They did it ONCE, they’ll do it AGAIN – IF WE DON’T STOP THEM!
What made me doubtful two days ago is CLEAR enough today.
I know that I am touching on dangerous ground now but it won’t change anything for me. When the goal is reaching for the truth only and it turns out to be politically incorrect, so be it.
While discussing Thomas Carroll’s book and professors who recommended his pedophile opus (Richard Green and others) we touched upon homosexuality. This made me read a report from NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) where I found the name of Richard Green again – as a colleague of Alfred Kinsey this time.
If you’ve seen “Twin Peaks” by the incredible David Lynch you’ll remember Lora Palmer’s criminal father played by actor Ray Wise, who is the exact replica of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. How on earth could David Lynch know who was the main villain in real life too, I wonder?
Everyone tells me that the findings of Alfred Kinsey laid the basis of the gay liberation movement and cannot be disputed as his research is unmistakably true …. Well, the recent studies say that A. Kinsey’s results (as well as methods of obtaining them) were highly questionable to say the very least, and their consequences were as disastrous for the society as those for Troya when the Trojan Horse destroyed this earlier unbeatable town from within.
Below you will find a top serious and honest research made by Jeffrey B. Satinover, M.D., Ph.D. called “The “Trojan Couch”: How the Mental Associations Misrepresent Science”.
This paper shows the easy method by which someone very powerful and someone very corrupt can change the whole society’s perception of its basic ethical values and with no regard for what REAL science has to say about it – and how they are currently attempting to do it again, this time in connection with pedophilia. Initially Michael’s vindication blog didn’t seem to be the right place for discussing the problem. Now I think differently – it is exactly the place to do it.
Michael is probably IMPLORING US to protect children now that he cannot do it himself.
Due to his own painful childhood or whatever other reasons he had, Michael Jackson was a person who felt the pain of each kid like his own and cried like a baby when he saw a child ill, hungry, suffering, being harmed, offended or even shouted at. Michael was a true and sincere supporter of children, someone who was ready to spend his last penny on their well-being and fight for those innocent little beings until his deathbed.
Michael was the worst enemy of pedophiles as he was their EXACT OPPOSITE.
And they knew it.
Something had to be done about this highly popular man and the idea of the pedophile lobby was a truly devilish one: make him look like one of THEM, hit him where it hurt him MOST and ridicule his very ESSENCE – love and compassion for children, and his true desire to make their life better. And when the idea is all ready and formed nothing can be easier than its implementaton. All you need is:
- a couple of close employees who will work in the ‘right’ direction (the porn genius Lemarque alone is more than enough for dropping whatever he likes at Neverland and giving his ‘damning’ evidence later of what he ‘sees’ or ‘finds’ there)
- a couple of ‘victims’ rehearsing real pedophiles’ words for their imaginary molestation,
- a prosecutor who is given millions of dollars to go to the other end of the world in search for non-existent ‘witnesses’,
- articles written in every media outlet based on suspicions only which are stealthily and illegally leaked by the prosecution.
- nothing positive about Michael Jackson accepted for print by all publishing houses (Aphrodite Jones’ book was self-published as it was rejected by all publishers and Thomas Mesereau was approached by many but when he said he would prove Michael’s innocence there they all disappeared),
- but the same publishers’ arms wide open to those who are ready to tell ped-le lies about him (Ray Chandler, Victor Guttierrez, Thomas O’Carroll),
- copyright and other ridiculous law suits poured on Michael’s head one after another to make him lose the last of his remaining strength and money,
- public ridicule of each of his steps, independent of what he tried to do – close himself from the public eye or enter the limelight again to give some explanations. And lots and lots of other things too…
Well, one would more or less understand all this hue and cry if the society were morally impeccable as far as the subject of pedophilia is concerned.
But when you see WHAT these ‘professors’ are teaching their students (that everyone is a pedophile, that it is normal and that democracy and pedophilia go hand in hand), when you read of numerous REAL CRIMES committed against children by those on the top of the society and of the CRIMINAL RESEARCH made by Alfred Kinsey as the pioneer of the cause – what impeccable morals of the society can we talk about?
The society should either accept the idea and think it okay for everyone to do it, or it should reject the idea altogether and stigmatize it as revolting for anyone doing anything like that.
It is EITHER this OR that.
But in Michael’s case it is the terrible DISPROPORTION and bias towards HIM ONLY which immediately attracts the attention of everyone who ever cares to look.
Yes, the biggest riddle of it all is WHY the media, public and prosecution created all this hue and cry around one innocent man and WHY they kept a near absolute silence around open pedophilia talk in ‘academic’ circles, books and journals and real crimes committed and covered up by the police, authorities and the media?
Michael was surely aware of this amazing riddle too. That is probably why he never expressed anything else but astonishment at all this injustice. That is why his only reaction to it was just to stop smiling forever…
I am afraid that you will also stop smiling soon if you read what Jeffrey B. Satinover has to say on how academics falsified the scientific data they submitted for homosexuality discussion and how they are now doing the same for pedophilia.
Below is the short of the study I’ve mentioned earlier. The author is Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Ph.D. in Psychiatry and Physics. He is Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Science and Mathematics, The King’s College, New York City and Visiting Scientist, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. The present work reports on research conducted while teaching constitutional law in the department of politics at Princeton University and consulting to groups writing briefs in various state and federal Supreme Court cases.
No matter how you feel about homosexuality the study is exceptionally telling as to the way real science is misrepresented by groups of people whose number is (probably) limited but whose influence is (evidently) very powerful. They have once used their colossal power to change the perception of the whole population in respect of homosexuality and now they are doing the same with regard to pedophilia.
SEE HOW THEY DID IT THE FIRST TIME:
Jeffrey B.Satinover says:
“In every generation, on certain matters, a whole society— its experts, its most admired, respected, and trusted leaders and counselors — will adopt as authoritative a complete illusion.
Some of my psychiatric and psychological colleagues have claimed to the Supreme Court that the scientific data show that homosexuals form a “class” whose boundaries are defined by a stable “trait.” This presumption is false, yet the recent Supreme Court decisions pertaining to same-sex marriage have taken it for granted.
This paper reviews the history of the diagnostic change that in 1973 removed homosexuality as a formal disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a change that many now accept as simply indisputable in spite of the fact that it was based wholly on fiction.
[It also] analyzes the psychiatric guilds’ massive misrepresentation of the scientific record in the Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans cases…”
Let us start with the year 1994. It was when a landmark study by Edward O.Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T.Michael, and Stuart Michaels was published by the University of Chicago Press. The study is universally respected and is considered to be the key one in the research of homosexuality.
It states, “all the evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is not a “stable trait”. The authors found to their surprise that its instability over the course of life was one-directional: declining, and very significantly so. Homosexuality tended spontaneously to ‘convert’ into heterosexuality as a cohort of individuals aged – and this was true for both men and women.
So striking and unexpected was this finding that it led researchers all over the world in subsequent years to see if it was really true. Their research involved hundreds of thousands of people and strongly confirmed Laumann.
The findings of Laumann and colleagues are that the great majority of people (both men and women) are exclusively heterosexual throughout their lives. Only a small minority of people will ever consider themselves homosexual or have same-sex experiences, and of these most will eventually change and stop having such experiences.
The point is subtle and powerful, and addresses a confusing false symmetry that activists attempt to create between heterosexuality and homosexuality, as though they were somehow two equivalent poles or ends of a spectrum, the numerically minority status of one being an incidental and trivial fact.
In other words, the data illustrates “just how normative heterosexuality is,” even for homosexuals. Heterosexuality exerts a constant, normative pull throughout the life cycle upon everyone. Human physiology, including the physiology of the nervous system, is overwhelmingly sexually dimorphic, that is, heterosexual. It should come as no surprise that the brain self -organizes behavior in large measure in harmony with its own physiological ecology.”
However when presenting the scientific findings to the Supreme court in the Romer and Lawrence cases the gay lobbists “took care to argue that homosexuality is a stable trait, completely ignoring the major finding of Laumann. They argued that “once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change” and specifically, that “there is little evidence that treatment actually changes sexual attractions”.
The authors suggest that “conversion” therapy is actually harmful and that programs might even be needed to undo the harm.
In contrast, by the time of the Lawrence brief, [one of the champions of gay cause] Robert Spitzer had begun to suspect that homosexuality was in fact “not stable” and that the increasingly large number of claims of change he had been hearing might in many cases be true. Upon completion of a pilot study, he presented his findings privately to the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (a group within the American Psychiatric Association) expecting his results to be met with scientific objectivity.
As he told me, he was urged to suppress his findings on the grounds that, whether true or not, they would harm the civil rights of gays and lesbians. He later received a letter from Wayne Besen, then President of the Human Rights Campaign, warning him not to attempt to perform and publish a full –fledged study. As he wrote me: “the intimidation was in the form of telling me that if I did such a study I would be exposed as doing fraudulent research in front of my colleagues.”
In spite of Spitzer’s reputation as one of the most highly -regarded quantitative researchers and bio-statisticians in psychiatry and as the man who had shepherded homosexuality out of the DSM, he faced enormous difficulty in getting his study published.
Initially presented at the APA annual convention in May, 2001, the results were not published until November, 2003, but the journal of the very organization of which he was the chief editor refused its publication. It was a remarkable slap in the face for someone of his stature, and an indication of the astounding power of political correctness and lack of scientific integrity within the organization.
Considering the significance of the study, the numerous comments by eminent names in the field published with it, Spitzer’s eminence, and the care he took to approach the Gay and Lesbian interest groups within the APA before proceeding, it is truly remarkable that this study did not even merit a mention in the brief” [submitted to the Supreme Court].
In short, the major scientific findings were presented to the APA and the Supreme Court in a completely distorted way. The scientific lobby kept claiming that “sexual orientation” or “identity” was defined well enough to be meaningfully spoken of and in particular, used legally to establish homosexuals as a class, following a program laid out years before in a legal paper by Green (Richard Green?) .
The lobby claimed that homosexualism was completely normal, omitting the great differences found in the psychopathic behavior between homo and heterosexuals and keeping silent on the fact that the rate of homosexuals placed in psychiatric hospitals was 5 times as high as that of heterosexuals.
In their briefs to the APA and the Supreme Court they didn’t mention a higher degree of alchogolism among lesbian females and suicide attempts among homosexual males. None of these and other facts were reported to the American Psychiatric Association and the APA consequently ruled to remove homosexuality from its Manual of Mental Disorders as a phychiatric illness. Since then it has been considered normal, publicly accepted and (by some) even fashionable …
SEE HOW THEY ARE DOING IT AGAIN:
In 1997 the American Psychiatric Association made a subtle change in how it diagnosed all the ‘paraphilias’ (the new term which stands for ‘deviations’ like sadomasochism, pedophilia and fetishism) in its revised edition of the Diagnostic Manual. Now it said that such diagnoses would apply only if the activities in question caused distress to the individual himself” (and if it didn’t?)
By 2002 the sexology community was fiercly debating whether all the ‘parahphilias’ should be removed from the Diagnostic Manual and the American Psychiatric Association had published an article arguing that pedophilia was not harmful.
In 2003 the APA held a symposium debating the removal of the ‘paraphilias’, pedophilia included, from the Diagnostic Manual, on the same grounds as homosexuality had been removed.
The group lobbing those interests refers to the works of Alfred Kinsley and to a cluster of less well-known individuals in the field of sex research more or less closely associated with him and his ideas: John Money, Wardell Pomeroy, Paul Gebhard, John De Cecco, and - attention please – Richard Green (who is friend #4 of pedophile Thomas O’Carroll whose book he is now recommending).
Jeffrey B.Satinover characterizes the group as follows:
These researchers have been engaged in a thirty-year process of using the mental health guilds to subvert fundamental societal standards. In particular, many have a long history of advocating the casting aside on principle – the same principle by which homosexuality was removed from the DSM [Diagnostic Manual] – traditional restrictions not only on homosexuality, but on pedophilia, sado-masochism, incest, and bestiality.
The ROMER brief on the basis of which crucial political gay-oriented decisions were made refers to the Kinsley group as an authority on sexual orientation as if unaware of the fact that the all-conclusive study by Laumann mentioned earlier “gives an extensive, utterly damaging critique of Kinsey’s research”.
Kinsey’s colleague: RICHARD GREEN
The brief cites three articles by Richard Green where he asserts that “growing research evidence exists for an innate origin of homosexuality.” Jeffrey Satinover says about it:
- But the statement is false. Evidence of any kind was then sparse, but all evidence as of the date he wrote was consistent with the opposite conclusion. Since then, evidence has grown more robust and contrary to the “it’s genetic” claim with every passing year. Byne and Parsons flatly state: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.
So several decades ago Dr. Richard Green claimed that homosexuality was natural as it is an in-born trait, and now he asserts practically the same as regards pedophilia? You remember he said that pedophilia should not be considered a mental illness (and should consequently be looked upon as a normal state of mind (?)
Here are the reasons he gives to support his point of view:
- Distress. One of the criteria for mental illness is subjective distress – and, Green notes, many pedophiles are not distressed about their attractions at all–except, he notes, about being the possibility of being jailed. In fact, “some celebrate their interests, organize politically, and publish magazines or books.”
- Disability. Considering another marker of illness, “disability,” Green says, psychiatry must not let itself be locked into the narrow definition of disability currently dictated by our culture. When we broaden our view to consider other cultures over time, Green explains, we see that many African tribes and even the ancient Greeks considered man-boy pedophilia to be a helpful rite-of-passage into manhood.
- Animal Behavior. Looking at normality from the perspective of our animal relatives, Dr. Green looks at a close genetic relative, the pygmy chimp, or bonobo. Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own species. And that behavior isn’t likely harmful to the babies, Green says, because it’s the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.
- Frequency of Occurrence. Green says that contrary to popular myth, pedophile attractions aren’t even especially unusual. Studies prove that many so-called “normal” men with conventional sexual interests can, in fact, be sexually aroused in a laboratory setting when they are shown erotic photos of little girls.
- Is the pedophile a dysfunctional person? No, Green says; in truth, there appear to be quite a number of “highly skilled pedophiles” – in fact, even some beloved public figures–so a simple explanation of “social inadequacy” doesn’t explain their psychological condition.
Taken together, Green says, these findings converge on the conclusion that pedophilia is not a mental disorder – at least “not unless we declare a lot of people in many cultures and in much of the past to be mentally ill.”
Another Kinsey’s colleague: JOHN MONEY
John Money, referenced three times in Romer brief, was the director of the now defunct “Psychohormonal Research Unit” of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and perhaps the world’s most effective promoter of “transsexuality” and transsexual surgery.
Although Hopkins was once one of the major centers in the world for such surgery, the university abandoned it in 1979, having had the most—and therefore worst—experience with it.
Writing in First Things, Paul McHugh, Chairman of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, noted that scientific studies convinced him and his colleagues:
- … “I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex -reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes….We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.”
Another Kinsey’s Colleague: WARDELL POMEROY
One of Kinsey’s co-authors, (and one of his numerous lovers as were all Kinsey’s male colleagues) referenced with him, was Wardell B. Pomeroy, who had served on the 1973 Nomenclature [Homosexuality] Task Force. In his book Boys and Sex: Wardell B. Pomeroy Co –author of the Kinsey Reports, he writes that:
- “… having sex with the male animal,… whether it is a dog, horse, bull or some other species, may provide considerable erotic excitement for the boy…Psychically, animal relations may become of considerable significance to the boy who is having regular experience…[ and] in no point basically different from those that are involved in erotic responses to human situations…”
In Variations magazine, Pomeroy offers this advice:
- “We find many beautiful and mutually satisfying [sexual] relationships between fathers and daughters. These may be transient or ongoing, but they have no harmful effects … Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience … When there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other person, rather than a feeling of possessiveness and a selfish concern with one’s own sexual gratification, then incestuous relationships can and do work out well. Incest can be a satisfying, non-threatening, and even an enriching emotional experience, as I said earlier”.
Another Kinsey’s Colleague: PAUL GEBHARD
The authors of the amicus brief likewise reference Kinsey’s other co -author, Paul Gebhard, another member of the NIMH Homosexuality Task Force, and a presenter at the crucial Nomenclature Committee meeting in 1973. He is also a co-founder of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, and a former head of the Kinsey Institute.
The following is from a transcript of a taped phone conversation in 1992 between Gebhard and J. Gordon Muir, editor of Judith Riesman’s “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud”, about the report in the “Male volume” (table 34) [one of Alfred Kinsey’s major works] supposedly demonstrating multiple orgasms in
children and infants as young as six months old. The question as to how this “data” was obtained has been a subject of intense secrecy. Nonetheless:
Muir: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”
Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we’re interested in it!”
Muir: “And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to….”
Gebhard: “So, second hand or stopwatch . OK, well, that’s, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many.”
Muir: “These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal.”
Gebhard: “Oh yes.”
Another Kinsey’s Colleague: JOHN DeCECCO
John De Cecco, who teaches at San Francisco State University, is Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, whose articles are often referenced in these briefs as though it were a dispassionately scientific journal with reasonable standards of peer -review. It is tendentious, politicized, and self-referential.
But, more importantly, De Cecco is a board member of Paedika: The Journal of Paedophilia. In a “Statement of Purpose” published in the journal’s first issue, the editors wrote:
- “The starting point of Paedika is necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles. … we understand [paedophilia] to be consensual intergenerational sexual relationships …Through publication of scholarly studies, thoroughly documented and carefully reasoned, we intend to demonstrate that paedophilia has been , and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.”
De Cecco also was editor of Journal of Homosexuality’s special 1990 issue devoted to the “debate” over the relationship of homosexuality and pedophilia.
This “debate” focuses on two major questions:
- First, are male homosexuality and paedophilia intrinsically related phenomena, albeit in any given individual they may be differentiated in varying measure, or are they essentially unrelated, even though it is clear that they overlap to a degree that cannot be coincidental?
- Second, as a matter independent of the first question, is it wise for “the movement” to acknowledge the relationship or overlap between pedophilia and homosexuality, and to seek rights for pedophiles (based on “orientation”) similar to those that have been won for homosexuals, or would it be damaging to the gay rights movement to do so, even if it is ultimately the proper thing to do?
* * *
All of the above is so taletelling that Jeffrey R.Satinover left all those revelations with no comment and I will follow his example, hoping that this information will answer some of your earlier questions.
The only thing we are lacking now is some data about their teacher Alfred Kinsley. So here it is:
ALFRED CHARLES KINSEY (1894 – 1956) was an American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who in 1947 founded the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction (NB: no matter what we’ll learn about Kinsey it should not be attributed to the present staff of this Institute).
Kinsey’s sex research went beyond theory and interview and included observation of and participation in sexual activity, including homosexual activity, with his co-workers and others. He justified this as being necessary to gain the confidence of his research subjects; Kinsey filmed sexual acts which included co-workers in the attic of his home as part of his research.
Kinsey wrote about pre-adolescent orgasms using data (documented in tables 30 to 34 of his “Sexual behavior in a human male’) which report observations of orgasms in over three-hundred children between the ages of five months and fourteen years. This information was said to have come from adults’ childhood memories, or from parent or teacher observation.
Kinsey said he also interviewed nine men who had sexual experiences with children, and who told him about the children’s responses and reactions. Little attention was paid to this part of Kinsey’s research at the time, and nearly 40 years later where Kinsey had gained this information began to be questioned. It was later revealed that Kinsey used data from a paedophile and presented it as being from various sources.
Dr. Judith Reisman, President of the Institute for Media Education wrote a series of books about Kinsey (“Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences in 1998”, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Kinsey coverup and others).
This is what she says:
- “The Yorkshire documentary, entitled Secret History: Kinsey’s Pedophiles, was broadcast in Great Britain on August 10, 1998.
- In a review, England’s BBC Radio Times wrote that “this deeply unsettling documentary… makes a strong case that Kinsey cultivated [pedophiles whose crimes] he presented as scientific data.”
- London’s Daily Mail for August 11, 1998, agreed: “An academic study admitted the… repugnant… evidence of a child abuser as though this were a respectable scientific contribution.”
- “Paul Gebhard, Kinsey’s co-author, frankly admitted that Kinsey researchers interviewed pedophiles, and declined to report them to police. “‛An example of criminality is our refusal to cooperate with authorities in apprehending a pedophile we had interviewed who was being sought for a sex murder,’ Gebhard told an interviewer.. It was illegal and we knew it was illegal and that’s why a lot of people are furious… they say we should have turned him in instantly… If we had turned him in it would have been the end of our research”.
You can read the rest yourselves – if you CAN, of course (I hardly could):
Here is a video called KINSEY COVER-UP explaining some of Kinsey’s “methods of research”. Prof. Judith Reisman makes her comments on them:
Kinsey’s corresponded with Dr. Friedrich Karl Hugo Viktor von Balluseck, a Nazi who was in charge of a small Polish town during World War II. Von Balluseck, according to testimony during his 1957 trial for a child sex murder, molested boys and girls from 1927 to 1957.
As reported by the Franfurter Allegemeine Zeitung on May 22, 1957:
- “Dr. Balluseck…[recorded measurements] of his crimes committed against children between 9 and 14 years old … in four thick diaries … of a pseudo-scientific character … while in correspondence with the American sexual researcher Kinsey … about his research, which as he said himself, took place over three decades.”
Another German newspaper, the Berliner Zeitung, reported on May 16, 1957:
- “Kinsey had asked the paedophile specifically for material of his perverse actions. The presiding judge, Dr. [Heinrich] Berger, noted that it was Kinsey’s duty to get Balluseck locked up, instead of corresponding with him.”
And this video tells us about the many years of cooperation between Kinsey and a pedophile named Green. It is almost impossible to watch:
So why did the society keep complete silence about hundreds of pedophilic experiments made on real children by the criminal Alfred Kinsey and his younger assistants who lived up to the 21st century as respectable scientists?
Why did they prefer to pick on an innocent man instead?
Probably because they wanted to divert our attention from real ped-le crimes committed right behind our backs?