literature

The Z Factor XII: Masada and other Myths

“When we carefully examine …. the Great Revolt and Masada, a portrait of heroism …. is simply not provided. On the contrary. The narrative conveys the story of a doomed (and questionable) revolt, of a majestic failure and destruction of the Second Temple and of Jerusalem, of large-scale massacres of the Jews, of different factions of Jews fighting and killing each other, of collective suicide (an act not viewed favourably by the Jewish faith) by a group of terrorists and assassins whose “fighting spirit” may have been questionable.”

– Kim Stubbs, History News Network


The State of Israel and its claim to legitimacy stretches back to the patriarchs of Moses where romantic fantasy is constantly injected into the American-Jewish mind, far more than Israeli Jews. The almost guilty obligation to support the Jewish homeland is constantly reinforced by cultural archetypes saturating Hollywood and the corporate media. A stranglehold on voting and legislation from the ubiquitous Israeli lobby together with a hefty annual tax-payers’ bonus ensures an unquestioning support for the illusion of a hard fought “promised land.”

The Bible is seen as the greatest book ever written. It is true that there is great spiritual wisdom to be found within its pages. One might also say that great truths were systematically covered up and reinterpreted according to the dictates of the organised Church down through the ages. Which means that the Old Testament Bible has ultimately operated as a tool of control for the masses. What it certainly isn’t is an historical record. There are several books on the subjects worth reading to gain an overview of just how much Biblical propaganda has enveloped and shaped Western Culture. (To start with you might try: Who Wrote the Bible: The Making of a Christian Myth; The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q, both by Burton L. Mack and Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s online texts: Who Wrote the Bible? Along with her other publication: Comets and the Horns of Moses).

Similarly, public relations firms and PSYOPS have traditionally served Zionist interests whether it is ensuring the conquest of Iraq piggy-backing American interests or the embroidering of Utopian dreams of a Greater Israel. [1] Equally, recently declassified files in America have revealed just how invasive are the covert PR and lobbying activities of this little state. In the US, following a Senate investigation, the National Security Archive at George Washington University made the documents public leaving in no doubt how Israel attempts to shape media coverage for its own ends. [2]
The weaving of a highly subjective Jewish dream is tragically real. It is a collective umbilical cord nourished on a history of fantasy and authoritarian power on the one hand and covert manipulation on the other, where the mirroring of Nazi and Jew has been flipping over and over before and after the Holocaust. As one Jewish author noted: “A good many Israelis see that if conflict with the Arabs continues, they are in danger of becoming like the Germans from 1933 to 1945 – accomplices if not perpetrators of permanent oppression.” [3]

800px-Israel-2013-Aerial_21-Masada

Aerial view of Masada in the Judaean Desert with the Dead Sea in the distance. | Photo credit: Andrew Shiva (wikipedia) photo credit to Andrew Shiva

And this is exactly what has been happening for decades in the occupied territories of Palestine. The mythology of Jewish victim-hood from the massacre at Masada to the monopoly of suffering from the Nazi-led holocaust are both vital in this regard, extracting the necessary psychic reparation from the rest of us in order to keep the nationalist visions of Zion on track.

Situated in the desert and overlooking the Dead Sea, Masada, (Hebrew for “Fortress”) has a special place in Jewish legend. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, between 37 and 31 BCE the story unfolded with the following characters:

Herod the Great built the fortress of Masada between Herod, an Idumean, had been made King of Judea by his Roman overlords and was hated by his Jewish subjects. […] Some 75 years after Herod’s death, at the beginning of the Revolt of the Jews against the Romans in 66 CE, a group of Jewish rebels overcame the Roman garrison of Masada. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) they were joined by zealots and their families who had fled from Jerusalem. With Masada as their base, they raided and harassed the Romans for two years. Then, in 73 CE, the Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against Masada with the Tenth Legion, auxiliary units and thousands of Jewish prisoners-of-war. The Romans established camps at the base of Masada, laid siege to it and built a circumvallation wall. They then constructed a rampart of thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth against the western approaches of the fortress and, in the spring of the year 74 CE, moved a battering ram up the ramp and breached the wall of the fortress. [4]

Led by Eleazar ben Ya’ir almost one thousand men, women and children decided to commit mass suicide by burning the fortress rather than face enslavement by the besieging Roman army. The remaining Zealots killed each other through casting lots. Only two women lived to tell the tale passed onto one Joseph ben Matityahu who changed his name to the Roman moniker Josephus Flavius after the outbreak of the “Great Jewish Rebellion against Rome (66 CE) when he was appointed governor of Galilee.” [5]

Suspicious name changing aside, it turns out the only written source about Masada is Josephus Flavius’ account called: The Jewish War which automatically sets up a red flag. In fact, the account is a fine exercise in early Jewish propaganda on behalf of a faithful Mosaic compulsion to Israeli nation-building and self-esteem. In 1995, author Nachum Ben-Yehuda offered highly convincing evidence which showed that Masada was a forerunner in ancient Israeli psychological operations and a “socially constructed … shrine for Jewish martyrdom and heroism.” [6]

sicarii

Artist’s rendering of the Sicarii

Quite apart from all academic sources tracing the myth back to this one account, Josephus Flavius was not quite who he appeared to be. The name changing gives a clue in that Flavius joined the Romans and was considered a “Judas” to the Jewish cause. However, more shocking still was that the Masada “Zealots” were actually assassins practicing their trade against both Romans and Jews. Rather than the wholly out-of-character image of Jewish-revolutionaries who loathed the Romans, these “Sicarii” or “dagger men” were driven out of Jerusalem by their Jewish clansman and had nothing to do with resisting Roman domination. Rather it seems, they fled to Masada as another example of factional infighting.

This band of brothers proceeded to wreak havoc in nearby Jewish settlements massacring inhabitants that largely consisted of women and children, with one raid numbering more than 700 dead. [7] To put it bluntly, Masada’s defenders were “thieves and assassins who robbed and killed other Jews.” [8]According to Ben-Yehuda the propaganda: “… was consciously invented, fabricated, and supported by key moral entrepreneurs and organizations in the Yishuv” within the Israeli community.[9]

Meanwhile, in the modern age, from all over the Jewish diaspora Jews come flocking – the Israeli military among them – to visit a virtual Jewish Mecca to rekindle devotion and ideology to Zionist nationalism. If this fabrication on behalf of a Nation State was just that, then it would be no different to so much of what has come down to us as “his-story.” But there is a disturbing undercurrent to this legend that may yet feed into a tragic denouement directly affecting Israel and Jewish peoples everywhere.

Keeping in mind US Dominionist beliefs alongside the Jewish Messianism of Chabad Lubavitchers, Jewish academics and social commentators have been picking up on the fact that turning Israel into a present-day Masada may not be the most sensible line of defence and could be courting future disaster. In the hot bed of Middle Eastern politics and messianic fervour the push to carve up Arab nations and plunder their resources, fostering the myth of Israeli Jews as inside the collective suicide complex is dangerously tempting providence. Indeed, the current game plan has many elements to it that confers exactly that scenario playing out in the not so distant future. As many Zionists call for Jews to return to the Homeland, Masada serves as a psychic entrainment to that end, thus, there is a danger of a double-cross at work with a large proportion of Israelis set to be destroyed in the ensuing chaos. Israel’s precocious arming with nuclear weapons and aggravated preaching to other nations in the region is playing with fire.

As journalist and author Christopher Bollyn observes:

“The world of Zionist terrorism is small and based on certain family ties. The Zionist terrorist regime of Israel today is very much like the Sicarii Zealots of the First Century. The Sicarii were Jewish robbers and terrorists who killed other Jews to further their extremist ends. Facing the power of the Roman army, the Sicarii wound up killing hundreds of Jews in the massacre of Masada. The Israeli terrorist regime of Netanyahu and Barak uses Jews as human shields, which endangers all Jews, Zionist and non-Zionist, in the same way as the Sicarii of Masada in the First Century. Israel today is becoming more and more like one huge Masada.” [10]

Meanwhile, thanks to the Jewish myth-making machine of Hollywood and the History channel, Israel’s Masada (inside the Masada National Park) does a roaring trade on the pilgrimage and tourist front, offering package tours, weddings, corporate functions and Bar Mitvahs in and around the site.

***

Another example of clever marketing to elicit support was the novel Exodus >by Leon Uris published in 1958. Replete with virtual Jewish super-heroes and feats of daring-do, it was commissioned by a New York public relations company headed by Edward Gottlieb with the express aim of “creating a more sympathetic attitude towards Israel.” The book was a sensation and fulfilled its objective of popularising the plight of Jewry down through the ages and placing in the minds of the public the notion of Israel as a divinely sanctioned nation-state. [11]A Hollywood film followed in 1960, directed by Otto Preminger and with an all-star cast. The fact that this was a blatant PR exercise for the Zionist cause – which made everyone a lot of money to boot – was not lost on many Arab and Jewish commentators alike.

luris1

Various editions of Leon Uris’ Exodus (1958)

Uris produced a book that is a piece of entertaining and well-written propaganda – but propaganda nonetheless, with historical facts either missing or distorted in Israel’s favour in order to feed into the myth of a “triumphant” return. As the title suggests, the author took his cue from the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament where Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt and through the wilderness to Mount Sinai. It here that God (Yahweh) offers them the Covenant and in exchange the land of Canaan on a platter which is celebrated as the Jewish festival of Passover. The problem is that there is no evidence that such an Exodus took place for a number of reasons which include both archaeology [12] and the nature  of the Old Testament itself. As mentioned, it would be an understatement to say that the Bible is not a reliable historical source despite what the thought police may tell us.

On this point, Niels Peter Lemche, a biblical scholar at the University of Copenhagen, writes:

The liberation from Egypt is a critical moment in the history of Israel. A nation and its religion depend upon it. Without it, Israel’s nationhood would have been a historical footnote, and its faith in Yahweh as the God of Israel would have remained insignificant. The Exodus represents more than a national liberation: it marks the birth of a nation and justifies that nation’s very existence.

Two other events become important ‘foundation legends’ for the Israelites: the revelation at Sinai, and the occupation of Canaan. The Exodus marks the beginning of the people and the source of its identity, but the people also need a religion and a land. Without both, the people cannot survive but will face annihilation. A national identity requires a concrete, physical space within which to develop. Without its religion, the people would wander aimlessly through the wilderness like ghostly figures.

At Sinai, Yahweh presents himself as the God who liberated Israel from Egyptian bondage – the very same God who at the beginning of history entered into an exclusive relationship with the patriarchs and promised them a beautiful land.[13]

The whole justification for the State of Israel rests on this liberation from Egypt. What if it is a literary fiction like so much of the mythology that has come after it? In fact, Lemche and others have demonstrated that not only did the Exodus not happen, but Moses was invented as a lynchpin protagonist for a complex set of independently written patriarchal narratives which were joined together later for what can only be for reasons of control:

The book of Exodus represents a literary quilt, pieced together from the fragments of universal and timeless adventure stories and legends. These are examples of narrative art rather than specifically Israelite folk literature. Appreciating the utility of their plots and characters, the biblical authors appropriated these universal tales and reconstituted them with their own Israelite template. […]  This study demonstrates that the biblical portrayals of Israel’s earliest history – set in the larger contexts of Mesopotamia, Syrian Palestine, and Egypt – are literary compositions rather than historical sources. The biblical authors consulted various ancient tales and legends, but did not approach them with a critical eye. … A literary analysis of the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Torah / Old Testament] proves incontrovertibly that its narratives are not reliable sources for the study of antiquity; rather, they are works of art. Without regard for exact historical data regarding the development of their people, those writers used every weapon in their literary arsenal to create powerful and dramatic narratives. … One cannot reconstruct Near Eastern history from these narratives; rather, we must be content with what they are: adventure stories and legends, crafted and written by late author-compilers to discuss “the old days” with their audience. Clearly, that audience did not measure the historic by historical standards.[14]

As a result, the monotheistic Jewish myths and the creation of Israel have caused incalculable suffering and death, not only for the Jews themselves but for millions of people in the Middle East and around the world. Amid the resulting drama and conflict Palestinian History has been: “… ignored and silenced by biblical studies because its object of interest has been an ancient Israel conceived and presented as the taproot of Western civilization …” when objective scientific evidence continues to show that such stories have no basis in fact. [15]

As an adjunct to this subject, the reader might also like to explore Dr. Ashraf Ezzat’s Egypt Knew No Pharaohs (2015) which synthesizes historical and archaelogical evidence as well as his own findings to show that this bibilical propaganda extends so deep so as to paint vast deception against Ancient Egypt. After recently writing an online review of the book I’ll include it here:

[Dr. Ashraf Ezzat] show[s] that the original source of the Israelite stories in the Hebrew Bible explicitly shows that a small settlement of Mizraim in Southern Arabia rather than Egypt was the setting for the Moses/Pharaoh tale, including the stories of Abraham and Joseph. These distortions occurred during 2 B.C. at the hand of Jewish scribes in the translation of the Hebrew Bible to the Greek or Septuagint Bible. (Those of you who have read all about the Pharisees and Levite scribes will know that this process of obfuscation and general manipulation of Jewish tribes had been occurring for quite sometime). Yet, it is here that the real damage was done in the context of Ancient Egypt and the slippery slope that followed.

He also points out that this enormously influential culture of Egypt spanning three thousand years had kings and queens which were never referred to as Pharaohs in any Egyptian records linked to Egypt’s Kings, prior to the Greek era of 305 B.C.- 30 AD. We realise that the name “Pharoah” has been cynically drawn from the Mizraimian word: “Faraon” meaning an Arabic Chieftain and where the story of Moses took place. In the same way, Moses and the Israelites do not feature at all in Egyptian oral or written records. Nor was there any mention of Pyramids in Mizraim. (Egypt was called Gopt/Gept rather than Mizraim). Indeed, reference to Pyramids or the Sphinx is also entirely absent from any of the Israelite stories. Illustrating but one example, the whole tribal structure of Israelite tales was obviously incompatible with the agricultural culture of ancient Egypt and its rejection of the slave trade. So, when this is partnered with a complete lack of archaelogical evidence to support the stories located in Palestine and current accepted locations in Biblical theology, it becomes abundantly clear that the location of the Biblical myths of Moses’ Exodus never took place in Egypt and likewise, the Israelites never set foot in Egypt at all.

Ezzat shows us that the true Biblical landscape is located in South Arabia and North Yemen, with the latter location providing the start of what was to become Judaism which, along with its commensurate tribal conflicts, was exclusively Arabic.

Yet, once the myth has taken hold, however false it maybe, the psychic power continues to have its effect, regardless. After all, since when has truth been allowed to get in the way of a good story? Israel plays an enormously powerful role in the maintainance of myth in order to benefit its own perceived survival, not least as an excuse to continue perpetrating acts of violence, abuse and murder against the Palestinian population.  To that end, Professor Keith W. Whitelam of the Department of Bibilical Studies at the University of Sheffield in England describes the thorny issues of past and current interpretations in academic theological research of Israelite history:

The search for ancient Israel, in which I include for shorthand purposes second Temple Judaism, has consumed phenomenal intellectual and material resources in our universities, faculties of theology, divinity schools, theological colleges, seminaries, and departments of archaeology, particularly in the USA, Europe, and Israel. A quick glance through the prospectuses and catalogues of these institutions will reveal numerous courses on the history and archaeology of ancient Israel conducted in the context of the study of the Hebrew Bible from Jewish and Christian perspectives. This is just as true in ‘secular’ universities with departments of Religious Studies rather than faculties of theology. Interestingly, and revealingly, I have been able to discover very few courses on the history of ancient Israel in departments of History or Ancient History. It seems that ancient Israelite history is the domain of Religion or Theology and not of History. […] Biblical studies have been dominated from its inception by a concern for the history of ancient Israel as the key to understanding the Hebrew Bible. It has been of fundamental concern for Christian theology since Christianity is conceived of as a religion based upon revelation within history. Philip Davies has demonstrated, however, that the ‘ancient Israel’ of biblical studies is a scholarly construct based upon a misreading of the biblical traditions and divorced from historical reality. […]

The cultural and political factors that have dominated biblical studies discourse on ancient Israel have denied the development of a strategy for investigating such issues. Ironically, much of the archaeological work, the regional surveys and site excavations, which have contributed to the paradigm shift are coloured by the overwhelming search for ancient Israel, the material reality which, it is presumed, will help to illuminate the Hebrew Bible. … It has been difficult to uncover or document sufficiently the subtle political and ideological influences which have shaped historical research in biblical studies. [16]

And there lies the rub.

The paradigm shift hasn’t been powerful enough to dismantle these negative myths and the emotive nature of these fabricated archetypal energies. The hold they have on secular and religious discourse alike, is unlikely to be shifted. The entertainment industries are constantly on hand to reinforce these emotional beliefs which in turn, are dominated by American-Jewish movers and shakers. This wouldn’t be a problem if those beliefs were not tied directly to deep political and social fissures.

An example of just how manipulative it can get was channelled through two films in particular in the last three decades, each arriving with suitable marketing fanfare and associated budget. The first was the multi award-winning 1993 film of Schindler’s List directed by Steven Spielberg and the second a nine hour Holocaust epic Shoah made in 1985 by French documentary film-maker Claude Lanzmann. Both had an enormous impact on Jewish and non-Jewish audiences alike.

Some commentators accuse Shoah of distorting the Polish part played in the Holocaust by casting them as the villain in the drama thereby fuelling, still further, the concept of Jewish victimhood as exclusive and isolated. The Polish peasants are given a shared guilt alongside their Nazi persecutors the inference being that Poles aided and abetted their path to destruction. Although over two million ethnic poles perished it seems through Lanzmann’s direction, such historical loathing of non-Jewish Poles is denied the same kind of victim status demanded by Jewish mythology. Lanzmann, responding to a query by an interviewer if his film was accusation against Poles, responded: “Yes, it is the Poles who accuse themselves. They mastered the routine of extermination.’” [17]

According to Israeli Omar Bartov distinguished Professor of European History and Professor of History and Professor of German Studies at Brown University, Rhode Island in the United States: “Shoah is highly biased and its biases are intensely personal, stemming directly from its maker’s own national and ideological prejudices and finding expression in his style of interviewing, his editing technique, and the context of his comments.” [18] And those “prejudices” created the impression that the historical reasons that Jews went to their deaths was in a large part due to the indifference and even the assistance of Poles, which is contrary to witness testimony and history.

schindlersList-horz

Promotional Film posters for Schindler’s List and Shoah

Similarly, despite Schindler’s List taking place in Poland, Polish persecution is not explored in the film, it is strictly a Jewish enterprise, a creative undertaking which grossed $4 billion by 1994.

The film’s premise was based on a book by Thomas Keneally originally titled: Schindler’s Ark (released in America as Schindler’s list) and which told the story of Nazi industrialist Oskar Schindler who rescued 1,200 Jews from concentration camps during the Second World War. It is undoubtedly a tale of sacrifice, immense courage and fortitude from Schindler and his Jewish workers. However, in Spielberg’s version we see it, yet again, as a black and white portrayal of evil against the Jews hermetically sealed against the possibility that other tribal groupings and nationalities were suffering. They are not merely Jewish but almost saintly in their roles, cardboard cut-outs of holiness waiting for Schindler to do the right thing. There is barely a the hint of a stain on any of the characters portrayed in the film perhaps because it was about an archetypes of clear demarcation of good and evil, victimhood, heroic rescue and deliverance rather than historical realism.

In Keneally’s book however, praised for its emphasis on careful research, the mise en scène is somewhat different. The Jews in question were deeply connected to the SS forming part of the “Judenrate” a sort of secret Jewish police that reported to the Nazis as well as making sure that Nazi policy was implemented. It was essentially a nest of agents created by the Nazis to ferment divisions and propaganda within Jewish groupings and to neutralise any internal oppositions. Those with connections to the Judenrate often had an advantage over their compatriots, but this also meant that it was the wealthy that were able to bribe their way out of detainment. [19]

Keneally writes about Symche Spira, an agent in the Judenrate who took his orders from the SS and who at their command, set up a police force by recruiting his friends:

“Spira’s Political Section would go beyond the demands of grudging cooperation and would be full of venal men, men with complexes, with close-held grudges about the social and intellectual slights they’d received in earlier days from respectable middle-class Jewry. Apart from Spira, there were Szymon Spitz and Marcel Zellinger, Ignacy Diamond, David Gutter the salesman, Forster and Gruner and Landau. They settled in to a career of extortion and of making out for the SS lists of unsatisfactory or seditious ghetto dwellers.” [20]

The above was set against the background of endemic extortion from those wishing to get on the list. Ironically, Oskar Schindler went bankrupt after spending much of his money rescuing Jewish people.

Inclusion of the reality of life in the Nazi ghetto and the ever-present threat of being carted off to the Nazi death camps would have fed into Jewish stereotypes and the incomprehensible Jewish exploitation of each other. If nothing else matters but the redemption and rescue of Jews, where no other ethnic suffering can possibly feature in the narrative, then to show survival that overtook Jewish solidarity could not be permitted because such objective reflection on Jewish history is not allowed.

The issue here is not that one shouldn’t feel sympathy and grief for Jewish suffering and those that lost their lives in such horrific circumstances – this is obvious. But to understand when and how that demand turns manipulative. It is about how religions and ideologies are hijacked and ponerised by pathological constructs. We are all members of tribes none of which are exempt from pathogenic infection. It so happens that the impetus behind Judaism and the Jewish peoples’ ascendency may harbour more than its fair share. The Jewish story has lent itself to such normalised distortions due to its engineered uniqueness and perhaps the consequent peculiarities of its psychological typography. This may end in a cumulative tragedy of epic proportions if they do not begin to wake up to who is controlling the direction of this singular and talented tribe.

In one sense, the Jewish people may yet hold the destiny of us all in their hands, but perhaps not in a way that was first thought.

 

 


Notes

[1] ‘Israel Turns to P.R. Firm for Makeover Amid Violence’ The Miami Herald July 29, 2001. Martin Jozefowicz a young Jewish Zionist who was chosen to Head the PSYOPS outfit the Lincoln grp to disseminate false stories in US media as well as active operations in Iraq itself.
[2] ‘Declassified: Massive Israeli Manipulation of US Media Exposed’ By Russia Today (VIDEO) | See also: ‘The Israel Lobby Swims The Atlantic’ By Grant Smith, http://www.anti-war.com, August 20, 2010. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26199.htm | You can download the files from the web-site of the Institute for Research on Middle Eastern Policy. (IRMEP)
[3].‘Why Do Zionists Fear a Muslim on the Anti-Terrorism Commission?’ By Norman Birnbaum, Norman Los Angeles Times, July 11, 1999.
[4] The Jewish Virtual Library online.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Masada Myth. Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel by Nachum Ben-Yehuda, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.
[7] Ibid. (p.36)
[8] Ibid. (p.300)
[9] Ibid. (p. 307)
[10] ‘The Goldman Scam & John Paulson’s Links to 9-11’ By Christopher Bollyn, April 20, 2010 http://www.bollyn.com
[11] p. xxv, Deliberate Deceptions. Facing the Facts About the U.S.-Israel Relationship, by Paul Findley, Lawrence Hill Books, New York, New York, 1995. / Exodus by Leon Uris Published by Corgi; New impression edition: Mar 1970. From Amazon.co.uk we read : “Exodus is an international publishing phenomenon–the towering novel of the twentieth century’s most dramatic geopolitical event. Leon Uris magnificently portrays the birth of a new nation in the midst of enemies–the beginning of an earthshaking struggle for power. Here is the tale that swept the world with its fury: the story of an American nurse, an Israeli freedom fighter caught up in a glorious, heartbreaking, triumphant era. Here is Exodus –one of the great best-selling novels of all time.”
[12] Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come from? by William G. Dever, Eerdmans , 2003. ISBN 0-8028-0975-8 . – “..no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.”(p.99).
[13] pp. 62- 63; Prelude to Israel’s Past- Backgrounds and Beginnings of Israel’s History and Identity by Niel Peter Lemche, published by Hendrickson Publishers, 1998 | ISBN-10: 1565633431
[14] op.cit; Lemche (pp.62-63).
[15] p.1.; The Invention of Ancient Israel – The Silencing of Palestinian History by Keith W. Whitelam. Routledge; New edition edition, May 25, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0415107598.
[16] op. cit.Whitelam (pp.2-3)
[17] p. 108; The Jews and the Poles in World War II By Stefan Korbanski, Hippocrene Books, New York 1989.
[18] p.55; Spielberg’s Oskar: Hollywood Tries Evil by Bartov, Omer. From Spielberg’s Holocaust: Critical Perspectives on Schindler’s List edited by Yoshefa Loshitsky.Indiana University Press, 1997.
[19] Poland’s Holocaust. Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. By Tadeusz Piotrowski,.McFarland & Co., Jefferson, North Carolina, and London, 1998.
[20] Schindler’s List by Thomas Keneally Published by Hodder & Stoughton Ltd; New edition edition, 17 Feb 1994. ISBN-13: 978-0340606513. Originally published as Schindler’s Ark in 1982.

The Sex Establishment III: The Kinsey Legacy

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

– Alfred C. Kinsey


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

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

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

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

Kinsey-Time-1953-08-24

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

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

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

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

table34Table 34 from ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kinsey505x476

Alfred C. Kinsey

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

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

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

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

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

For instance, he writes:

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

The same physician informs us:

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

He also warns us:

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

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

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

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

Cleckley continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

tumblr_n7qhr6Ulo71sfie3io1_1280

The Freudian, Kinsey-Guyon view of sexuality

tumblr_nhrpkdBfkR1sfie3io1_1280(public domain: New Old Stock)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

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

Sex, Lies and Society V: Minorities

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

– Hervey M. Cleckley M.D.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sexual minorities© infrakshun

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

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

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

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

Cleckley’s Instructive Mistake

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

Hervey_Cleckley

Hervey M. Cleckley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Notes

[1] op.cit; Howitt: “While some paedophiles are homosexually orientated towards both adults and children, this does not in itself demonstrate a causal association between the two. There are a number of issues: (1) Uncertainty about the rates of paedophilia in heterosexual and homosexual men; (2) Uncertainty about the rates of homosexuality among adult men; (3) The apparent sexual preference of some heterosexual people for adult females while offending against boys. […] “It is important to distinguish homosexuality directed towards adults from that directed towards underage children. This allows us to see that adult-orientated homosexuals are no more likely to become sexually involved with children than are heterosexuals.” (p. 47).“There were no peer-oriented homosexual males in our sample who regressed to children. Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine … In any case, in over 12 years of clinical experience working with child molesters, we have yet to see any example of a regression from an adult homosexual orientation. The child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.” (p.48).
[2] ‘Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False link’ by Joe Kort, 2004 | www. joekort.com/articles50.htm(Originally published in In the Family magazine Fall, 2003)
[3] op. cit. Howitt (p.46)
[4] Kinsey Institute – ‘The Prevalence of Homosexuality’ http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/bib-homoprev.html
[5] op. cit. Howitt (p.48)
[6] The Caricature of Love: A Discussion of Social, Psychiatric, and Literary Manifestations of Pathologic Sexuality by Hervey M. Cleckley, M.D.,Clincial Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology Medical College of Georgia Chief of Service, Psychiatry and Neurology University Hospital Augusta. The Roland Press Co. New York. 1957.
[7]    Ibid. (p.198)
[8]    Ibid. (p.219)
[9]    Ibid. (p.199)
[10]  Ibid. (p.230)
[11]  Ibid. (p.203)
[12]  Ibid. (p.285)