psychoanalysis

Official Culture Reprise V: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (2)

“The conflict between the need to be accurate and the desire to feel good about ourselves is one of the major battlegrounds of the self, and how this battle is waged and how it is won, are central determinants of who we are and how we feel about ourselves.”

Timothy D. Wilson, Stranger to Ourselves, Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious


Saven dreijausta, keramiikkataiteen osasto

We are work in progress…  Aalto University Commons

To begin extricating ourselves from Official Culture and the parallel process of healing our emotions from its effects, we need to understand how diluted forms of ponerological influences work through us in often subtle ways. To do so means that you act in favour of what is true, the efforts of which can help to counter what is false and subjective. But this can only be effective if we are not driven by our emotional reactions where we identify with the object of our defence as a means to displace the inner-work that has yet to begin deep inside. It is that lack of awareness that makes negative influence so effective and which offers up more chaos to those who can harvest it.

No lasting action for change can have any effect at all until we have set about changing ourselves so we embody that which we would like to see in the external world. It seems it cannot come before. Once greater numbers of people take personal responsibility for their own self growth and if requested, assist others in doing the same then perhaps a more balanced reality can emerge, not just for the recipient but eventually for the whole community of which he is a part.

Which sector of society we are born into, which country and our very genetic inheritance may determine how we respond to psychopathic influence. It means we must recognise that in order to have any hope at all for future generations to break out of these Empire cycles we must address the deep, core reasons for the continual emergence of Pathocratic dynamics rather than combating its effects. That necessarily begins on our own doorstep, otherwise we merely project our own frustrations and hurts onto the Pathocrats as convenient repositories for all our unresolved issues.

(more…)

Advertisements

Occult Zionism II: The Schizoidal Legacy

I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighbourhood. Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel. I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to a passage in an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century.

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years


Political author, activist and polish holocaust survivor Israel Shahak made an enormous contribution to the understanding of Jewish history, politics and culture. In his seminal work Jewish History, Jewish Religion The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994) he offers an in-depth analysis of the Babylonian Talmud and its influence on orthodox Judaism and politics. In Chapter 5: “The Laws Against Non-Jews.” Shahak places Taldmudic discourse into several categories or themes to which he attributes some of the worst disputations in the Halakhah (or “Halacha” – “Jewish Law”) the compendium of the written and Oral Torah and Talmudic and rabbinic law. These include the works by Moses Maimonides (mentioned in the last post) a medieval Spanish, Sephardic Jewish philosopher and astronomer who remains one of the most influential contributors to Torah and Talmudic philosophy and who had a particular distaste for those who didn’t resonate to the Talmud.

The Rabbinical law that is supposed to be a book of religious instruction appears to have an awful lot of instruction on ways to deceive non-Jews. In fact, Shahak’s research is structured on nine categories which only skirt around what are examples of astonishing maleficence directed to those who do not happen to practice Judaism and Talmudic principles.

These are:

    1. Murder and Genocide
    2. Saving of a life (or not)
    3. Sexual offences
    4. Status
    5. Money and Property
    6. Gentiles in Israel
    7. Abuse

These descriptions offer a perfect example of schizoidal psychopathy on show in much of the Halakhah. It is no exaggeration to say that this form is extremely prevalent within the religious authoritarianism of Zionist and Orthodox Judiasm. The defining characteristic of this form of pathology is the overriding conviction that its sufferers are the only ones who can deliver and preach the truth. No other person has such “inside knowledge”. This is a product of their own distorted views on reality borne of hypersensitivity and ultra-pessimism. Yet, they believe it is only through their judgement and knowledge that all problems will be ultimately fixed – through agreement with their theoretical rules. Such people have a limited capacity for real emotion and empathy as one would expect, and which is useful for intellectual reasoning aligned to zealotry and fanaticism. Areas of activity which require diplomacy, caring and compassion hold no interest. Their weak self-esteem is buttressed by an unceasing intellectual restlessness and hyperactivity which brooks no interference – they have all the answers, after all.

This perceived intellectual superiority defines their narcissistic sense of power which is usually through the written word or some platform that allows them to formulate theoretical ideas for their audience. The authority of their ideas is vital. And since their concepts and theories are often convoluted and complex, people are bamboozled by their intensity, hyperbole, and austere attention to detail. (Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto, Protocols of Zion, and Deuteronomy come to mind…) What is so dangerous about this form of pathology and with just the sufficient amount of gaps in their awareness – or a similar quota of reciprocal deformations in their own make-up – normal persons project their own ideas and predilections onto the schizoidal’s pathological material which, if a large cluster of such people are involved, can result in the needed support and energy of “converts”. These individuals do not realise that they have been taken in by something that is quite opposite to what they supposed. Once a person has been overpowered by the sheer tenacity and persistence of their efforts, the effects of their minds become progressively adapted to the pathology of the doctrine with an inability to think critically further induced. What is even more interesting is the presence of schizoidal persons who are attracted to religious dogma within Evangelism and Zionist circles. The disconnect is between the apparently “moral” concepts they espouse and the rigid structure of contempt which underlies it.

Zionism and the evolution of Talmudic law were only successful due to the tumultuous times in which ancient people lived. With conflict and trauma, engendered and opportunistic, the laws of the Talmud arose, in spite of and due to its presence in Babylonia, the seat of a legendary decadence and decay – the perfect soil in which Rabbinical law could seed. The schizoidal declarations of Deuteronomy did their work, feeding off fear and the loss of meaning prevalent at the time. The tactics for filling the vacuum created by war and conflict is easy to do against disenfranchised people. It was the same then as it is today since fear and loss of meaning will always find pathological partners. And the evolution of Judaism – or monotheistic religion in general – is one long story of pathogenic infection.

Andrew Lobaczewski who inaugurated the new discipline of ponerology in his extensive studies of psychopathy, described such individuals at the forefront of propaganda literature. Their view of human nature is so bad that they choose themselves as the only candidates qualified to act as intermediaries for “revolutionary” ideas. Lobaczewski calls this type of expression the “schizoid declaration.” The Talmud and Old Testament lore is replete with such declarations. Before continuing it might be instructive to include an extract from Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology to illustrate the real dangers of a “schizoidally impoverished psychological world-view” and how centuries of Talmudic programming falls precisely into this psychological anomaly:

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary. […]

In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are like; they interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation thanks to the participation of their own richer, psychological world-view. However, many readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause. […]

[Schizoidal individuals] are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time. […]

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.

The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.

People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world-view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diverse deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. […]

Schizoidia has thus played an essential role as one of the factors in the genesis of the evil threatening our contemporary world. Practicing psychotherapy upon the world will therefore demand that the results of such evil be eliminated as skillfully as possible. [1] [Emphasis mine]

In the context of Judaism and the legacy of the Talmud this is a truly fascinating piece of field study from Lobaczewski, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and psychological hygiene in the face of imposed ideologies, religious or philosophical. In times of economic uncertainty, social unrest and uncertainty this danger becomes heightened. Recall this sentence regarding schizoidal propaganda: “…the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake.” Can you imagine just how many groups and individuals – having been under the yolk of a materialist and narcissistic culture since their birth and have been molded to accept schizoidal programming of our our modern day institutions and political ideologies? These are the initial foot-soldiers sent out from essential psychopathy to seed the warped ideas and lay the foundation for Global Pathocracy.

Primed with ponerology and schizoidia in our minds, let’s move on to the aforementioned Mr. Shahak and his appraisal of Talmudic programming. (The edited extracts that follow have their original footnotes at the end).


Murder and genocide

“A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, ‘one must not lift one’s hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice … there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly.’

He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile’s death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.”  [2]

“A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.”

“… various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.” [3]

Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command’s Chief Chaplain writes:

“When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our  forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed… Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of  being civilized … In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.”  [4]

“’According to the commentators of the Tosafot, a distinction must be made between wartime and peace, so that although during peace time it is forbidden to kill Gentiles, in a case that occurs in wartime it is a mitzvah [imperative, religious duty] to kill them.” [5]

Saving a life

“According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is paramount. … It supersedes all other religious obligations and interdictions, excepting only the prohibitions against the three most heinous sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry.

As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The Talmud itself …expresses this in the maxim ‘Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]’. Maimonides … explains:

‘As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war … their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: ‘neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow’ but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow.’” [6]

“In cases where you must treat a gentile (all non-Jews) then payment must be offered otherwise to do so is against Talmudic law. the Halakhah could have been progressively liberalized. But as a matter of fact the majority of later halakhic authorities, far from extending Rivkes’ * leniency to other human groups, have rejected it altogether.” [7]

[* = R. Moses Rivkes, author of a minor commentary on the Shulhan Arukh]

Desecrating the Sabbath to save life

“…certain important rabbinical authorities had to relax the rules to some extent and allowed Jewish doctors to treat Gentiles on the sabbath even if this involved doing certain types of work normally banned on that day. This partial relaxation applied particularly to rich and powerful Gentile patients, who could not be fobbed off so easily and whose hostility could be dangerous.” [8]

Sexual offences

“Sexual Intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins.

The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse ‘whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses’ … is applied to them.

Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles (‘There is no matrimony for a heathen’). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same reason, Gentiles are generally presumed not to have certain paternity.)”

“…the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew:

If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day – because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble’ …

The Jew, however, must be flogged, and if he is a Kohen (member of the priestly tribe) he must receive double the number of lashes, because he has committed a double offense: a Kohen must not have intercourse with a prostitute, and all Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes.” [9]

Status

“According to the Halakhah, Jews must not (if they can help it) allow a Gentile to be appointed to any position of authority, however small, over Jews. … Significantly, this particular rule applies also to converts to Judaism and to their descendants (through the female line) for ten generations or ‘so long as the descent is known’.”

“Gentiles are presumed to be congenital liars, and are disqualified from testifying in a rabbinical court.”

“A Jewish woman is nowadays admitted as a witness to certain matters of fact, when the rabbinical court ‘believes’ her; a Gentile – never.”

“… by Jewish religious law, a woman can be declared a widow – and hence free to re-marry – only if the death of her husband is proven with certainty by means of a witness who saw him die or identified his corpse. However, the rabbinical court will accept the hearsay evidence of a Jew who testifies to having heard the fact in question mentioned by a Gentile eyewitness, provided the court is satisfied that the latter was speaking casually (goy mesiah lefi tummo) rather than in reply to a direct question; for a Gentile’s direct answer to a Jew’s direct question is presumed to be a lie…” [10]

Money and property

(1) Gifts The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile. However, classical rabbinical authorities bent this rule because it is customary among  businessmen to give gifts to business contacts. It was therefore laid down that a Jew may give a gift to a Gentile acquaintance, since this is regarded not as a true gift but as a sort of investment, for which some return is expected. Gifts to ‘unfamiliar Gentiles’ remain forbidden. […]

(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in this matter has become largely theoretical, in view of the dispensation … which in effect allows interest to be exacted even from a Jewish borrower. However, it is still the case that granting an interest-free loan to a Jew is recommended as an act of charity, but from a Gentile borrower it is mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many – though not all – rabbinical authorities, including Maimonides, consider it mandatory to exact as much usury as possible on a loan to a Gentile.

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it. […]

(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. […]

(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, ‘Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: “Do not defraud each man his brother”; … but a Gentile who defrauds a Jew should be compelled to make good the fraud, but should not be punished more severely than a Jew [in a similar case].’

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely forbidden – as the Shulhan ‘Arukh so nicely puts it: ‘even from a Gentile’. Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances such as ‘when the Gentiles are not under our rule’, but is permitted ‘when they are under our rule’. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of justice and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was backed by overwhelming Jewish power.”  [11]

Gentiles in the land of Israel

“In addition to the general anti-Gentile laws, the Halakhah has special laws against Gentiles who live in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisra’el) or, in some cases, merely pass through it. These laws are designed to promote Jewish supremacy in that country. The exact geographical definition of the term ‘Land of Israel’ is much disputed in the Talmud and the talmudic literature, and the debate has continued in modern times between the various shades of zionist opinion. […]

“The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell immovable property – fields and houses – in the Land of Israel to Gentiles. In Syria, the sale of houses (but not of fields) is permitted. Leasing a house in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is permitted under two conditions. First, that the house shall not be used for habitation but for other purposes, such as storage. Second, that three or more adjoining houses shall not be so leased.” […]

“It is therefore clear that – exactly as the leaders and sympathizers of Gush Emunim say – the whole question to how the Palestinians ought to be treated is, according to the Halakhah, simply a question of Jewish power: if Jews have sufficient power, then it is their religious duty to expel the Palestinians. All these laws are often quoted by Israeli rabbis and their zealous followers. For example, the law forbidding the lease of three adjoining houses to Gentiles was solemnly quoted by a rabbinical conference held in 1979 to discuss the Camp David treaties. The conference also declared that according to the Halakhah even the ‘autonomy’ that Begin was ready to offer to the Palestinians is too liberal. Such pronouncements – which do in fact state correctly the position of the Halakhah – are rarely contested by the Zionist ‘left’.” [12]

Abuse

“In one of the first sections of the daily morning payer, every devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile.” […]

“The concluding section of the daily prayer … opens with the statement: ‘We must praise the Lord of all … for not making us like the nations of [all] lands … for they bow down to vanity and nothingness and pray to a god that does not help.’

“The last clause was censored out of the prayer books. But in Eastern Europe it was supplied orally, and has now been restored into many Israeli-printed prayer books. In the most important section of the weekday prayer – the ‘eighteen blessings’ – there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jewish converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: ‘And may the apostates’ … have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly’. […]

“Apart from the fixed daily prayers, a devout Jew must utter special short blessings on various occasions, both good and bad … Some of these occasional prayers serve to inculcate hatred and scorn for all Gentiles, [for example] a pious Jew must utter curse when passing near a Gentile cemetery, whereas he must bless God when passing near a Jewish cemetery …

“…when seeing a large Jewish population a devout Jew must praise God, while upon seeing a large Gentile population he must utter a curse.

“…the Talmud lays down that a Jew who passes near an inhabited non-Jewish dwelling must ask God to destroy it, whereas if the building is in ruins he must thank the Lord of Vengeance. (Naturally, the rules are reversed for Jewish houses.) This rule was easy to keep for Jewish peasants who lived in their own villages or for small urban communities living in all-Jewish townships or quarters.”

“…it became customary to spit (usually three times) upon seeing a church or a crucifix, as an embellishment to the obligatory formula of regret. … Sometimes insulting biblical verses were also added.”

“There is also a series of rules forbidding any expression of praise for Gentiles or for their deeds, except where such praise implies an even greater praise of Jews and things Jewish. This rule is still observed by Orthodox Jews.”

“… it is forbidden to join any manifestation of popular Gentile rejoicing, except where failing to join in might cause ‘hostility’ towards Jews, in which case a ‘minimal’ show of joy is allowed. In addition to the rules mentioned so far, there are many others whose effect is to inhibit human friendship between … Jew and Gentile. […]

“A religious Jew must not drink any wine in whose preparation a Gentile had any part whatsoever. Wine in an open bottle, even if prepared wholly by Jews, becomes banned if a Gentile so much as touches the bottle or passes a hand over it.” […] “…it is permitted to cook food on a holy day for a [Gentile], provided he is not actively encouraged to come and eat.”

“An important effect of all these laws – quite apart from their application in practice – is in the attitude created by their constant study which, as part of the study of the Halakhah, is regarded by classical Judaism as a supreme religious duty. Thus an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, ….” […]

“In §322, dealing with the duty to keep a Gentile slave enslaved for ever (whereas a Jewish slave must be set free after seven years), the following explanation is given:

And at the root of this religious obligation [is the fact that] the Jewish people are the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him, and worthy of having slaves to serve them. And if they will not have slaves of other peoples, they would have to enslave their brothers, who would thus be unable to serve the Lord, blessed be He. Therefore we are commanded to possess those for our service, after they are prepared for this and after idolatory is removed from their speech so that there should not be danger in our houses, … and this is the intention of the verse ‘but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor’, … so that you will not have to enslave your brothers, who are all ready to worship God.

In §545, dealing with the religious obligation to exact interest on money lent to Gentiles, the law is stated as follows: ‘That we are commanded to demand interest from Gentiles when we lend money to them, and we must not lend to them without interest,’ The explanation is:

“And at the root of this religious obligation is that we should not do any act of mercy except to the people who know God and worship Him; and when we refrain from doing merciful … deed to the rest of mankind and do so only to the former, we are being tested that the main part of love and mercy to them is because they follow the religion of God, blessed be He. Behold, with this intention our reward [from God] when we withhold mercy from the others is equal to that for doing [merciful deeds] to members of our own people. Similar distinctions are made in numerous other passages. The ban against following Gentile customs (§262) means that Jews must not only ‘remove themselves’ from Gentiles, but also ‘speak ill of all their behavior, even of their dress’.” [13]

As an addition to Shahak’s summary of abuse, Rabbincal law also permits recurrent attempts to either mollify or encourage child abuse. Rather than the best that the Christian Bible has to offer, its replacement is buffered by obscure mystical overtures which nevertheless seep through into the crude and direct echoes of Babylonian black magick. This has obviously been covered up for decades by religious authorities and the Jewish “stockade.”

In developmental psychology age nine is about the time when children begin to gain a sense of self or when the personality starts to assert itself. It is especially troubling then to discover that nine-year old boys come under lengthy discussion as to the ideal age of sexual relations with child molestation seen as an “insignificant act” throughout the Talmud. One might say that this is an archaic left-over of a primitive barbarism. But tragically, as we know by now, this is a standard playground for the Establishment rooted in religio-occult justifications as cover for simple psychopathic predation. When such a foundation is the source of a highly influential faction of our present homicidal overseers then we need to take it very seriously indeed.


  If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should put on dirty clothes and go to a city where he is not known, and do the evil there.  (BT Moed Kattan 17a)


As we continue our look at the Babylonian Talmud this is not to denigrate the average Jewish man or woman, (though undoubtedly some will take it that way) it is to highlight the nature of the Talmud and Judaism in the context of the chaos which has continued to unfold in the world, expressly encouraged by those within the Zionist Establishment, many of whom are of Kharzarian origins and not even Jews as commonly defined.

After looking at Israel Shahak’s analysis of less well known instructions within the Talmud, he did not delve as deeply as Michael Hoffman in weeding out controversies. Shahak’s work may be more refined and readable yet, in Judaism Discovered which is well over 900 pages in total, there is a wealth of research that prises open the Talmud’s secrets and they are not pleasant to behold, the encouragement of child abuse being one:

“… intercourse with a boy under nine years old is not considered a significant sexual act…” (BT Ketubot 11b)

“… a child less than nine years old cannot…be the object of sodomy” (even if he has been sodomized) (BT Sanhedrin 54b)

image_thumb1(BT Sanhedrin 54b)

From the homosexual abuse of children, we go to a recurrent theme of women who are seen as mere chattel and associated with witchcraft. This is not unusual for its day, however sexual exploitation extends from women to little girls, the abuse of which is similarly permitted under the ancient laws of Orthodox Judaism:

  • The birth of a girl is a sad occurrence. (BT Baba Bathra 16b).
  • Women are a “vain treasure” to their fathers. (BT Sanhedrin 110b).
  • A Jewish male is obligated to say the following prayer every day: “Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.” (BT Menahoth 43b-44a). 418
  • “If two women sit at a crossroads, one on this side and the other on the other side, and they face one another, they are certainly witches.” (BT Pesahim 111a).
  • A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest. (BT Yebamoth 59b).
  • It is not good to talk to women, not even your own wife. (BT Aboth).
  • Women are lightheaded. (BT Kiddushin 80b).
  • Walking behind a woman on the road is sinful. (BT Erubin 18b).
  • It is forbidden to teach the Law to a woman. (BT Kiddushin 29b).
  • It is permissible to divorce your wife if she burns your dinner, or if you see a prettier girl. (BT Gittin 91a). 419
  • Deafness is caused by couples talking during sexual intercourse. (BT Nedarim 20a).
  • Jews are commanded by Rabbinic Law to have sexual intercourse only in If these are the requirements for women and girls one shudders to think what protocols are afforded to Gentile women: the dark. (BT Shabbath 86a). [14]

In the eyes of these Talmudic lawyers women are “sack[s] of excrement” (BT Shabbat 152b) and lesser beings only to serve Jehovah’s will in propagating his chosen people. If these are the requirements for women and girls one shudders to think what protocols are afforded to Gentile women. It doesn’t take too long to find out: “The best of the gentiles: kill him; the best of snakes: smash its skull; the best of women: is filled with witchcraft.” (Kiddushin 66c)

Sex, magick and sexual abuse appear to be synonymous, numerous definitions of the correct type of sexual intercourse can be found in the Halakah. With the most incredible display of psychopathic paralogic, it is deemed quite normal for girls below the three to be used as playthings since they are not sexually mature so  it is therefore deemed permissible:

If a girl is less than three years old, it is permitted to be secluded with her. Likewise, if a boy is less than nine years old a woman is permitted to be alone with him.”  — Kitzur Shulchan Aruch: Classic guide to Jewish Law (Metsudah Publications, 1996), v. 2, p. 1023

“If a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl, it is nothing, for having intercourse with a girl less than three years old is like putting a finger in the eye.” (BT Ketubot 11b)

From Jane Rachel Litman’s 2001 article “Working with Words of Torah” submitted to the S’hma: A Journal of Jewish Ideas the ancient Rabbis’ veneration creates some cognitive dissonance when students and teachers alike are confronted with such examples:

“The background sound in the small library is muted but intense. Pairs of scholars lean over their texts whispering energetically, trying to puzzle out the meaning of the particular sugya, passage. The teacher directs them back toward the group and asks for questions.

One student raises a hand: ‘I don’t understand verse 5:4 of the tractate Niddah. What does the phrase ‘it is like a finger in eye’ mean?

The teacher responds, ‘This refers to the hymen of a girl younger than three years old. The Sages believed that in the case of toddler rape, the hymen would fully grow back by the time the girl reached adulthood and married. Therefore, though violated, she would still technically be counted as a virgin and could marry a priest. It’s an analogy: poling your finger in the eye is uncomfortable, but causes no lasting harm. There is a collective gasp of breath among students. Their dismay is palpable.

They do not like this particular text or the men behind it. But its authors, the rabbis, hardly wrote it with this particular group of students in mind – mostly thirty- and forty-year old women in suburban Philadelphia taking a four-week class titled ‘Women in Jewish Law’ at their Reform synagogue. The questioner persists. ‘I don’t understand. Are you saying this refers to the rape of a three year-old girl?’

“Or younger,’ the teacher responds dryly.

‘I don’t see how it says anything about rape and hymens. You must be mistaken. I don’t believe the rabbis are talking about rape at all. I think this statement has nothing to do with the rest of the passage.’

The teacher (I’ll admit now that it was me, a second-year rabbinic student) responds, ‘Well, that’s the common understanding. What do you think it means?’

The woman is clearly agitated, ‘I don’t know, but I do know that it couldn’t be about child rape.’ This is week three of the class. The woman does not return for week four. Denial.” [15]

Litman eloquently describes this “denial” in terms of placing it all in perspective. She correctly believes that there is both wisdom and humour in the Torah and Talmud because human beings are fallible. But then she goes onto replay the exact same denial of what are obviously degenerate acts. She believes it is surely natural that we must not throw the baby out with the bath-water when approaching revered sacred Jewish texts which “… are violent or xenophobic, that speak of child abuse, human slavery, or homophobia with gross insensitivity.”

This is not about “gross insensitivity”; it is surely concerned with facing the reality that a religious instruction manual on living your life from so-called “spiritual” men are actively condoning and encouraging child abuse. (You can see one result of these archaic instructions in The Z Factor XI: Chabad Networks). This is not a question of ordinary people speaking of such things in a brusque manner and glossing over crimes. This is about Rabbis setting themselves up as intermediaries of sacred texts and teaching those crimes as somehow a normal.  Apparently incorporating elements of a “secret” oral Torah, the Talmud has been described as “… an immense superstructure of precedents [16] and “precedents” in Judaism is literally: “instruction.” So, we can safely say that the Talmud is a vast book on “how to …” according to Rabbinical law. How then, does this square with the the sacred and profane; when sexual pathology is indelibly part of the very foundation of Judaism and bound up with a history of bloody conquest on behalf of Yahweh? (The very same God who likes to lob off babies foreskins).

That is not to say that Christianity and Islam do not suffer from the same symptoms of ponerisation where the original perennial truths were masked and omitted by religious oligarchs. Yet, there appears to be no such masking here other than a careful sanitisation over the centuries. There is an explicit difference sourced from the Talmud and Jewish theology as a whole, where such aberrations have a centuries old tradition in the guise of Occult Zionism and its modern Mossad contractor as one of the most powerful arms of the Establishment today.

As Jesus discovered, the schizoidal propaganda of the Levites still holds sway. “Taking the good with the bad” is only possible if we are thoroughly sure that we know which is which. Being faced with “human nastiness” only leads to the transformative, “constructive change” of which Litman cites if we know we have been truly objective about what we have embraced. Otherwise, it is just another type of rationalisation which Litman claims to be calling out. Her get-out clause in the face of this dissonance is “equanimity in [her] response.” It is precisely this preference to psychological stability and composure that has led us all into a state of wilful blindness which has encouraged Zionists, international banks and the Catholic Church to get away with indulging their emotional, sexual and financial abuse. And they are allowed to do so because the very foundations of our belief systems have been created so that such impunity is institutionalised.

Though Judaism believes it has THE truth and separates itself from other religions, most of which respect that there are many paths to truth at their core, Judaism and its Talmudic foundation is singularly different. Believing that any text is “God’s Word” is an absolutist heaven for such “equanimity” and invites all the pathological distortions we have been exploring.

Samuel_Hirszenberg1

Samuel Hirszenberg, Talmudic School, c. 1895-1908. (wikipedia)

The Talmud is awash with minute attention to bodily functions, and an underlying currents of repression, perversity and prurience, the results of which can only result in sexual pathology. What of the mandatory rules for young Jewish boys having already passed through the infant trauma of circumcision, guaranteed to affect their sensitive psycho-emotional development, you then have a multitude of regulations restricting any kind of natural sexual functioning, where a joyful sexual identity cannot be allowed to grow unless it is through hateful masochistic and misogynist means. It effectively sets the child up for neuroses and unhealthy preoccupations which may crystallise in later life.

Michael Hoffman’s research offers an example of this neuroses:

“The laws of Orthodox cohabitation demand (that)…(a) man must never see his wife undressed. So when they actually arrive in bed, the idea is to keep her covered by the sheet at all times. However, since propagation is essential, and decreed by law, there’s a hole at the appropriate place so that the commandments can be fulfilled…They don’t know how to please a woman, how to understand what she wants, how to listen to what she is saying. Sex is simply a right for them, a way of creating more sons. If they follow the laws, they fulfill their sexual duties in the dark, thinking religious thoughts and never speak to their wives about their feelings…”

“One is forbidden to have sex in lamplight unless one makes a partition to block the light from illuminating the body directly. It is prohibited to have sex in the daylight unless the room is darkened with a shade. 883 Sex at the beginning and the end of the night is also forbidden. [17]

This is not extreme modesty since other exhortations include eroticism and sexual obsession which is enough to make anyone dizzy with confusion. Imagine how this affects a child?

For example, BT Baba Kamma 27a sets up a situation in which a Judaic man falls from the top of a roof and in the course of his fall accidentally inserts his penis inside a woman passerby upon whom he falls! This precipitates a tedious legal analysis of who is liable for what damages. It’s a spin on the classic dirty joke motif, only this is from Judaism’s holiest book. When Prof. Graydon Snyder of the Chicago Theological Seminary related this Talmud passage to his class, a complaint of sexual harassment was brought against him by a female student.

“Professor Snyder said the woman in his class told him that the story from the Talmud, and his selection of it, conveyed the message that it was permissible to harm women as long as it was unwitting.”

“Unwitting” homosexual intercourse is also mitigated in Judaism by its “accidental” nature. Then there’s the Midrash on Genesis that holds that Abel was quarreling with Cain over which brother would have Eve sexually, although in the rabbinic mind by this time Lilith was synonymous with Eve, so they were arguing over who would have coitus with Lilith. [18]

Then there are various amusing descriptions of auto-erotic porn dressed up as mysticism which include “Nebuchadnezzar’s Prodigious Member” and tales of his serial sodomy:

“When that wicked man (Nebuchadnezzar) wished to treat that righteous one (Zedekiah) thus (i.e. submit him to sexual abuse), his membrum was extended three hundred cubits and wagged in front of the whole company (of captive kings), for it is said, Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and be as one uncircumcised (he’orel): the numerical value of ‘orel is three hundred.” [19]

There are many more such passages.It would actually be darkly amusing if these instructions were not taken so seriously and had such a profound impact on the development of civilisations. Now place this in context with our 21st Century sexual abuse epidemic which is currently being exposed. It’s source comes from the Establishment, staining society from the top down.

The legacy of Freud and psychoanalysis provided undoubted innovations into the workings of the unconscious and our instinctive drives.  Freud is also a product of Jewish culture and thereby Talmudic programming. No where is it clearer than in the instructions and dictums of the Talmud. This clears up a lot of the reasons why Freud’s cult of psychoanalysis made such errors in focusing predominantly on sexual neuroses as the cause of all our maladies. These diagnoses were largely predicated on Jewish case studies who in turn, were the result of the same Talmudic programming.

As a left-over of totalitarian Levite law passed on to generations of Rabbis, who in turn conditioned their brethren, it was also applied to non-Jews who had no such inculcation. It therefore muddied the waters terribly for those who were not shackled by such religious indoctrination passing for science. Instead whole generations were subjected to a panoply of diagnostic caricatures with an overemphasis on sex within dreams, an obsessive hunt for latent incest, penis-envy and Oedipal complexes which were not necessarily part of the possibility of a collective genetic inheritance. Suppression of “primitive instincts” were only a part of the overall picture, as contemporary psychology has discovered.

What might science have discovered if it had not been held back?

Other psychotherapeutic modalities may have balanced the influence of psychoanalysis by offering more comprehensive insights into the adaptive unconscious. The wholly subjective nature of interpretation within which Freud promoted served as a further stockade, feeding the already conditioned neuroses in Rabbincal teachings and Jewish culture. Instead of adopting a more holistic and objective appraisals of mental illness, the Freudian pact with the Talmud was applied to everyone. 


 “When urinating it is forbidden to hold the penis even to facilitate urination. If you are married and your wife is halachically clean [not menstruating], it is permitted to hold your penis [when urinating]. When not urinating it is forbidden to hold his penis.”

(Kitzur Shulchan Aruch II:151)

“It is forbidden to look at your wife’s genital area.” … “Any [husband] who does look there is devoid of shame.”

(Kitzur Shulchan Aruch II:150). [3]

“It is forbidden to bring on an erection in vain, or to cause yourself to think about women. You should be extremely careful to avoid an erection. Therefore, it is forbidden to sleep on your back facing upward or to sleep (on your stomach) facing downward. To avoid an erection you should keep on our side.”

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch II:151.


Psychoanalytical discourse was emboldened by behaviourism, the largely Jewish Cultural Marxism, the rise of “scientific technique” and the  subsequent Rockefeller-Kinsey social programming which laid waste to traditional human values. This is where psychopathy had its way in and the decline of conscience and the erosion of a moral dimension in the life of Western humanity. Perversity was apparently not pathology so it became normalised, with fragmentation, separation and a new narcissism fuelling sexual confusion along side the much vaunted sexual revolution. The social implications for this new, unlimited expression was encouraged in way that went far beyond healthy experimentation and the reaction to conservative prudishness. Talmudism was clearly aligned to a darker version of sexual magick which was then mainstreamed into society over time. It is now very easy to simply blame it on knee-jerk reactions of conservatives and/or anti-Semitism as an evil reaction against progressive left-liberal values. It is neither, though the former obviously exists. That is the nature of Talmudic conditioning which is used to great effect by Zionists. Stockholm syndrome mixed with innate subservience to Religious authoritarianism ensures compliance.

Shahak emphasises the fact that some of the explanations given by contemporary rabbis for the Halakhah are incorrect. He makes the point that “apologetic ‘scholars of Judaism’” know this and seek to insulate understanding from the outside world, though allowing dissent within the Jewish community. But since the thought police are powerful, Jews who share their disquiet with Gentiles are vilified and all manner of denials are issued. Philanthropy, love, brotherhood and mercy are all brought out as evidence for the sanctity and wisdom of Talmudic literature without mentioning that this applies to Jews alone. The author – who surely has enough scholarly and personal experience of his own to make the above analyses – makes further observation regarding this deception of one rule for Jews and quite another for Gentiles. He takes Israel as an example, making the claim that the: “… attitudes of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews,” latent and disguised. No such social etiquette is evident with Zionists whom, according to Shahak have driven the ultra-right wing religious precepts of the Gush Emunim movement of the 1960s and 1970s out across the socio-political sphere. This has given justification for assassinations, human rights abuse and a rise in the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. 

As economic difficulties increase in Israel this is encouraging a reaction against Netanyahu but not necessarily because there is more resistance against Palestinian oppression, though that is undoubtedly a factor, rather, it is due to ordinary Israelis’ standard of living being affected.  Jewish self-interest as a much encouraged tenet of ethnocentric values, continues to inform many Israeli citizens perception of reality just as it does the Zionist drive in politics. In relation to Palestinians, ethics and human rights is an irrelevance for the majority, it seems. Left-wing, seemingly “moderate” Zionists are no different. The only thing that matters is Israel since giving in to even the simplest appeal to humane treatment of Palestinians is perceived as a slippery slope to assimilation and disappearance of the Jewish identity. Survival is the overriding directive which trumps all else.

 


Notes

[1] pp.123-125; Political Ponerology – A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (2007) By Andrew M. Lobaczewski; Red Pill Press; 2nd edition (April 4, 2007 ISBN-10: 1897244258.
[2] Ibid; pp.75-76 | R. Yo’el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, yoreh De’ah’ 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a ‘resident alien’ who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the ‘seven Noahide precepts’ (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).
[3] Ibid; p.76 | “For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan ‘Arukh, ‘Yoreh De’ah, 158: ‘But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one’s own hands, for it is said, “The best of Gentiles – kill him!”‘ Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay … are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan ‘Arukh.”
[4] Ibid. | Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), ‘Tohar hannesheq le’or hahalakhah’ (= ‘Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah’) in Be’iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim – pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War – Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha’olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, ‘A chapter of meditation’, Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, ‘Who falsifies the Halakhah?’ Ma’ariv”, 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi – military or civil – taken exception to what he had written.”
[5] Ibid; p.78.
[6] Ibid. Leviticus, 19:16. Concerning the rendering ‘thy fellow’ […]
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid; p.82
[9] Ibid; p. 87 | Ezekiel, 23:20. |  Tractate Berakhot, p. 78a.| Talmudic Encyclopedia, ‘Eshet Ish’ (‘Married Woman’). |  Exodus, 20:17. | 44 Genesis, 2:24. |  Maimonides, op. cit., ‘Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse’ 12; 10; Talmudic | Encyclopedia, ‘Goy’. |  Maimonides, op. cit., ibid., 12, 1-3. “As a matter of fact, every Gentile woman is | regarded as N.Sh.G.Z. – acronym for the Hebrew words niddah, shifhah, goyah, zonah (unpurified from menses, slave, Gentile, prostitute). Upon conversion to Judaism, she ceases indeed to be niddah, shifhah, goyah but is still considered zonah (prostitute) for the rest of her life, simply by virtue of having been born of a Gentile mother. In a special category is a woman ‘conceived not in holiness but born in holiness’, that is born to a mother who had converted to Judaism while pregnant. In order to make quite sure that there are no mix-ups, the rabbis insist that a married couple who convert to Judaism together must abstain from marital relations for three months.”
[10] Ibid; p.88 | “Characteristically, an exception to this generalization is made with respect to Gentiles holding legal office relating to financial transactions: notaries, debt collectors, bailiff~ and the like. No similar exception is made regarding ordinary decent Gentiles, not even if they are friendly towards Jews.”
[11] Ibid; p.89 | Leviticus, 25:14. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The King James Version renders this as ‘ye shall not oppress one another’; ‘oppress’ is imprecise but ‘one another’ is a correct rendering of the biblical idiom ‘each man his brother’. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the Halakhah interprets all such idioms as referring exclusively to one’s fellow Jew. | Shulhan ‘Arukh, ‘Hoshen Mishpat’ 227.
[12] Ibid. p.90 | “This view is advocated by H. Bar-Droma, Wezeh Gvul Ha’aretz (And This Is the Border of the Land), Jerusalem, 1958. In recent years this book is much used by the Israeli army in indoctrinating its officers. | Maimonides, op. cit., ‘Idolatry’ 10, 3-4. |  Exodus, 23:33.| Maimonides, op. cit., ‘Idolatry’ 10, 6.
[13] Ibid; pp.92-96 | “This is followed by a blessing ‘for not making me a slave’. Next, a male must add a blessing ‘for not making me a woman’, and a female ‘for making me as He pleased’. | In eastern Europe it was until recent times a universal custom among Jews to spit on the floor at this point, as an expression of scorn. This was not however a strict obligation, and today the custom is kept only by the most pious. | The Hebrew word is meshummadim, which in rabbinical usage refers to Jews who become ‘idolators’, that is either pagan or Christians, but not to Jewish converts to Islam. | The Hebrew word is minim, whose precise meaning is ‘disbelievers in the uniqueness of God’. | Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b. | According to many rabbinical authorities the original rule still applies in full in the Land of Israel. | This custom gave rise to many incidents in the history of European Jewry. One of the most famous, whose consequence is still visible today, occurred in 14th century Prague. King Charles IV of Bohemia (who was also Holy Roman Emperor) had a magnificent crucifix erected in the middle of a stone bridge which he had built and which still exists today. It was then reported to him that the Jews of Prague are in the habit of spitting whenever they pass next to the crucifix. Being a famous protector of the Jews, he did not institute persecution against them, but simply sentenced the Jewish community to pay for the Hebrew word Adonay (Lord) to be inscribed on the crucifix in golden letters. This word is one of the seven holiest names of God, and no mark of disrespect is allowed in front of it. The spitting ceased. Other incidents connected with the same custom were much less amusing. | The verses most commonly used for this purpose contain words derived from the Hebrew root shaqetz which means ‘abominate, detest’, as in Deuteronomy, 7:26: ‘thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.’ It seems that the insulting term sheqetz, used to refer to all Gentiles (Chapter 2), originated from this custom. | Talmud, Tractate Beytzah, p. 21a, b; Mishnah Berurah on Shulhan ‘Arukh, ‘Orah Hayyim’ 512. Another commentary (Magen Avraham) also excludes Karaites.”
[14]  paragraph 2.740; Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (2008) By Michael Hoffman. (kindle edition)
[15] ‘Working With the Words of Torah’ April 1, 2001, Jane Rachel Litman http://shma.com/2001/04/working-with-the-words-of-torah/
[16] Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, p.112.
[17] op.cit. Hoffman; paragraph 2.1486 | Note: Mishnah Berurah, Laws of Daily Conduct, v. 2, C [202-241] sec. 6
[18] Ibid. paragraph 2.1488 | Note: Conduct, v. 2, C [202-241] sec. 4. Dirk Johnson, “A Sexual Harassment Case to Test Academic Freedom,” May 11, 1994
[19] Ibid; paragraph 2.1490 | Note: (op. cit.), pp. 98-99.

Bernays and Tavistock

By M.K. Styllinski

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. … We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. … In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda


One of the most common questions regarding the nature of 9/11 is how could anyone pull the wool over the eyes of the populace so comprehensively? If the events of 9/11 were engineered and were indeed an “inside job,” how was it possible to conduct such a complex operation without political, military and intelligence personnel blowing the whistle? Such a conspiracy  surely would not be feasible?

Quite apart from the fact that many persons did act as whistle-blowers from an array of government departments, the nature of the media network, law and justice system always censors and restricts any serious breaches and thus threats to its own existence. Effective dissemination of information and awareness is therefore limited unless painted with various colours of propaganda. Perhaps most importantly of all, the firewall of standard beliefs is the most effective method to ensure that state-sponsored atrocities remain in the realm of fantasy.

As we will discover, an effective blackout on 9/11 issues along with a concerted disinformation campaign has dogged any real breakthroughs in achieving an independent inquiry into the events of that day. Furthermore, what applies to the media is the same for any domain within our present culture which prevents the free-flow of ideas and accountability so that any threats to the structure of the status quo are, if not instantly dissolved, gradually eroded by various belief systems. The cultivation of negative myths and memes in the aftermath of a traumatic event has the effect of sealing in the cracks where truth might seep out. As John F. Kennedy wisely stated: “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

consumerism1Still from “They Live” (1988) Directed by John Carpenter

Propaganda techniques are now the province of a melding between outsourced PR companies and lobbying groups and the Top Secret actions of military PSYOPS which use highly sophisticated methods of media manipulation and electronic warfare to influence mass consciousness. It is common to misunderstand the nature of belief in 21st Century America and the level of socio-cultural engineering which has occurred since the early 1930s. The media’s role has been crucial in weaving an official story which has little connection to facts on the ground. Carefully selected words and images obliterate objective reality, something which one man knew very well indeed. Much of these initial techniques were drawn from Edward Bernays’ insights and taken to stratospheric levels. 911 cannot be understood without this knowledge. So, let’s have a brief refresher.

Jewish Austrian-American Edward Louis Bernays was a pioneer in the manipulation of the mass mind. His techniques have been used by successive governments, oppressive regimes, advertising agencies and intelligence agencies the world over. With a mix of concepts inspired by the psychology of Gustave Le Bon, Wilfred Trotter and his uncle Sigmund Freud he became known as the “the father of public relations” and the darling of the Establishment. “Propaganda” would morph into “Public Relations” under Bernays’ definition.

The man himself appeared to lack any conscience or sense of responsibility for his experiments and willingly sold his ideas to the highest bidder, whether they were an aspiring despot or corporate racketeer. His influences from psychoanalysis and  B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism meant that he saw manipulation as a necessity in society. He saw ordinary people as part of a wild and selfish group-mind that needed to be controlled, preferably by Elite stewards who could steer society in a “superior” direction of their choosing. As with all the other neo-feudalists whom we have explored so far, he had an extremely dim view of humanity and believed his “engineering of consent” was vital to maintain order and direct its evolution. Accordingly, he was to be hugely useful to the emerging Elite who took Bernays and his “enlightened despotism” to their hearts. [1]

edward-bernays

Edward L. Bernays

One of Bernays techniques was the “third-party authority” whereby traditionally independent and trusted members of society are bought and paid for by PR firms to promote a particular product or political spin for their clients. If a doctor, scientist, or journalist gives their seal of approval then the public is more likely to believe what is being said. Although nowadays the public is a little more savvy and cynical regarding these basic methods, in previous years it proved extremely successful for a range of products. The third party technique is obviously still employed though with much greater subterfuge, where government or corporate clients will often keep their PR and lobbying connections hidden from prying eyes – the money involved is often too seductive to declare these conflicts of interest.

The instinct of fear as a linchpin of Freudian thought was integral to Bernay’s methods. He believed it was key to the success of propaganda techniques and urged the US government to ratchet up the fear quota in relation to communism so that the public would become more compliant and malleable to suggestion. He was employed by marketing and advertising companies as well as celebrities, charities and government agencies. Soap, perfume, cigarettes and commerce were all used as an experimental testing ground which proved time and again to be successful in predicting and leading public desires to prearranged outcomes.

Working for the Woodrow Wilson government he was yet another rising star to attend the infamous Paris Peace Conference in 1919 along with all the other World government advocates, international bankers and industrialist families who would later go on to form the Council on Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve, and the House of Rothschilds’ Round Table Group   Bernays was crucial to the development and formation of social engineering that would be tested on the American people. It was to be the same promotion of the “scientific technique” underpinned by psychoanalysis, the hub of which was found at the Tavistock Institute in England.

The manipulation of the American public saw great strides under Bernays and his colleagues, CFR man Walter Lippmann, and media magnate Lords Rothmere (Harold Harmsworth) and Lord Northcliffe. The latter individuals were employed by Britain’s War Propaganda Bureau otherwise known as Wellington House founded in 1913 and named after the Duke of Wellesly. His task was to assist in the preparation of the American mind to accept and support entry into the First World War. Brainstorming sessions took place where the main target of propaganda operations were young working class men who were required to become machine-gun and cannon fodder on the fields of Flanders and the Somme, all of which was unknown to the American public.

The funding came firstly, from the British Royal Family, Rockefeller family trusts and several years later from the Rothschilds, to whom Lord Rothmere was related by marriage.  As the members of the board had links to Lord Milner’s Oxford set, the Round Table group, the Fabian Society, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, the formation of “mass brain washing” meant that Bernays and his set of skills was employed directly in the service of the Establishment’s emerging Pathocrats. The tripartite relations of the arms industry, banking and Elite designs is a lucrative ideological and geopolitical formula that have defined the financial architecture up to the present day.

War propaganda also came under the guidance of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIAA) whose director of Future Studies, Fabian historian Alfred Toynbee acted as an important liaison. As Lord Rothmere owned both The Times of London and the Daily Mail it was deemed more than feasible that the shaping of the Anglo-American mind in favour of war could proceed.

Various propaganda techniques were tried out through Rothmere’s newspapers under Bernays’ expert tutelage. They discovered that the ability to reason was poor amongst the population, especially the uneducated which made up the vast majority of conscripts. It was the stimulation of mass emotional reaction accompanied by appropriate slogans and images of national pride and family protection that proved the greatest success.* As author and anarchist Edward Abbey has pointed out: “The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other – instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.” This applied not just to seducing young men to fight wars but to all aspects of society that indirectly contribute to such a conclusion.

di_20090830-133430-tavistockcentre-sign_w475

The headquarters of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations

The late ex-Intelligence analyst Dr. John Coleman and his own research tells us:

With the Tavistock plan modified to suit American conditions, Bernays and Lippmann led President Woodrow Wilson to set up the very first Tavistock methodology techniques for polling (manufacturing) so-called public opinion created by Tavistock propaganda. They also taught Wilson to set up a secret body of “managers” to run the war effort and a body of “advisors” to assist the President in his decision-making. The Creel Commission was the first such body of opinion-makers set up in the United States.  [2]

In 1921, the ideology of Woodrow Wilson’s handlers met the Duke of Bedford, Marquis of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, who gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shell-shock on British soldiers who survived World War I. The British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare sent for Sir John Rawlings-Reese who was given the job of discovering the threshold or “breaking point” of men under severe stress. This was the official starting point, but the ambitions of the Institute were far broader.

Edward Bernays helped to spread Freud’s theories into the USA while assisting the rise of a particular brand of corporatism and social science based on the same. His books Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) and Propaganda (1928) became bibles of manipulation in business and government circles alike, spawning the growth of Public Relations in Europe and America. In 1919, he had opened for business as a Public Relations Counsellor in New York, with clients falling over themselves to learn the art of engaging the public mind, tailoring their goals to want what they didn’t need. Selfishness, instinct, fear and the importance of Pavlovian responses sat upon an abiding materialism and distrust in human nature, all of which served to feed the machine of the 4Cs. **

German-born Dr. Kurt Lewin became director of Tavistock in 1932. He went on to set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which worked closely with Edward Bernays’ propaganda campaign to make the American mind amenable to war with Germany. A ratline of psychologists began to create a conduit between the US and UK. By 1937, Wellington House had transferred operations to the Tavistock Clinic which became the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations in 1946. The Climax of Civilization (1917) by Correa Moylan Walsh and Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of Western Civilization (Untergange des Abenlandes) were incorporated into an ideological model which included world government and the precepts of A New World Order. Both authors drew from the usual neo-feudal beliefs which augmented the need to regulate and shape societies. This led to the Institute becoming host to renowned behavioural psychologists and the study of group psychodynamics.  [3] The founding members of the Tavistock Institute were dispatched across the world stage to tweak social and political policy. Brigadier John Rawlings Rees was psychiatrist to Rudolph Hess, Adolf Hitler’s deputy whilst Ronald Hargreaves became deputy director of the World Health Organization (WHO).

As another round of economic destabilisation was required as per the “break and make” formula, World War II loomed into view and the same techniques were employed. The key to this success was to place undue emphasis on the irrationality of the human mind; to elevate this “natural human flaw” to a level that was abnormal in the public consciousness, so much so, that we would all come to believe that this made up a large proportion of the human condition. This implanted conditioning meant that it became easier and easier to manipulate through an array of Pavlovian distractions. In combination with the Hegelian formula, human psychology was like putty in the controllers’ hands.

Tavistock was at the centre of the Nazi elite exodus after of the war and acted as the lab for the continuation of Nazi experimentation in psychology already advanced in wartime Germany through the discoveries of Josef Mengele  in the concentration camps. Tavistock gave the psychological foundation for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) the precursor to CIA, which continued to work from Tavistock guidelines.

ossWith the 1938 Special Operations Executive agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill already in place allowing British interests to dominate American operations, Dr. Lewin took on the directorship of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which was tasked with bombing civilian housing and avoiding military targets and munition depots inside Germany. As we have established, World War II was a bonanza for the international bankers who did not want to see their liquid assets destroyed. Germany had always been a national asset to be preserved for a long term economic power base within Europe. Instead, the ordinary German populace was to be the bulls-eye. Women, children and old people perished in their thousands amid urban fire-storms perpetrated by the Royal Air Force and the celebrated Sir Arthur Travers “Bomber” Harris. Such carnage was celebrated in war-time news reels as inflicting crucial blows against Germany’s war machine. The truth was rather different. The machine was to remain intact – it was far too useful, the truth of which was buried.  Germany was a vast experiment with Tavistock collecting valuable data for future operations.

Committeeof300RoundtablewithTavistock

Diagram of Tavistock connections from ex-Intel operative John Coleman’s: “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300” (2000).

The Rockefeller impetus to shape the sexual behaviour of Britain and America stemmed from their meetings with their members at the Tavistock Institute. By inverting sexual and social mores, weakening the public’s ability to think critically and breaking down the family unit, ethics and the concept of the sacred, new forms of mass identity and psychological states of mind were inculcated which would best serve the Elite. (See: The Sex Establishment)

Cultural Marxism conjoined with psychoanalysis, and psychodynamics would eventually be used as part of the National Security State, from MK-ULTRA to present day torture techniques in a variety of rendition nations. Freudian psychology would form the basis of a mass defragmentation of character by implanting new socio-sexual “norms” and the introduction of the LSD “counter-culture” fused with New Age psychedelia. A distinctly Kinseyian “revolution” became not so much about love but a mechanistic tool for gratification which further eroded meaning, male and female identity and the proliferation of tribal labels and groupings. The net result was confusion, nihilism, narcissism and the consequent loss of meaning in society. And all that meant populations much easier to control in the face of rising fields of information.

***

The Tavistock network is firmly embedded in the UK-US institutions, extending from Britain’s University of Sussex to America’s Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and Esalen Institute who have garnered a reputation for mind control studies linked to CoIntelpro operations within the New Age movement. The Heritage Foundation, MIT, Hudson Institute, Centre of Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) at Georgetown, where US State Dept. personal are trained and US Air Force Intelligence who joined hands with the RAND corporation: all these were foci for crowd psychology, the experimentation of which was – and still is -visited on the American public.

Today, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is still very much involved in research and consultancy work in social science and applied psychology. The organisation claims its clients are: “international agencies, the EU and its research bodies, UK local and central government and UK research bodies, … private sector and other clients such as regional agencies, health authorities, local authorities, charities and small family firms … and some private clients. In other words, pretty much anyone. Alongside ownership of the international social sciences journal, Human Relations, it owns none other than a very popular and substantial conspiracy forum: “Godlike Productions”.

It is an extremely high probability that this forum is the product of a social experiment devised by Tavistock in order to not only monitor the pulse of alternative and conspiracy-minded individuals in cyberspace, but to muddy the waters of such research. Why else would an institute rooted in unpleasant social engineering programs on behalf of the UK government own such a forum? Moreover, since Godlike Productions has built a considerable reputation as a primary CoIntelpro honey-pot and a major source of the most abject disinformation available on the internet, it is more than curious that Tavistock has ownership. And as one commentator noted: “If it’s happening in the backwoods of the internet, in a place like Godlike Productions, what does that say about the Facebooks and Twitters of the world?” Not that you would have any suspicion of Tavistock’s dark history and present government connections. Upon visiting their website at www.tavinstitute.org it offers a suitably clinical yet wholesome image of sociocultural assistance. [4]

Tavistock’s behavioural psychology and social engineering advances are ensconced in the minds of various Anglo-American think-tanks. These in turn, are associated with political old boys’ clubs like the Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome, who then come up with mass mind memes designed to create the required responses. This is, in part, Bernays’ legacy, where the relationship is one of a constant feedback loop of information design adhering to the mix of occult “Olympian” belief systems.

In his ground-breaking book entitled: Propaganda (1928) Bernays argued that manipulation of the public was natural and necessary in the maintenance of democracy:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind. [5]

conform2Still from “They Live” (1988) Directed by John Carpenter

If it was so in the early part of the last century, it is has become turbo-charged in today’s society with the advent of many sophisticated psychological techniques which have trickled into the commercial and public realm. One such operation was under Dwight Eisenhower’s administration who was duped into giving the go ahead for a program of “psychological warfare and political action” and “subversion,” dubbed Operation PBSUCCESS against the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán.

With the help of Guatemalan military general Carlos Castillo Armas, who formed a military junta, the president and his government were removed and replaced with a military junta which was all based on Bernays’ carefully constructed package of lies and manipulation predicated on the already sensitive fear of Communism. Arbenz was branded a communist in the US and European media until “Reds-under-the-bed” paranoia was clamouring for his removal. In truth, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán’s social welfare policies proved highly successful in providing work and a variety of social benefits which were eventually deemed a threat Western interests, in particular the multinational corporation United Fruit Company (today’s Chiquita Brands International). [6]  We have seen the same formula play out over Latin America for decades and most particularly with the late Hugo Chavez and other South American leaders finally taking the courageous step to reject the role of lap dogs for Anglo-American imperialism. (Yet, it seems the CIA finally had its way as Venezuela descends into another round of chaos).

Propaganda has been used to plant false stories in the media to oust legitimate governments and whip up collective fears so that the suppression populations around the globe with violence and intimidation can take place without there being much of a hue and cry. Latin America in the 1970’s and 1980’s was perhaps the most vicious and sustained attack against the right of peoples to determine their own destiny. The USA used the spread of Communism as justification for banking and resource control. It was this experimentation that provided much of the groundwork for what was to come.

Secrecy of the National Security State has fused with the corporate world and private security firms, allowing unfettered greed and power to multiply as cancer in a vast petri-dish. It is for this reason that enormous PR companies like Burston-Marsteller can straddle the world acting as channels for immoral and corrupt influence. The ambitious engineering of 9/11 would simply not have been possible to pull off without this groundswell of financial, military and PR power to back it up. As writer John Stauber observes: “Public relations is now inseparable from the business of lobbying, creating public policy, and getting candidates elected to public office. The PR industry just might be the single most powerful political institution in the world. It expropriates and exploits the democratic rights of millions on behalf of big business by fooling the public about the issues.” [7] When this is combined with an intelligence apparatus, think-tanks and global policy institutions, it represents another indicator of a breakaway society completely set apart from civil society. We are all forced to indulge their psychopathic fantasies for ultimate control, which of course, can never work despite creating untold destruction along the way.

Since the days of Bernays, virtual reality is not found within the software of new technology but is hardwired into our very brains. Our perceptions have been managed with greater alacrity by the advent of transhumanist technology but it is the principles of American education which have been responsible for eroding understanding and independence of mind in favour of info-tainment and the cult of artifice. It is belief and iconography that is the arbiter of reality in ways which have become so ingrained it is difficult to see how it can be outgrown.

Official culture grows not just from a habitual mediocrity and fear of change but a gradual disabling of our ability to think. This stems from dissociative states drawn from trauma and slow-burn, emotional hurts accumulated over decades from the encroachment of societal pathology. A link to meaning and the promise of something more than materialism is suffocated by the sheer speed of a technocratic mainframe designed to change the very cognitive processes involved in learning. Education in America has been dumbed down since the invasion of the industrialist families and Rockefeller-Tavistock agents got to work to shape the public mind in concert with Bernays-led Public Relations.

So, in this way, it is no surprise that, in combination with the deep state and pervasive corruption as a way of life, the events of 9/11 were permitted to run their criminal course. This has been a long-term experiment which culminated in an ambitious false flag terrorist attack designed to take the world into the next phase of global operations.

 


* Peter Francis in article commemorating the centenary of the First Great War puts it all into perspective when he states: “If all the British Empire’s dead of the First World War were to march four abreast down Whitehall, it would take them almost four days and nights to pass the Cenotaph.” – ‘Mapping the Impact of the Great War’ ,August 16, 2012, by Peter Francis | http://www.1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/space-into-place/mapping-the-impact-of-the-great-war/

** 4Cs = commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control.


Notes

[1] ‘The Century of the Self: The Untold History Of Controlling The Masses Through The Manipulation Of Unconscious Desires’ By Adam Curtis, BBC Documentary, 2006. [2] The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations : Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of The USA by John Coleman. Published by Joseph Holding Corporation, Incorporated, 2005 | ISBN 0963401971, 9780963401977.
[3] ‘Tavistock: The Best Kept Secret in America’ Dr. Byron T. Weeks, MD, July 31, 2001.

[4] A list of articles on why it is better to steer clear of GLP:  ‘Why can’t you say “Tavistock” on Godlike Productions?’ By Rob Daven, September 2012, Rob Daven https://decryptedmatrix.com/why-cant-you-say-tavistock-on-godlike-productions/ I ‘Godlike Productions and the Science of Shill’ By Frater Isla http://disinfo.com/2013/09/godlike-productions-and-the-science-of-shill/|’Beware of GodLikeProductions’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI9sfY8xOck |Will the REAL “Dr. Grant Gartrel(l)” please stand up? By Joe Quinn, June 6, 2004 http://www.sott.net/signs/Aussie_Bloke.htm | ‘How to Spot CoIntelpro Agents’ http://cassiopaea.org/2012/08/13/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents/
[5] p. 10; Propaganda By Edward L. Bernays, 1928.
[6] ‘War on Truth: The Secret Battle for the American Mind’ by John Stauber, The Sun, March 1999.
[7] CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents. U.S. National Archive.
[8] op.cit Stauber.

Save

The Sex Establishment VI: False Memory?

“We propose that use of the term “false memory” to describe errors in memory for details directly contributes to removing the social context of abuse from research on memory for trauma. As the term “false memories” has increasingly been used to describe errors in details, the scientific weight of the term has increased. In turn, we see that the term “false memories” is treated as a construct supported by scientific fact, whereas other terms associated with questions about the veracity of abuse memories have been treated as suspect.”

― Jennifer J. Freyd; from Use of the Term “False Memory” for Errors in Memory for Details, Journal: Ethics & Behavior 14(3) pages 201-233, 2004”


imagesIt is curious how the deconstruction of psychoanalysis has led to the resurfacing of child abuse at this particular juncture in human history and precisely at the time of an overt sexualisation of children, in turn, drawn from a foundation of religiously-induced anti-sexuality!

An example of a strange Establishment-led “science” which is stirring the pot of both extremes is False Memory syndrome (FMS) where many genuine child abuse victims were denied justice on the basis that “recovered memories” were deemed unworthy of analysis due to alleged “suggestions” or verbal “cues” from mental health professionals. [1]

That doesn’t mean to say that FMS is wholly without merit. If a therapist is convinced that the patient has been sexually abused by her parents or by a Satanic Ritual Network then this bias can influence the subject – in some cases. Even if the client has no memory of it, it is possible to offer leading questions and subtle persuasion which can lead her away from objective recall to subjective assumptions. Not recalling the trauma means that the client is in denial which then becomes the “proof” which establishes a dangerous loop of confirmation. Memory is highly malleable, of that fact there is no question. The detection of false memories is an essential skill that not all therapists possess, nor is it immune to political interference.

There is danger from both directions. Yet, the more one digs into FMS the more reasons for disquiet can be found.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) founders are Peter Freyd and his wife Pamela, whose daughter had accused Peter of molesting her as a child and provides an interesting set of initial reasons why such a belief may have come into being. Moreover, the late psychologist and paedophile advocate Ralph Underwager was an original member of the FMSF Advisory Board and helped to create the foundation. He and his wife Hollida Wakefield used to publish a publish Issues in Child Abuse Allegations, a journal written by and for child abuse “skeptics.”

Dr. Ralph Underwager’s credentials as a paedophile apologist were well-known. Rather than call for preventative treatment Underwager was intent on campaigning for paedophile’s rights and to insist that the condition was simply another sexual preference that should be sanctioned. Underwager was interviewed in Paidika -The Journal of Paedophilia where he was asked the question: “Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?” Underwager: “Certainly it is responsible”…. Paedophiles need to … make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God’s will for loved unity among human beings”. [2]

Whilst Underwager dismissed all ritual child abuse as fantasy and the rights of paedophiles as sacrosanct, his outspoken comments caused his resignation from the foundation in 1992. His wife Hollida Wakefield who remained a member despite similar views on paedophilia where she claimed:  “… a longitudinal study of, let’s say, a hundred twelve-year-old boys in relationships with loving paedophiles” would be a good starting point for research. [3]

Some of the other original board members – some of whom are now deceased – include:

Dr. David F. Dinges a Faculty head of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, is on the Scientific Advisory Board and used to work with the late Austrian-born Dr. Martin Orne. (More on him later).

Dr. Harold Lief was the Freyd family’s personal psychiatrist and was tasked with persuading the Freyd’s daughter Jennifer that no abuse took place. Another close colleague to Orne and a participant in hypnotic programming and behavioral modification experiments at the University of Pennsylvania. Past president of the Sex Information and Education Council and director of the Centre for Sexuality and Religion. Lief is credited with the introduction in the DSM of the “inhibited sexual desire” and a longtime supporter of Alfred C. Kinsey.

Dr. Elizabeth Loftus – A research psychologist who testified on behalf of serial killer Ted Bundy. Loftus also defended various individuals accused of child abuse and was ejected from the American Psychologist Association. Californian Clinical psychologist Catherine Gould an expert in the treatment of ritually abused children who stated at the September 1993 National Conference on Crimes Against Children in Washington, D.C., that the studies by Elizabeth Loftus ignore past research on trauma and its influence on memory. Gould voices her concern about Loftus pointing out that the nature of memory of traumatic events is not discussed in her data and yet:

“… she has failed to protest the misapplication of her findings by groups who are involved in discrediting the accounts survivors are giving of their traumatic history. I believe that Dr. Loftus, like other psychologists, has an ethical responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that her research findings are interpreted and applied accurately, and are not manipulated to serve the political agenda of groups like the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. I question whether she has met this ethical responsibility.” [4]

Michael A. Persinger – a Professor of Cognitive neuroscience and militant atheist. An expert in low frequency electromagnetic waves (ELF) he believes almost any experience can be produced whether by false memory or mind control by beaming specific frequencies at the temporal lobes of the brain. He has worked for the Navy and the National Security Agency and his been associated with military mind control research.

Others worth mentioning who were members of FSMF were Louis Jolyon “Joly” West who had a resume for mind control psychiatry as long as your arm. He worked with Orne, Persinger and others as key personnel in the CIA’s mind control programs. For example, Margaret T. Singer noted for her psychological brainwashing techniques in the military and her association with West and Dr. Martin Orne. “The Amazing” James Randi Luminary of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Randhi was also accused of being a serial paedophile. All of whom have made it their calling to deny the claims of those suffering from child sexual abuse.

In fact, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) board members offered a veritable hornet’s nest of CIA and military-intelligence connections.  And with a history of sexpionage manipulations and mind control operations a proven part of the agency’s past (and present) one has to question why it is that this grouping of connections exist. [5]

Martin Orne, a co-founder of FMSF had a particularly interesting history in this context. Researcher Colin A. Ross MD who obtained Freedom of Information documents regarding the origins and history of FSMF provides the needed background on the co-founder. He established that Orne not only had top secret clearance for and consultation status for Operation MK-ULTRA mind control programs conducted by the CIA but his C.V. is positively brimming over with military-intelligence funding and contracts, citing infamous centres of mind control research institutes the Office of Naval Research and Centre for Human Ecology. On FSM, Ross opines that:

“The FSMF Advisory board was a very diverse group with many personal, political and professional agendas,” yet the presence of  “a sub-group including Drs Orne and [Louis Jolyon] West were primarily interested in discrediting multiple personality and ‘recovered memories’ in order to protect the Manchurian Candidate programs [US mind control programs] During the 1990s when the false memory wars were at their peak, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against therapists inducing ‘false memories.’” [6]

Ross asks us to consider the following:

… a woman tells a psychotherapist that a psychiatrist working for the U.S. Air Force gave her LSD during an experiment conducted at the University of Minnesota, where he worked and she was a research assistant. He then made her sit in a specially constructed room that had leaves glued to its walls, floors and ceiling. In the 1990s a person who remembered this in therapy could have sued her therapist for implanting fantastic, impossible false memories. FMSF expert witnesses would have told the jury that these memories were false and implanted by the therapist who was guilty of malpractice. [7]

It was these exact experiments which were carried out at the University of Minnesota by Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi with funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. [8]

Indeed, FMS experts believe that even the very idea of repressed memories of trauma have no empirical evidence, preferring to place the blame largely on the pseudo-science of various therapists implanting these memories. Despite this claim there are many examples that the mind does indeed repress authentic trauma and in the hands of an experienced psychologist or psychotherapist can be worked through.

According to Psychologist Ken Pope, in 25 studies of amnesia for childhood sexual abuse it was concluded that:

“… all demonstrate amnesia in a sub-population including recent studies with design improvements such as random sampling and prospective designs that address weaknesses in earlier studies. A reasonable conclusion is that amnesia for CSA [childhood sexual abuse] is a robust finding across studies using very different samples and methods of assessment. Studies addressing the accuracy of recovered abuse memories show that recovered abuse memories are no more or no less accurate than continuous memories for abuse.” [9]

The FMS crowd can just as easily be accused of producing an industry of denial where all abuse reports and trails are burdened with what author and sociologist Sara Scott describes as the “discourse of disbelief.” These industries of disbelief and the industry of survivors compete together to produce more suffering and more victims in the law courts.

Professor Ross E. Cheit, head of the Recovered Memory Project, suggest financial gain from recovering memories as the only driving force, stating: “… it is curious to note that critics who are quick to question the financial motives of anyone who might receive compensation for a recovered-memory claim never seem to raise the same concern when considering those who have recovered enormous financial payments in ‘false memory’ cases: the so-called ‘retractors.’ The one-sidedness of this scepticism can best be explained as politics, not science.” [10]

While FMS is not acknowledged by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders it is often included in mental health papers for public advisory guidelines. FMS “experts” can charge fees of over $450 per hour, thus contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation and vested interest far above the needs of truth. [11]

 


Notes

[1] “False memory syndrome” (FMS) is the term for the hypothesis describing a state of mind wherein sufferers have a high number of highly vivid but false memories, often of abusive events during their childhood, though this remains a highly contentious area of conjecture. It is not listed DSM-IV, though this in itself does not constitute a non-validation of this theory, being as the manual is less than objective in its criteria for mental illness.
[2] Paidika Winter Issue, 1993, pp. 3, 12.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘The False Memory Hoax’ By Alex Constantine, January 1996 | educate-yourself.org/mc/falsememoryhoax1996.shtml
[5] Ibid.
[6]Military Mind Control: A Story of Trauma and Recovery [Kindle Edition] Colin A. Ross M.D. Published by Manitou Communications 2008. | ASIN: B005ZJUXA8
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (introduction)
[9] ‘Science as Careful Questioning: Are Claims of a False Memory Epidemic based on Empirical Evidence?’ By Ken Pope appeared in the American Psychologist, vol. 52, #9, pp. 997-1006.
[10] ‘Response to Critics’ Professor Ross E. Cheit, Project Director Of the Recovered Memory Project Taubman Center for Public Policy & American Institutions at Brown University. Information can be found at recoveredmemory.org.
[11] op. cit. Scott (p.58)

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 )