MORE ANTI-CHRISTIAN HYSTERIA

It seems the L.A. Weekly wants to seek out and destroy Christianity itself instead of any particular sect thereof. I can say this because the newspaper has admitted as much in a recent column. More on that later. This June 10 column has identified Christians as "Christers," the kitschy new hate word created by anti-religionists in the U.S.A. to describe their foe: you and me. The Weekly uses this pseudo word some 16 times in the Op Ed even going so far as to make it appear as if the word was used in a Wall Street Journal article. (I guess that makes these religion haters the "Anti-Christers"?). Apparently, these "Christers" have the gall to arrange boycotts against things in the entertainment and other industries that do not meet their standards and this little article spews several hundred words to excoriate them for it. Yes, the gall of these people imagining that they should gather together and take advantage of democracy like that to urge people from whom they buy their products to listen to them as customers. The NERVE!

The piece quotes Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, as saying that there is ".a lot of activity by an emboldened grassroots, who think they won the last election on moral grounds. They barely need to threaten a boycott to get those they target to back down." While somewhat specious I cannot help but laugh at this notion that someone on the left is complaining about a grassroots group launching a boycott to attempt to get the business world to acquiesce to demands. Need we recall that the left pioneered such actions? Apparently, though, sophistry is the order of the day for the left. But who can really be surprised?

Furthermore, if anyone has assumed a pious policy stance upon winning an election it would be the left. The entire "Great Society" that LBJ claimed Kennedy started was based on winning that election and so was the socialist nightmare that FDR saddled the country with in the 30s and 40s.

Later they quote Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, as saying that Christians want a "theocratic oligopoly." He goes on to mangle the definition of an overly used word with, "The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country." Mr. Kaplan is a perfect example of how so many supposed "professors" are misleading their students these days. Apparently, he doesn't even know the definition of "fascist" nor does he realize the automatic connotation that the word conjures in society since the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Or perhaps he does and he is so filled with hatred that he actually believes his polemics. Perhaps he truly wishes to compare Christians trying to persuade Proctor and Gamble to listen to its consumer base to Hitler's Nazis. Either way, it would seem dangerous to place him in charge of our nation's students.

Additionally, Kaplan lacks even the remotest sense of historical perspective if he thinks that today the U.S. is somehow overly or dangerously religious. This country is nearly religion free compared to the 1700s, for instance. Even the 1950s saw more religious fervor than what we are now experiencing. All in all, he exhibits none of the erudition that a professor should display. But he is not much different from all too many in his profession.

The Op Ed goes on to claim that these religious "Christers" are so out of hand as to threaten a repetition of the McCarthy era. In true demagogic style the Op Ed ends in a shrill warning. "Unless Hollywood, and the entertainment and broadcast industries, all want to live through an epoch of increasing content blackmail and blacklists, the wealthy folks who make a lot of money from those industries better wake up and start funding intensive and systematic research on the Christian right and its censorship crusades against sexual subversion and sin in the creative arts - or soon it will be too late, and the `theocratic oligopoly' of which Martin Kaplan speaks will be so firmly established it cannot be dislodged."

Of course, this claim that the "Christers" want a new era of McCarthy is absurd, as well. Joe McCarthy had the coercive power of government behind him, but these disparate grassroots religious groups barely cooperate together much less have any coercive powers to force the business world to bend to their will. We can conclude from all of this that apparently the editors of the L.A. Weekly want two things:

1). To make the entertainment industry unaccountable to anyone but itself. They obviously feel that the entertainment industry has no reason to cater to or pay heed to its customers. Unless, of course, it is the L.A. Weekly's ideas that are to be listened to, naturally. If the industry sticks with gay issues, overt sexuality, violence and the like, well things are just hunky dory. If it tones down same in response to its customer's desires, in true capitalist style, then we have entered a new era of McCarthy.

2) To destroy the religious with a new Inquisition. I can say the latter, because if our esteemed Mr. Kaplan can morph the English language to fit his own polemic point of view, then I certainly can follow suit, can't I? He must know. He IS a "professor," after all.

Source



KINSEY AND THE HOMOSEXUAL REVOLUTION

Americans bestow authority-and billions of tax dollars-upon science in the belief that scientists will make important contributions to society. There is the further belief that scientists, in their responsibility and trust, will behave ethically, especially in research that involves human subjects.[2] While the former is certainly historically accurate, such trust in the class "scientists" as honest, humane persons who deserve unquestioned public faith is sustained neither by cross-cultural or American science history.

Under scrutiny is the role of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey and his contention that Americans are 10% to 47%, more or less, homosexual. Kinsey's percentage was seized upon by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, when Hay formed the Mattachine Society, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class. Today, scores of homosexual activists cite Kinsey as the man who made the homosexual movement possible.

But what if all of Kinsey's work was fraudulent, or worse? What if it reflects unethical scientists conducting unprosecuted criminal acts? For example, is it possible that scientists have conducted sexual experiments on children? Or that they could allow or encourage child abusers to conduct such experiments? The possibility that this actually occurred-and indeed that the claimed results of such experiments have played a critical and sustained role in our law and public policy-has led Congress to submit legislation which calls for an examination of the relevant facts. The legislation focuses on the research and publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues ("The Kinsey Institute") conducted at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana from the late 1930s to the early 1950s. The legislation is known as H.R. 2749, "The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act."

The 1945 A-Bomb: World War II ended in 1945 after America, under scientists headed by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, and like a modern Prometheus, dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an instant, all of America was reeling, as both joy and anguish hit the nation with the force of that nuclear blast. Emotion rode high, for along with the immense relief that "it worked" and the brutal war was ended, came the quaking realization that while God had created the earth, science could now destroy it.

On the one hand, Americans were awed by Oppenheimer's ability to end the worldwide threat of war. On the other hand, our faith in ourselves as the world's savior was shattered by both the nuclear scare and ensuing newsreels of burning Japanese children, subverting our sense of moral integrity and who we really were as Americans. Aided by an army that now dispensed condoms, Yankee soldier-saviors of Europe and Asia broke the promises of their Puritan homeland. GIs returned home to wives and sweethearts in 1946 with the highest rate of venereal disease since the original VD epidemics of World War I. Yet, the overwhelming VD epidemic which raged overseas was quenched in the U.S. as young lads overflowing with penicillin waited for the marriage bed to carnally embrace the "girl next door."

The 1948 A-Bomb: Three years later, after decades of clandestine preparation and a relentless publicity campaign, Dr. Kinsey launched what was then called "The Kinsey A-Bomb" on America's now fragile sense of moral virtue. Wrapped in Oppenheimer's flag of science as the final authority, Kinsey's fraudulent sex science statistics seemed to "prove" middle America to be a nation of sexual hypocrites, liars, cowards and closet deviates, despite the fact that all of Kinsey's data were repudiated by the then current public health data. While the Armed Services found skyrocketing VD and illegitimacy rates abroad, we found no such domestic rates for these disorders or for abortion, rape and other sex crimes and sexual disorders. Wrong or right, the fighting men might be misbehaving overseas but by and large they were not doing over here, what they were doing over there.

Despite the common sense fact of low rates of illegitimacy and VD, despite personal knowledge of faithful and virtuous family and friends, mainstream America was dramatically shaken by Kinsey's data. The popular press hawked Kinsey as a diversion from Truman's ominous cold-war warnings, heralding the astonishing scientific findings-that 98% of men and roughly half of women had premarital sex, 95% of American men were legally sex offenders and 10% or more of men were largely homosexual. And, while no one noted that 317 infants and children were "tested" for Kinsey's child sex data, educators repeated his conclusions-that children were sexual from birth, hence school sex education, Kinsey style, should be mandated.

The question anyone should be asking is: How did Kinsey get the statistics on childhood sexuality... that were to revolutionize the schoolroom, courtroom, pressroom, and bedroom? More succinctly put, did the Kinsey team participate in the pedophile abuse of 317 infants and children?

Dr. Alfred Kinsey's research on child orgasm is described in Chapter 5 of his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).[7] Some of the observations are summarized in Tables 30-34 of the book. The numbers of the children in the five tables were, respectively, 214, 317, 188, 182, and 28. The minimum ages were, respectively, one year, two months, five months, (ages of children not recorded for Table 33), and five months. The tables identify sex experiments; for example, Table 32 speaks of: "Speed of pre-adolescent orgasm; Duration of stimulation before climax; Observations timed with second hand or stop watch."

Did Kinsey instigate or encourage these practices? And did he actually use pedophiles to obtain the data for Tables 30-34? In his book, acting as the on-site reporter, Kinsey did not clearly describe his own role. However, Kinsey's close colleague, C. A. Tripp, made a revealing statement in a 1991 televised interview by Phil Donahue:

[Reisman is] talking about data that came from pedophiles, that he [Kinsey] would listen only to pedophiles who were very careful, used stopwatches, knew how to record their thing, did careful surveys....[T]hey were trained observers.

Two questions cry out for an answer: What was the nature of the training given to these "trained observers"? And, who "trained" them? Perhaps Dr. Tripp or others can answer these questions. A 1991 book review in the respected British medical journal, The Lancet, noted:

[T]he important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are the imperfections in the [Kinsey] sample and unethical, possibly criminal observations on children....Kinsey...has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.

Tripp is not the only former Kinsey colleague to admit that actual pedophiles were involved in the Kinsey Institute's child sexuality studies. A taped telephone interview with Dr. Paul Gebhard, former head of the Kinsey Institute and Kinsey co-author, also confirms this fact:

Interviewer: "So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?"

Dr. Paul Gebhard: "Ah, they do if we tell them we're interested in it!"

Interviewer: "And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to...."

Dr. Gebhard: "So, second hand or stopwatch. OK, well, that's, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many."

Interviewer: "These experiments by pedophiles on children were presumably illegal."

Dr. Gebhard: "Oh yes."

Molesting Children in the Name of Science

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Dr. Kinsey reported that the data on the 317 children came from "9 of our adult male subjects." However, Dr. John Bancroft, current Director of the Kinsey Institute, contradicted this claim. After examining the data, Dr. Bancroft indicated that the data for Table 31 came from a single adult male subject. There are a number of other instances where Kinsey's published claims about numerical or factual data-claims with important implications if true-are now believed to be misleading or false. A review of Kinsey's original data, claims and possible involvement is long overdue. Kinsey's "trained observers" tested babies "5 months in age," for repeated orgasms via:

...empirical study and statistical procedures... which resulted in...reported observations on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrust and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys, ranging between infants of 5 months and adolescence age.

Orgasm was defined as follows:

Extreme tension with violent convulsions: ...sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body... gasping... hands grasping, mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding; whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching...violent jerking of the penis...groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).... hysterical laughing, talking, sadistic or masochistic reactions... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject.... some...suffer excruciating pain and may scream ...if the penis is even touched....some...before the arrival of orgasm, will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax although they derive definite pleasure from the situation.

Lester Caplan, M.D., Diplomate, the American Board of Pediatrics, reviewing Kinsey's Chapter 5 (as above) said, "One person could not do this to so many children-these children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly,"[20] especially if, as Dr. Gebhard notes, a cinema record was being made.

Child interviews were unusually long. Kinsey said after two hours, "the [adult] becomes fatigued and the quality of the record drops." Still, Kinsey reported 24-hour orgasm "interviews" of a four-, a 10- and a 13-year-old; a four-year-old for 10 hours; a nine and 13-year-old for eight hours; and so on. Dr. Gebhard's taped phone interview further details some of these techniques. Dr. Kinsey even reported that some observers "induced...erections [in the children]...over periods of months or years," but that the Kinsey team interviewed no "psychotics who were handicapped with poor memories, hallucination, or fantasies that distorted the fact."

What kind of men were they, this Kinsey team? The question remains: Who did these experiments? As noted, the Kinsey team reported on a cadre of "trained observers." In Kinsey's own words...

Better data came from adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys' experiences. Unfortunately ....[only] 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm. Some of these adults are technically trained persons who have kept diaries or other records which have been put at our disposal....on 317 pre-adolescents who were either observed in self- masturbation or....with other boys or older adults.

There are serious questions which must be answered by the Kinsey Institute directors-for Kinsey's is arguably the most influential model for scientific sex taught to the nations' schoolchildren today. The proposed Congressional investigation is critical for that reason alone. How did the Kinsey team know that an 11-month-old had 10 orgasms in one hour? How did they verify these data? Where were the children's parents? Have attempts been made to locate the children? Who were the subjects of Table 34? Certainly these were not the children pictured in the publicity photographs which were distributed to the press and the gullible academic world, such as the little, braided girl of roughly four years, sitting with "Uncle Prock" in innocent play. ......

Kinsey's Figures on Homosexuality

With the above in mind, it is shocking that, almost overnight, following release of Kinsey's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (and a succession of earlier private, public relations briefings at the Kinsey Institute for favorable interviewers), books, articles, films, news clips, cartoons, radio, TV, and front-page stories appeared coast to coast as part of a publicity campaign to institutionalize Kinsey's claims. Americans believed "the most famous man for ten years" that primitive, sexually permissive cultures were happier than were Mr. and Mrs. Jones.

However, without question, any "scientists" who reprint and encourage production of data on child sexuality which have been taken from child sex offenders engaged in "manual or oral" sex with babies and children, are not scientists but propagandists-indeed guilty of admitted criminal sexual conduct, by the descriptions in their publications, whether the sexual offender(s) were identified and prosecuted or not. To trust anything these men or their disciples produce is to put one's faith in those who use the language of science to accomplish personal, criminal, and/or sexual interests. Hence, whatever Kinsey's claims of homosexual percentages and normality were, these become, pragmatically, as invalid as his child sexuality data.

Kinsey fathered not only the sexual revolution, as Hugh Hefner and others have said, but the homosexual revolution as well. Harry Hay gave Kinsey that credit when Hay read in 1948 that Kinsey found "10%" of the male population homosexual. Following the successful path of the Black Civil Rights movement, Hay, a long-time communist organizer, said 10% was a political force which could be melded into a "sexual minority" only seeking "minority rights." With Kinsey as the wind in his sails, Hay formed the Mattachine Society.

But 26% (1,400) of Kinsey's alleged 5,300 white male subjects were already "sex offenders." As far as the data can be established, an additional 25% were incarcerated prisoners; some numbers were big city "pimps," "hold-up men," "thieves;" roughly 4% were male prostitutes as well as sundry other criminals; and some hundreds of homosexual activists at various "gay bars" and other haunts from coast to coast.[35] This group of social outcasts and deviants were then redefined by the Kinsey team as representing your average "Joe College." With adequate press and university publicity, the people believed what they were told by our respectable scientists, that mass sexual perversion was common nationwide-so our sex education and our laws must be changed to reflect Kinsey's "reality."

Following the release of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,[36] the then Kinsey Institute Director, Dr. June Reinisch, initiated a "CONFIDENTIAL," international, 87-page mass-mailing of accusatory materials calling upon recipients to repudiate "Judith Reisman's accusations." One of the accusations Reinisch wanted repudiated was the fact that Kinsey's 10% to 47% or more homosexual data were fraudulently generalized to the "general public." (Kinsey's homosexual figures were exposed as wholly false in 1948 by Albert Hobbs et al, as well as by several other scientists then and since.) In her letter to past Kinsey Director and Kinsey co-author Dr. Paul Gebhard, Reinisch denies the Kinsey team's culpability for the child sex abuse data and states that the Kinsey team never did "conduct experiments." She asks Gebhard's aid in discrediting me. She adds:

Further, with regard to sampling and the generalizability of the findings to a broader portion of Americans, throughout both volumes Kinsey very clearly identifies exactly which data from which groups he is referring to when drawing conclusions. He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public.

Unfortunately, Dr. Gebhard wrote back to Reinisch on December 6, 1990 that she was wrong and that Kinsey did use "the gay community," pedophiles and prisoners to generalize to the population at large. Gebhard writes:

In your recent letter of December 3, which I gather was sent to a number of individuals as well as me, you refuted Judith Reisman's allegations about Kinsey and the Institute. However, I fear that your final paragraph on page 1 may embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention. Hence I want to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage control might be devised. The paragraph ends with this sentence: "He never used data from the special samples, derived from such populations as the gay community or prisons, to generalize to the general public." This statement is incorrect. Kinsey did mix male prison inmates in with his sample used in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male....

As to generalizing to a wider population, in his first volume Kinsey did generalize to the entire U.S. population. See, for one example, the tables on page 188 and 220 where he clearly extrapolates to the U.S.....

I am distressed that neither you nor your staff seem to be familiar with Kinsey's first book nor with The Kinsey Data and consequently produced the erroneous statement in your letter.

Conclusion

Kinsey is a powerful example of one's personal orientation affecting one's science and the moral shape of society. What could be the motive of Kinsey's fraudulent data, which often found up to even half of average American males homosexual? Quite possibly, it amounts to Kinsey's wishful thinking, which he quantified in order to recreate others in his own distorted image. Was Kinsey himself a closet homosexual, pedophile or pederast?

In the past, science fraud has taken place for economic and political reasons-but with Kinsey, was his "science" rather the outgrowth of personal morality and sexual proclivity? If that were true, he has certainly not been the last. In recent years, the world has seen other "men of science" (Hamer, LeVay, Pillard et al) whose work lacks objectivity and who seem to be justifying their own lives with their [questionable] findings. Were these scientists making claims about beetles, fauna or supernovae, there would be less cause for alarm; however, the travesty is that-in a culture in which science is the preferred religion (a no-fault religion) and scientists its high priests-these men's words are being received as "gospel" (no matter how little factual basis they have) on a subject as important and wide- sweeping as human sexuality. Unfortunately, the scientific world and the western world at large has all too eagerly embraced Kinsey's work.

More here