s recollection to this reporter, made six hours after his visit to the chancery, Hubbard told reporters at a press conference after Minkler’s death was reported: “Fr. Minkler made an appointment to see me and he told me that he did not author the letter, and he wanted to be with me face to face and to assure me that he had not written anything to Cardinal O’Connor about me. He did not know the priests that were named in the letter, and he did not know how his name got associated with the letter.”

The meeting with Doyle was very brief, and he only saw Hubbard from a hallway, Minkler told this reporter, “Fr. Doyle had this disclaimer all made out, and he said, ‘Sign it’. “I signed it with mental reservations, and now I’m going to have to go to Confession down in New York, because I can’t go in this diocese,” Minkler said. [9] [Emphasis mine]

However, Likoudis relates how Minkler, one of the Bishop’s major detractors “sounded scared” during their Friday evening conversation. The cause of this fear stemmed from the disclosure of the letter he had been requested to write to Cardinal O’Connor in June 10, 1995 and how he feared it would be prove “disastrous” for him. The Priest had worked for the Cardinal as a private secretary when O’Connor was head of the military vicariate. Apprehensive about a scheduled meeting with Rev. Hubbard on February 16th Minkler had contacted Likoudis for advice:  “I suggested that he pre-empt the meeting by holding his own press conference ‘and let everything out.’ His response was that if he did that, ‘I’d be dead.’”

The claims of abuse by a select group of priests under the Albany’s Hubbard and Rochester’s Bishop Matthew Clark had been circulating for some time. In confiding to Likoudis, Minkler also mentioned that O’Connor had “told him to prepare a brief on Hubbard that he would personally turn over to Pope John Paul II.” According to Minkler: “O’Connor, during a visit to the Vatican made a personal appeal to John Paul II to remove both Hubbard and Clark, and the Holy Father told O’Connor, “There’s nothing I can do.”

The majority of the letter – which included names – concentrated on allegations of recruiting homosexual men to the diocesan priesthood while at the same time turning away heterosexual men from applying; recruiting seminarians from other dioceses who had been reported and fired for homosexual activity; a kind of homosexual nepotism with solicitations from former or present “lovers” for the priesthood. The letter also focused on allegations that: “doctors and other professional health care workers had reported seeing AIDS patients who claimed they had relationships with Albany priests…”  Hubbard featured prominently in the letter where it was stated that he had long-term, homosexual relations with two young priests. According to Likoudis, Minkler also “provided names and proclivities of the homosexual priests in the diocese.” [10]

Fr. Joseph F. Wilson of the Diocese of Brooklyn spoke with Fr. Minkler by telephone on the evening of his death and found that he had “no reservations whatsoever about his state of mind when I finished talking to him that night.” As Paul Likoudis mentioned, Fr. Minkler was a “trusted source of inside information in the Diocese of Albany” … critical of Bishop Howard Hubbard.” The cause of death was a heart attack, though there appears to have been some confusion as to whether it was initially a suicide.


“A disproportionate number of homosexuals are being recruited into our seminaries. I know of one seminary, where two years ago, 60 percent of the students identified themselves as “gay”, 20 percent were confused about their sexual identity, and only 20 percent considered themselves to be heterosexual.”

– Pastor Ignotus, ‘What are we Advertising?’ The Tablet, April 24th 1999


Michael J. Rose of online journal crux.com informs us of another suspicious death from 1998 and the subject of one of the most extensive FBI investigations in Wisconsin history. The crime involved a Fr. Alfred Kunz who was murdered at his rural parish from a slice to the throat with a razor blade. The priest had bled to death before being discovered the following morning. Kunz, an accomplished canon lawyer: “… investigated homosexual corruption in the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois. Less than two years after the death of Fr. Kunz, Springfield’s Bishop Daniel Ryan resigned after Frank Bergen, a former male prostitute, identified the bishop as one of his regular high-paying clients for 11 years, going so far as to describe in detail the bishop’s private residence. Bishop Ryan, however, steadfastly denied that charge and others for years before he resigned.” [11]

Either way, Hubbard is fully exonerated while the puzzle remains. The priest’s alleged promotion of a homosexual agenda or his opposition to the “zero tolerance” policy can only heighten the mystery surrounding Minkler’s death, which was in the middle of seeking reformative changes in the Albany diocese. Given that two of the three accusers against the bishop are dead – questions will naturally remain. The gay-friendly reputation of the Diocese of Albany and of neighbouring Rochester is not the problem. The circumstances of Minkler’s death set against a history of global homosexual and/or paedophile rings in the Church suggests deception and cover-up that begins to relate to a wider macro-social pattern.

Bishop Hubbard and others of his ilk may be exactly as they say they are – men with a clear conscience. We must then look at why the persistent accusations keep returning and with substantial cause. If nothing else, the Hubbard case does show how difficult it is to restore trust when such an institution remains shrouded in secrecy and lies.

Most theology historians worth their salt will tell you that Christianity has been replete with homosexual priests. A high proportion of priests are gay and have been open to the accusation that they are hostile to the ordination of women priests and antagonistic to idea of marriage among the clergy, not simply due to catholic doctrine.  It should come as no surprise that if the Catholic Church can be against child abuse while harbour child rapists within their ranks then they even more likely to countenance a “gay lobby” in their corridors of power while preaching anti-gay dogma.

The well recognized prominence of homosexuality in Church and politics could be seen as a major factor in abuse though not a reason for paedophilia and child molestation. Jason Berry, the Christian author of Lead us not into temptation found 40 to 50 per cent of Christian clergy to be overtly homosexual. (a further summary of homosexual priest statistics can be found at religious tolerance.org) Politically, paedophilia has been sort after for those to occupy key positions in government as a means for blackmail. In the Church the core infection of such a practice is a by-product of its hierarchical structure and secretive traditions. Predators go where they can best pursue their prey from the shadows of authority and since authority breeds the same predilection for abuse it veers toward a chicken-and-egg situation.

There is a distinction between actual paedophilia and pederasty which often gets confused. Relationships with teenagers (pederasty) according to one study formed over 81 per cent of discovered abuse. [12] With the new directives prohibiting gay men or “anyone who has been part of a gay subculture or had lived promiscuously as a heterosexual would be refused admittance into the Catholic priesthood” one can only wonder if this isn’t missing the point. [13] Preferences for male or female is not the issue. Rather, the issue of the Catholic Church itself that harbours such psychopathy and indeed may have found itself comprehensively ponerised by elements of the same.

In 2013, nothing has changed to allay fears of the Catholic faithful that abuse has stopped and that a gay lobby has been disbanded. In the UK, Cardinal Keith O’Brien resigned having been accused of “homosexual misconduct” whilst another priest in Scotland is suspended for daring to suggest that “homosexual priests intimidate others in the clergy.”  More importantly, back in New York’s Albany diocese was ordered by a Federal judge to turn over its clergy abuse files spanning 40 years. However, it seems this too favours the guilty. The request includes a sealing order which will keep the records from being made public. The request came from Albany diocese diocese and none other than  Gary J. Mercure who is “… an imprisoned Albany priest who is accused of systematically raping and abusing altar boys for years.”

It seems the Church and State never separated after all.

NBlHMRg


Notes

[1] Francis D. Murphy, Helen Buckley, and Larain Joyce, The Ferns Report, presented by the Ferns Inquiry to the Minister for Health and Children (Dublin: Government Publications, October 2005).
[2] ‘New abuse timebomb’by Brian MacDonald, Irish Independent, October 31, 2005.
[3] ‘Ireland shaken by sex abuse report’ By Brian Lavery, The New York Times, November 13, 2005.
[4] ‘Catholic bishops retain ‘zero tolerance’ policy’ – Will set aside $1m for sex abuse study By Michael Paulson, The Boston Globe, June 18, 2005.
[5] ‘Untouchable – Runaway Priests hiding in plain sight’, By Reese Dunklin. The Dallas Morning News June 20, 2004.
[6] ‘In Albany, sexual accusations raise a bishop’s high profile’ By Darryl McGrath, The Boston Globe, March 14, 2004.
[7] Capital News 9, Feb 8, 2004.
[8] ‘Priest’s mysterious death complicates’ Albany bishop’s quest to clear his name Michael S. Rose cruxnews.com., 27 February 2004.
[9] ‘Mystery Surrounds Death Of Priest’ By Paul Likoudis, The Wanderer Newspaper Online, wanderer.com. February 26, 2004.
[10] ‘Priest’s mysterious death complicates’ Albany bishop’s quest to clear his name Michael S. Rose cruxnews.com., 27 February 2004.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Catholic bishops retain ‘zero tolerance’ policy Will set aside $1m for sex abuse study’ By Michael Paulson, The Boston Globe, June 18, 2005.
[13] Ibid.
Advertisements

The Politics of Entrapment II: Ambiguities and “Ado71”

entrapmentWe briefly looked at the United Kingdom’s imbedded Establishment abuse within Westminster and Whitehall and the idea of blackmail and entrapment operating within paedophilia networks. In order to gain a bigger picture of the patterns of abuse and how entrapment and child rape networks operate we need to go slightly further afield and cast our (somewhat jaundiced) eye back to what’s been happening in the last two decades.

1996 was the year that saw a veritable explosion of abuse cases at local, national and international levels. One of the fall-out investigations during the Dutroux-Nihoul case was “Operation Ado71” launched in 1997 by French law enforcement authorities in the Department of Saone-et-Loire, Burgundy in the town of Macon. After one of the biggest crackdowns on organised child abuse seen in France, over sixty men were detained, five of whom subsequently committed suicide, some say due to the “name and shame” policy so favoured in much of Europe and America. Others mention the possibility of a high level mopping up of loose ends leading to members of the French Establishment. Whether these men were driven to take their own lives due to the shame of being caught while also guilty, the shame of being caught while innocent or that they were dispatched for harbouring secrets, can only be speculation. More often than not, it is a mixture of all three.

The accused were brought to court in March 2000, one of whom was Bernard Alapetite the chief executive of “Platypus”, a Paris publishing company, and was found guilty of copying and supplying foreign, child porn videos. He received three years, while suspended jail terms ranging from two to six months were given to more than 50 others. Some of the videos consisted of the rapes of boys under 15 and “young children having sex with animals” which made Alapetite a tidy profit “selling them for between £80 and £100 each…” [1] Meantime, those that were scooped up in the paedophilia trawl had allegedly all bought child porn videos from Alapetite’s mail order company as well as sex shop outlets.

What was disturbing about these suspects was the lack of discrimination as to what constituted “just cause” not least, the process by which the suspects were rounded up:

For example:

“One was a retired schools inspector who had bought his sole cassette 25 years ago ‘because morals were degenerating and I wanted to find out how and why.’

Several others produced medical evidence showing that they had long recognised their ‘deviant tastes’ and ‘attraction for young boys,’ but had never molested anyone and had been undergoing psychiatric treatment.

‘I have never molested a child in my life,’ sobbed one retired office worker during the trial. ‘I am on medication. I bought two cassettes from a catalogue. And now my children and my grandchildren will not speak to me.’

Almost half the suspects claimed they were not guilty of any crime. Some pointed out that their tapes had been seized during a previous operation by the Paris vice squad, and subsequently returned to them as perfectly legal.” [2]

To some this may appear a minor irrelevance and indicative of manipulative behaviour from those whose predispositions to abuse must be given no quarter. Nonetheless, one has to question the after effects of an operation that required more than 2,500 police who searched 800 homes, questioned 700 men and detained 300 suspects leading to the jailing of one supplier and distributor. Most of the men in the Macon case were also homosexual and the “children” in the videos looked between sixteen and eighteen years old. Pederasty over paedophilia maybe. And further, as Le Monde Journalist Jean-Michael Dumay stated during the trial:

“… Why should anybody be criminally liable for their failure to correctly determine the precise age of somebody appearing in a video cassette, as about a third of the defendants were accused of? […] ‘…the only criterion is their subjective appearance.’ Once again the experts in the case were not medically qualified but photography technicians and further: “A significant proportion of the defendants claimed they had acquired the cassettes in good faith not through Alapetite’s network but from sex shops that had them on sale openly and guaranteed that the performers were not underage; indeed some of them had been deposited in the National Library as required by law.” [3]

As stated in the above report concerning evidence presented in court at the time, not only did one of the producers offer affidavits to the police from the performers themselves but evidence from a previous case which collected so called child porn cassettes were, in fact, nothing of the kind and were included in the present case as admissible. None of this was taken up by the prosecution. Dumay makes a strong case that this was closer to religious persecution of homosexuals than a real clampdown on child abuse. He illustrates this by highlighting the knee-jerk nature of our society when a collection of photographs showing mutilated children’s genitals turned up on the list of customers for cassettes where the original uncovered network was elevated to a much more serious and urgent criminal status. In actual fact: “… the photographs had been collected by an association campaigning against the circumcision of children that had nothing to do with the video cassettes.” [4] Much of the guilt then rests on one of voyeurism and rather than paedophilia. Though it may yet arrive, as far as I know, pornography is not illegal.

The internet does provide an outlet to those individuals that are paedophiles and child molesters. Nonetheless, what someone does on-line does not necessarily mean that this is what they desire in the real world. This is the point of fantasy:  to escape. Sexual discussions carried out online do not always come from those with a pre-disposition for sexual deviancy. As we explored in previous posts, human beings are psychologically complex, yet police operations do not reflect this complexity and are confusing the whole idea of predatory sexual behaviour. France’s judicial system appears to be exhibiting the same symptoms currently being expressed in police state America.

computercufflinks© infrakshun

Author and attorney Andrew Vachss has discussed the issue of homosexuality and predatory paedophilia when he said: “The existence of NAMBLA helped perspectify some of the insane lies that the media perpetrated. So, for example, a male kindergarten teacher has sex with a little boy—the newspapers would report this as “homosexual” child abuse. If his target was a little girl, they wouldn’t call it ‘heterosexual’ child abuse.”  Vachess also mentioned the lack of any evidence that homosexuals are naturally paedophiles. Pederasty might blur the line, but paedophilia and homosexuality are not synonymous much as many anti-gay conservatives would like to believe. Once again, the issue here is moral panic, politicisation and psychopathy which traverses all sexual preferences.

Vachss observes:

“There are too many Americans who believe that homosexuals are potential pedophiles, and, indeed, that pedophiles are homosexuals run amok. Not only is that not true, but the only way to combat it is to have the evidence to actually place before a court or a committee or an organization.

The myth that a male who has sex with a male child is a homosexual—as opposed to a predatory pedophile—is endemic. I think that myth is all over the place. And I would say that that’s actually the average person’s perception of it. More common than not.” [5]

Press coverage of innocent persons accused of viewing child porn have been high. Pop band Massive Attack’s Robert del Naja was “caught in the sweep” of Operation Ore, where his number was found on a list of 7,300 UK-based credit card numbers passed on to the national crime squad by the FBI. He was subsequently vilified through the UK tabloids before all charges were dropped and found entirely innocent. [6] UK Actor and chat show host Matthew Kelly was also accused. He consistently denied everything and was similarly found innocent with all charges dropped. Unsurprisingly, high level prosecutions remain elusive.

Questions regarding police investigation methods and serious corruption continue to haunt the successes. There have been many operations to clamp down on the increase in child pornography. What is immediately noticeable from the reviewing the past and on-going operations is the lack of convictions, though there are plenty listed as “suspects” and on-going “searches” and “leads.” 8951 people were suspected of committing a crime with an arrest rate that totalled 6,477 persons world-wide and climbing. The figures for suspects, arrests and convictions feature overwhelmingly under the initially much vaunted Operation Ore, which was the UK arm of a global push against internet-based child pornography and given much publicity during the late eighties and early nineties.

Is it because there is a cover-up of those involved in real abuse or is there actually much less abuse of this nature present? Perhaps it is a bit of both? A closer look at the Landslide case may offer some clues.

Armed with a search warrant and an $800,000 grant, the Landslide Inc. a credit clearance intermediary based in Fort Worth, Texas was raided by the FBI, USPIS officers, US customs, Microsoft, Dallas Police, and other contractors. It was closed in April 1999. Operation Avalanche was the result which oversaw investigations and arrests in the US of 100 individuals whose credit card details were found on the Landslide database. This was followed with international operations such as Snowball, Amethyst and Auxin and the aforementioned Operation Ore in the UK. As a result of the Landslide/Avalanche operations a list of over 7,000 credit card holders and their transactions were culled from the Landslide database and given to the UK police.

The Landslide investigations were initially focused around a website that was alleged to have had graphic thumbnails and banners advertising child pornography. Proprietor Thomas Reedy’s home was raided in September 1999 and his office in December of the same year. Assets and bank accounts were frozen while the servers which had been left to run during this time yielded further credit card details from subscribers which then produced a huge database of suspects.

Although Reedy and his wife were offered a 20 year sentence in return for cooperation in trapping webmasters he chose to mount a defence, claiming he was not responsible for the content on third party websites. This led to his indictment in May of 2000 and a life sentence for his troubles in August 2001. His conviction included 89 counts of conspiracy, possession and distribution of illegal images of minors while his wife Janice Reedy received 14 years due to her relatively minor role in the affair.

_64116585_reedys304gettyThomas and Janice Reedy

The severity of Thomas Reedy’s sentence has since been questioned by many more than his attorney: “the Reedys are victims … to lose 10 years of a person’s life in prison is a helluva lot for a crime that doesn’t involve death …” This is due to the fact that Reedy was not a webmaster nor had he created the sexual images. It was also true that the credit card verification for sites did not involve child pornography. Yet, according to Robert Adams, a US Postal Service inspector, who began investigating the couple in May, they had “helped three foreign Webmasters provide ‘hundreds of thousands of images’ as well as movies depicting children in violent sex acts …” which extended to children of only four years of age. [7] Adams made no bones about the fact after his investigations this was, in his opinion “a global operation” [8] involving webmasters from Indonesia to Russia, where he saw the Reedy’s business as actively providing the means for webmasters to share files and download photos.

The joint US/UK entrapment scheme called Operation Avalanche became embroiled in a breathless media fanfare and alleged help from the FBI to streamline the subsequent arrests that were made in August 2001, just as Reedy began his life sentence. From 35,000 US Landslide subscribers email invitations were sent to all with the offer to purchase child pornography by post. “Members of the Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) Task Forces and US Postal Inspectors have conducted 144 searches in 37 states with 100 arrests to date for trafficking child pornography through the mail and via the Internet,” [9]

The huge scale of Operation Ore was primarily due to a list of 7,200 names supplied to British police forces by none other than the FBI, (entrapment specialists!) and ICAC, Task Forces. The angle given to the media was that this was a clear-cut case of paedophilia in society where rings were being rounded up and highly professional undercover operations were in action intended to spring the networks of child rapists.

According to respected investigative journalist Duncan Campbell and his research into Operation Ore cases, the evidence was “exaggerated” and “used unacceptably.” Actually, this is being a little kind. American police testimony was wholly discredited and forensic methods deemed questionable at best. Critical evidence provided by US investigators which initially formed the foundation of Ore itself, were proven to be false. Ministers were not informed of this salient fact and it was buried while convictions continued and costs skyrocketed.

Interpol received sworn statements submitted to UK courts in 2002 that Dallas detective Steven Nelson and US postal inspector Michael Mead had explained that all those who visited Landslide were always presented with a front page screen button which offered a “click Here (for) Child Porn” and thus all those who accessed Landslide and paid with their credit card were assumed to be paedophiles.  Campbell informs us, by the time: “British police and computer investigators had finally examined American files, they found that the ‘child porn’ button was not on the front page of Landslide at all, but was an advertisement for another site appearing elsewhere: thus the crucial “child porn” button was a myth. Landslide certainly gave access to thousands of adult sex sites. But accessing such material, which is now freely broadcast and sold in high street grocers’, is not a crime.” [10]

How could such a serious and high profile investigation miss something so terribly obvious?

More importantly, when it was evident to any adequate investigator that: “The real front page of Landslide was an innocuous image of a mountain, carrying no links to child porn. There was ‘no way’ a visitor to Landslide could link from there to child porn sites,” according to Sam Type, a British forensic computer consultant who was asked by the National Crime Squad (NCS) to rebuild the Landslide website. She dismissed the idea that Landslide had created a service devoted to child porn, describing its only difference as a “pay-per-view” service.”

So, what were the authorities playing at? Was it a case of systematic errors or systematic fraud?

Jim Bates, a computer expert with forensic knowledge served as a witness for the prosecution and defence in more than 100 child porn cases. He is convinced that: “… a massive fraud has been perpetrated at Landslide [where] an unknown number of subscriptions are fake …” [11]  US investigators believed that those who accessed Landslide – by the mere act of paying – were paedophiles. Worse still, from the thousands of pay-to-view access channels provided by Landslide’s two services, US investigators had copied the contents of 12 sites out of a possible 400 accessible through one of the Landslide services called Keyz. Although these sites did contain child pornography and around 25 percent or more, about 180 Keyz sites were either standard pornography or unknown. With the Landslide closure over three years before, evidence of incriminating images in many cases were absent, only address and card details remained:

Here, the American evidence that having paid to get into Landslide meant having paid to access child porn has become crucial. Many of the accused argue that their card details could have been stolen and used without their knowledge, or admit that they used Landslide, but for adult material.

The NCS detective who found the real, innocuous Landslide front page in the American police files acted quickly to make it available to police forces and prosecutors. But nobody seems to have paid attention to the contradiction this created in the Operation Ore evidence. Nor did they apparently notice that there were now two, utterly different “Landslide front pages” presented in Operation Ore prosecutions — one totally incriminating, the other (and accurate) page quite innocuous.  [12]

There were many police in the UK who expressed disquiet at the way Operation Ore was conducted. Some became so disillusioned that they resigned from their jobs. One of them was Merseyside police officer Peter Johnston, who described his lack of faith in a letter to The Sunday Times: “I began to doubt the validity of the evidence surrounding the circumstances of the initial investigation in America … I found it difficult to rationalise how offenders had been identified solely on a credit card number.” [13] All of which means that it is very likely that many cases will be overturned or sent to the Court of Appeal. This comes too late for the 33 men who committed suicide and the lives of other individuals and their families shattered.

One of many victims who had been under the Ore investigation since December 2004 was that of Commodore David White, 50, commander of British forces in Gibraltar. Despite a lack of evidence against him, he was instructed to give up his position in January of 2005 after news of the investigations began to spread. Twenty-four hours later he was found dead at the bottom of his pool after taking a dose of sleeping tablets washed down with whiskey. There was said to be insufficient evidence as to whether the Commodore’s death was accidental or suicide, though the latter appears probable. A statement from his brother, showed that his mental state had collapsed after his dismissal and that he was in a “catatonic state of shock.” [14]  The inquest into the circumstances surrounding his death have since confirmed that investigations: “… yielded no evidence that he downloaded child pornography, and a letter was written by ministry of defence police to naval command on January 5 this year indicating that there were ‘no substantive criminal offences’ to warrant pressing charges.” [15] 

The Scottish arm of the Operation was completed in August 2003 after investigating 350 people north of the Border, about 200 of who were in Strathclyde and 70 in Lothian and the Borders. After millions of pounds of expenditure no arrests were made due to a failure “to gather the necessary evidence” though “grave doubts” about suspects remained.[16]

Despite the disastrously flawed evidence from the US, it was the UK contingent of police, lawyers and a frothing media who transformed the possibility of a genuine investigation of child pornography into a verifiable witch-hunt by using emotive catch lines and the reliance of sensation over facts. The very nature of paedophile images already predisposes the media and juries to convict based on the instinct to make it disappear. Therefore, most defence solicitors suggested pleading guilty if any images were found on computers regardless of whether they were guilty or not. Reconciling this with the persistent evidence of high level paedophilia and other deviant activities is not easy.

Once again we have evidence that crimes continue undeterred and with Establishment protection while the public carries the can.

 


Notes
[1]  ‘Dozens convicted in child sex video trial’ by John Henley, The Guardian, May 11, 2000.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘The ambiguities in the campaign against paedophilia’ by Jean Michael-Dumay, Le Monde, March 25 2000.
[4] Ibid.
[5] op. cit. Vachss, (Case Magazine)
[6] ‘I’ve always been open about porn’ Friday April 11, 2003, by Alexis Petridis, The Guardian. “He claims that despite the fact that no charges had been brought against him, the police informed the Sun newspaper about his arrest. “The whole thing became this kind of publicity joke. Someone in the police force called The Sun directly, said we’ve arrested so and so, we haven’t charged him. The police shouldn’t be giving that information to newspapers.”
[7] ‘Couple in child porn trial planned to flee to Mexico, witness testifies Defense counters that pair has No criminal history, passports’ – dallasmorningnews.com/ By Debra Dennis Fort Worth Bureau of The Dallas Morning News, April 19, 2000.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ‘Attorney General Ashcroft Announces the Successful Conclusion of Operation Avalanche’ Press Release, US Depart. Of Justice August 8 2001, http://www.usdoj.gov.
[10] ‘A flaw in the child porn witch-hunt’ By Duncan Campbell, The Sunday Times, June 26, 2005.
[11] ‘Operation Ore Exposed’ by Jim Bates,  computerinvestigations.com
[12] ‘A flaw in the child porn witch-hunt’ By Duncan Campbell, The Sunday Times, June 26, 2005.
[13] Child porn suspects set to be cleared in evidence ‘shambles’ by David Leppard, The Sunday Times July 03, 2005.
[14] ‘Military chief killed himself over child porn allegations’ by Caroline Gammell, The Scotsman Fri 30 Sep 2005.
[15] ‘Dead officer absolved in porn probe’ By David Leppard, The Sunday Times, Sunday, 2 October, 2005.
[16] ‘Dismay as international paedophile probe fails’ by Marcello Mega, August 2003 The Scotsman.

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 VI: Rewiring and Rewards

“…there is a ‘crisis’ amongst young men, a high number of whom are experiencing a “new form of addiction” to excessive use of pornography and video games.”

– Prof. Philip Zimbardo, The Independent


Following on from a brief look at ponerological influences on sexual minorities it seems the influence of our increasingly narcissistic, body-centric culture alongside the explosion of technology and social networks has had a significant impact on sexual identity, especially on adolescent boys.
Which brings us back to the ubiquity of porn.
Psychologist Marnia Robinson calls the “…plastic effects of sexual behaviours on the brain’s delicate reward circuitry” as vastly underestimated. She writes:

Actual experience, however, suggests that intense stimulation can alter sexual tastes in some brains. Indeed, some of today’s Internet porn users are undergoing unnerving changes in their brains and arousal patterns—a possibility now well explained by many experiments revealing the plasticity of the brain. These changes are difficult to reverse while porn use continues. In short, sexual cues that start out as insubstantial and meaningless as cobwebs can become cables, that is, can lay down brain pathways that are given high priority because they are associated with the intense reward of orgasm. [1]

Researchers from Queen Mary’s School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm report showed that homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors (that is, not necessarily societal attitudes, family or parenting) with exposure to certain hormones during foetal development as a key determinant.[2] The studies show that genetic factors are of lesser importance than the early hormonal and individual environmental factors giving further credence to the hypothesis that sexuality is highly malleable and dependent on individual influences. So too, the plasticity of the brain open to change from both external factors and our own perceptions. In terms of sexual orientation what does this imply? Consider this description of present neuroplasticity [3] in the context of pornography:

A sensitive brain can wire up to a new sexual cue with a few intense orgasms. Thereafter, such a brain will respond to that cue (whether with arousal or repulsion) before the brain’s owner is even consciously aware of the cue. In short, the brain’s reward circuitry ignites a powerful reaction before the person’s frontal cortex has a chance to dismiss the cue.

In some brains, classic conditioning proves to be but the top of a slippery slope to more permanent alterations of the reward circuitry. These alterations produce a much higher level of dopamine release in key brain circuits (sensitization). This brain change is often accompanied by an overall decrease in the brain’s pleasure response (desensitization). Together these addiction-related changes drive cravings for increasingly stimulating material. [4]

What does say about the sexual imagery and multi-media content that is currently bombarding largely young males? Can we also infer that exposure to pathologies in early childhood can indeed help to determine – at least in part – the outcome of a child’s sexuality?

When these two factors are combined then we may begin to understand the fascination of agencies and perception mangers like the Rockefellers in shaping societies according to their own bizarre precepts. Yet, it remains difficult to study neuroplasticity, environmental factors, genetic crossovers and their relationship to sexual behaviours because misguided ethics committees will not allow it. [5]  What is more pertinent is the connection between sexual orientation and the re-wiring of the brain’s neural pathways.

rear view of a child using a computer

Gary Wilson, an anatomy and physiology teacher suggests that internet pornography is making male sexuality more plastic, with cyber-porn manufacturing superficial tastes, sometimes unrelated to sexual orientation. In relation to the how the brain works he quotes neuroscientist Norman Doidge who states: “The content of what [patients] found exciting changed as the web sites introduced themes and scripts that altered their brains without their awareness. Because plasticity is competitive, the brain maps for new, exciting images increased at the expense of what had previously attracted them.” [6]

Rather than revealing our deepest, sexual urges and letting our craziest fantasies run wild when surfing for pornographic material perhaps it merely reflects an exponential curve of greater extremes? As Wilson proposes: “Could this be why viewers who would never harm others are viewing violent porn? Why gay porn viewers are feeling baffled by their tastes for straight rape porn or lesbian porn? Why straight men are bewildered by their tastes for transsexual or gay porn?” [7] And as neuroscientist Jim Pfaus points out: “… the mating brain is opportunistic. It’s not strictly bound by intrinsic wiring, but rather it adapts to promising sexual cues.” [8]

And when the statistically highest user of internet porn is the adolescent male and his brain is in the developmental phase of wiring up for sexual cues, then this puts a whole new angle on how sexual orientation can be shaped and how porn can affect sexual identity in combination with other less overt sexual cues from cinema, magazines and other sources from daily life.  Rewiring, desensitization, and sexual disorientation are the results.

Wilson quotes another young user who described this disorientation:

Ryan: I seriously thought I was turning gay. My obsessive thoughts about this issue were so strong that I was contemplating taking a dive off the nearest high-rise. I felt so depressed. I knew I loved girls and I couldn’t love another dude, but why did I have ED? Why did I now need transsexual/gay stuff to get off? It’s like I made a mistake that I cannot correct anymore. I want to go back to my old days when I was only turned on by the female body. […]

One 22 year-old:

During middle school and high school I watched porn for hours. After high school I dated a girl I really liked, but I didn’t feel as much arousal around her as I felt when watching porn. In college I got confused about my sexuality because I wasn’t feeling as much sexual attraction as other people. I was also turned on by gay porn and thought maybe I had latent homosexuality. My senior year I went to sexuality counseling and a coming-out support group for a quarter. Neither brought me closer to understanding sexual orientation or attraction. Yes, I got turned on by some gay porn, but I didn’t feel attraction to, or fantasize about, guys. The gay guys that I met seemed much more certain of their orientation. After a while I wasn’t sure I belonged there. I’ve started feeling more sexual attraction around women now that I’ve cut down on porn and masturbation. [9]

Factor in childhood events and shocking episodes (negative or positive) then sexual orientation turn out to be much more complicated than at first thought.  We live in a culture that continues to thrive on sensation and shock with undercurrents of sexualisation pushing the young to experiment earlier and earlier. This is reflected in part, by the onset of puberty in girls as young as eight, then it should be no surprise that society responds in a Pavlovian manner to more extremes while being tricked into thinking this is quite normal.

As Gary Wilson observes: “Brains desperate for sensation can find anxiety-producing material particularly arousing. Such emotions release extra dopamine (and norepinephrine) in the brain. In essence, they are a response to risk-taking.” [10] It need not be porn that creates the conditioned response – the crucible of our daily lives can easily fit the bill.

As discussed in a previous post, the mainstreaming of pornography now includes the one time fetish for hairless genitals and anal sex now so much a part of sexual preference that it is part of any sexually active individual. Not only do women now consider any trace of hair on their body “gross” but men too are waxing up believing that these sexual cues have always been there.

With so much distortion on show in movies, reality T.V., magazines and the internet and the acceptance and accessibility of amateur and professional porn it is little wonder there are so many mixed messages for the young, where the discovery of one’s normal orientation is lost in a sea of sexual extremes, where the “mechanics of sex” and sensation are the only means to express. Indeed, when sex, seduction and the darker archetypes of the vampire, werewolf and demon are ubiquitous in movies and television series blurring the clear-cut delineation of Good vs. Evil: “… It is no great mystery that, in this confusion, hate and contempt is sometimes shunted over into channels which are normally designed for erotic gratification and for devotion.” [11]

Psychopathological strains will infiltrate any belief that offers fertile ground for distortion of the whole. Therefore: “Only when screened from normal stimuli by pathologic developments is man likely to respond specifically to those that are abnormal.” [12]

The result has been the progressive distortion, relegation and denigration of woman and the feminine and man and the masculine and by extension – the sacred. It is from this perspective (and putting aside Cleckley’s misunderstanding of the source) that we can follow his train of thought and his extraordinarily valuable insights into the nature of pathological narcissism and essential psychopathy.

(For one example of the latest research on the influence of digital media on the young see: The Great Porn Experiment: Gary Wilson at TEDxGlasgow)

[NOTE: As a summary of this series as well as adding many fascinating extra elements to the mix, the subject of sexuality, gender theory as related to the ponerisation of values in our Western societies has been recently covered in an excellent article by Pierre Lescaudron of Sott.net entitled:  Mummy, why is Daddy wearing a dress? Daddy, why does Mummy have a moustache?]

 


Notes

[1] ‘Wiring Sexual Tastes to Hairless Genitals…Oops!’ Psychology Today, By Marian Robinson. January 2 2012.
[2] ‘Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors,’ScienceDaily, June 28, 2008. “This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.Rahman explains: “Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway.” For women, genetics explained roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour, non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent.The study shows that genetic influences are important but modest, and that non-shared environmental factors, which may include factors operating during foetal development, dominate. Importantly, heredity had roughly the same influence as shared environmental factors in women, whereas the latter had no impact on sexual behaviour in men.[…].
This has reinforced by new studies Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, [who] “… set out the findings at a discussion event held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago: “Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight. A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.” – ‘Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows’ The Guardian, Ian Sample, February 14, 2014.
[3] The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science by Norman Doidge Published by Penguin 2008 | ISBN-10: 014103887X.
[4] op. cit. Robinson.
[5] ‘ Sex Research: The Orgasm Cycle’ May 31, 2010 by Marnia Robinson, Psychology Today.
[6] ‘Can You Trust Your Johnson?’ October 22, 2011 by Gary Wilson, Psychology Today.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid.
[10] op. cit. Wilson.
[11] op. cit. Cleckley, (p.270)
[12] Ibid. (p.268)

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)