Further evidence of the influence of gay activists over research and journalism abounds. Former Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital, Dr. Lorraine Day, in AIDS: What the Government Isn't Telling You, writes, "In our present academic atmosphere, controlled by grants and, hence, by politics that often are special interest politics, it is all too advantageous for someone with a yen for recognition and advancement to publish a 'scientific' article that toes the party line."133
Dr. Day documents some militant homosexuals' efforts to infect the national blood banks, citing the collection of blood in the gay Castro district of San Francisco. "Special interest blackmail dictates policy . . . . The likes of Castro blood drives are palmed off as humanitarian enterprises when, in fact, they are concessions to gay politics."134 Dr. Day cites an excerpt from the article by Robert Schwab, former president of the Texas Human Rights Foundation in the Dallas Gay News, May 20, 1983, recommending "blood terrorism:" "There has come the idea that if research money (for AIDS) is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. . . . Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it."135
And in 1990, while the Los Angeles Times quietly noted that twenty-four percent of intravenous drug abusers studied who donated blood to the blood bank had HIV,136 no data appeared on what percentage of this group was bi/homosexual. In AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic, Dr. Stanley Monteith, M.D. documents "[t]he frightening story telling how the AIDS and Gay Lobbies have been able to prevent physicians from monitoring or controlling this epidemic."137
Moreover, the effort to bring AIDS into the heterosexual world as the only way to ever get a cure appears as part of the homosexual literature. Homosexual activist Randy Shilts, in And the Band Played On, documents the efforts of "gay organizations" that "firmly opposed taking any action to screen blood donors saying the screening would pose serious civil rights questions."138 Shilts fairly reported, "hemophiliac organizations were stunned by the gay perspective. What about a hemophiliac's right to life? They asked."139 Once again, gay activists demonstrated that other people's lives are less important than promoting their own socio-sexual agenda.
The censorious tactics of gay activists are not limited to the media. Academia has been as bad, if not worse. In his seminal work, The Politics of Homosexuality, Toby Marotta, an "out" Harvard homosexual Ph.D. describes "[h]ow the media and establishment politicians were used to build gay power."140 Marotta states that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - trained in "zapping . . . GAA's trademark,"141 of any who rebuffed homosexuality142 - formed the "Gay Academic Union," (GAU) made up of faculty and students in major universities. Like the National Institute of Health (NIH), professional journals have commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research issues touching on homosexuality, assuring a quick death to possible unfavorable findings.143
The GAU has long fought for domination of its world-view within the academic community. One popularized establishment academician, Kate Millet, counseled the members of the GAU "we are . . . powered [by] and have lived and survived on the value, the energy of our [homosexual] passion."144 Millet argued that the nation should be changed to accept this "army of lovers" who will bring "the power of eros" into the lives of all Americans.145 In her interview in Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia's "Special Woman's Issue," Millet calls for "an emancipation proclamation for children" to legalize what she calls children's "non- exploitive" sex with adults or children, "probably heroic and very wonderful."146
As mentioned previously, researchers and academics with politically incorrect results or opinions often find their careers at a sudden dead end. Moreover, college campuses - ostensibly the bastion of intellectual freedom - have become a haven for violent homosexual extremists.
Ex-gay speakers and those critical of the homosexual movement face such silencing everywhere. The outspoken and brilliant "pagan" lesbian Camille Paglia described her reaction to the tactics employed by ACT-UP, a radical homosexual organization:
ACT-UP's hysteria made me reconsider those vilified therapists and ministers who think change of homosexual orientation is possible and whose meetings are constantly disrupted by gay agitators. Is gay identify so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? . . . . . . . If a gay man wants to marry and sire children, why should he be harassed by gay activists . . . ? [Counseling should not be] strafed by gay artillery fire of reverse moralism. Heterosexual love . . . is in sync with cosmic forces. Not everyone has the stomach for daily war with nature.147
Paglia's observation that "[h]eterosexual love . . . is in sync with cosmic forces"148 is one that is not supported in the current political climate. One can see the development of a two-tiered pattern of suppression: (1) Bi/homosexuals at the National Institute of Health or on peer review committees try to quash funding or publication of studies by researchers who appear to have negative findings on homosexuality;149 (2) Should an occasional study or article of homosexual harms get published, the press commonly ignores ("spikes") those studies, focusing on those that are favorable to the politically correct point of view.
Absent any biological evidence of genetic predisposition, youths who present as bi/homosexual commonly exhibit classical symptoms of childhood trauma (parental violence, alcoholism, sex abuse and/or other dysfunctions).150 Concerned lest the public become aware of the traumatic histories of most allegedly "gay" youth, National Research Council advisor and Kinsey researcher John Gagnon directed sex researchers to hide the causes of homosexuality:
The wish of some gay men and lesbians to locate the origins for their desires in . . . biology or early experience deserves a respectful response even though I think it to be wrong. . . .
. . . Attempts to placate the oppressors will only invite further persecution. The source of freedom in everyday life for gay men and lesbians is continued vigilance and practical political action.151
Gagnon's mandate is not science, but propaganda. Eager to conceal any causes rooted in bad parenting or early sex abuse which suggest adult irresponsibility, even crime, gay activists formed groups like PROJECT 10, PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgendered)152 youth. Since historical, cross-cultural, literary and testimonial evidence clearly identifies a homosexual etiology of family disorders, it is understandable that many parents zealously insist their child was "born that way," avoiding the personal blame and public disgrace inherent in having placed their offspring in harm's way. But, how did two and one-half percent of America's leaders,153 largely America's intellectual community, adopt these radical new views on sex and homosexuality?
To answer that question we turn to Alfred C. Kinsey. In 1989 the prestigious National Research Council proclaimed that sex science "can be divided somewhat crudely into the pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey eras."154 At the time of this writing, 20th Century Fox announced plans for a major film on Kinsey's life, with Tom Hanks or Harrison Ford glamorizing the Indiana sex revolutionary.155
On April 23, 2000, The New York Times Book Review celebrated the fact that Indiana University had given America "the man whose studies started the sex revolution."156 And, on April 17, 2000, Salon's Scott McLemee wrote:
Kinsey's effect on society was profound and enduring. It did not rise and fall with his bestseller status . . . [but became] the manifestoes of sexual revolution and the counterculture . . . .
The history of sex in America falls into two large, unequal, yet clearly defined periods. The first era belonged to the Puritans, the Victorians . . . . This epoch of libidinal prohibition lasted until Jan. 4, 1948. The following day, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana published "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." Whereupon, as the expression has it, the earth moved.157
Since 1948, Kinsey has continually fashioned the American libido. As The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), the world's largest pederast organization, says any who would understand the modern theater of "sexual orientation" must "know Kinsey's work" for implicit in it is the struggle for pedophile control of America's children. "Gay liberationists in general, and boy-lovers in particular, should know Kinsey's work and hold it dear."158 "[I]mplicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today."159
Why is Kinsey's role as the father of sex "science" important to any debate about homosexuality and sex education in the schools? The mandate to teach bi/homosexual and heterosexual experimentation as legitimate for children and youths originated with Kinsey's data, which formulated a revolutionary belief in child and juvenile sexual need and entitlement. Many Americans born post WWII may not recall the Kinsey team and their reports, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male160 (hereinafter Male) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.161 A vast and meticulously orchestrated media-relations campaign made Kinsey a household name and heralded him as a folk hero in over seventy percent of the nation's press.162
Life, Look, Time and every other major mainstream magazine promoted his bold sex "findings" as heroic scientific truth.163 Indiana University had set the stage by posing zoologist Kinsey as a conservative Republican academic, a family man, who serendipitously stumbled onto sex research only to discover that while Americans pretended to be virtuous, virginal, monogamous, and faithfully heterosexual, they were really hypocritical and promiscuous.164 Kinsey claimed ninety-five percent of men were really sex offenders and from ten percent to thirty- seven percent were occasional homosexual adventurers.165 Camille Paglia wrote insightfully about Kinsey's fraudulent ten percent finding and its service to the homosexual movement.
The ten percent figure, servilely repeated by the media, was pure propaganda, and it made me, as a scholar, despise gay activists for their unscrupulous disregard for the truth. [Homosexuals were too well aware that one in ten of the men that they met were not "gay."] Their fibs and fabrications continue, now about the still-fragmentary evidence for a genetic link to homosexuality and for homosexual behavior among animals.166
As Pagilia suggests, Kinsey was long ago exposed as a scientific fraud. Both of Kinsey's most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff, and the staff's wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic.167 Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, had "front" marriages, which concealed their strategies to supplant what they saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise.168 We now know Kinsey, for example, "was deeply influenced by five pedophile headmasters who were quite clear they had very warm relationships with young adolescent boys of twelve or thirteen" in one New England area.169 An early adherent and advocate of masturbation, Kinsey suffered an untimely death due, at least in part, to "orchitis," a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of sadistic, orgiastic "self-abuse."170 Kinsey's obsessive, brutally masochistic masturbation methods appear to have assisted in his early demise.
Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal "child sexuality."171 Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey's research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.172 For example, "Table 34" on page 181 of Kinsey's Male volume, claims to be a "scientific" record of "multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males."173 Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stop watch for "orgasm" by Kinsey's "technically trained" aides, with one four-year-old tested twenty-four consecutive hours for an alleged twenty-six orgasms.174 Sex educators, pedophiles, and their advocates commonly quote these child "data" to prove children's need for homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual satisfaction via "safe-sex" education.175 These data are also regularly used to "prove" children are sexual from birth.
Kinsey's closet team 1) "forced" subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions,176 2) secretly trashed three quarters of their research data,177 and 3) based their claims about normal males on a roughly eighty-six percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes, and promiscuous homosexuals.178 Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man "married," reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as "Susie Homemaker."179 How could a dry, scientific tome be hyped globally to bestseller status and draw no questions from skeptical reporters (there was no NLGJA in those years) or scientists as to where children for human sexual experiments were obtained when the nation was still reeling from Nuremberg? In his Male volume, Kinsey defined children's torment ("screaming," "writhing in pain," "fainting," "convulsions," etc.)180 as "orgasms" for infants too young to speak. Who sexually tested these children? Where were the parents? Among thousands of international reviews of the Kinsey Reports, no one asked these questions of the man who, as Gore Vidal declared, was "the most famous man for a decade,"181 and who, more specifically for this writing, is the man the homosexual and pedophile movement thank for their advance.182
Dr. E. Michael Jones, in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control,183 discusses the effort to suppress this author's early findings on the Kinsey fraud and on child pornography - an effort that directly resembles the current media spin controls and suppression of critical findings on homosexuality:
On July 23, 1981, Reisman delivered a paper entitled "The Scientist as a Contributing Agent to Child Sexual Abuse: A Preliminary Study," in which she brought up for the first time in the thirty-two years since it had been published, the material on child sexuality in Tables 30-34 of the Kinsey Male volume and wondered how this data could have been obtained without involvement in criminal activity. Before giving her report, Reisman had written to Male volume co-author Paul Gebhard to ask about the data in Tables 30-34. Gebhard wrote back saying that the data had been obtained from parents, school teachers, and some male homosexuals, including "some of Kinsey's men" who had used "manual and oral techniques" to catalogue the number of orgasms they said they could stimulate in infants and children. Virtually the entire sex industry-sex research establishment worldwide was in attendance at the meeting in Jerusalem, but the reaction to the talk was silence, stunned or sullen or otherwise, until a Swedish reporter wondered out loud why the assembled experts had nothing to say.
The silence was understandable. Just about everyone in attendance had cited Kinsey as their mentor, and some even knew about the criminal activity involved in Kinsey's research. They all knew that Kinsey's research was the basis of their "science," which is to say, the legitimizing basis for everything they did. Kinsey was the foundation of that house of cards. If what he had done could be discredited, it threatened the sexual empire which had been built since his death and upon which they all depended for a livelihood. Later when word got out that Reisman had government money to pursue her thesis and show a link between Kinsey's exploitation of child "sexuality" and Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler's exploitation of the same thing, stunned silence turned to determined, if behind the scenes, action.184
Notre Dame Law Professor Charles E. Rice later commented that this author's study "supports the conclusion that Alfred Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty."185 Yet in the nearly twenty years (1982-2000) since Kinsey was exposed as a fraud, Westlaw journal articles cite Kinsey positively roughly 650 times - from hate crimes and homosexual marriage to child custody and rape. The Social Science and Science Citation Indices reference Kinsey roughly 6000 times over this same period. On the evidence, Kinsey is far and away the most influential sex scientist in the law.186 Fully 100% of the sex science citations in the original 1955 American Law Institute's "Model Penal Code" cite Kinsey's bogus data on "normal sexuality" - alive today in courts and legislatures.187
Pioneering the current Kirk and Madsen model, Kinsey's critics were largely silenced and/or slandered by Kinsey and the establishment media (which celebrated his discoveries on the cover of seventy percent of American newspapers)188 and "jammed" critics as sexually repressed, ignorantly religious, mean spirited, unscientific, and backward versus Kinsey (using many photographs) as a normal, middle-American husband and father and a scholarly seeker of truth. Continued media applause desensitized the public. Kinsey was praised as the prophet of the sexual revolution. In her latest book on the subject,189 this author argues that America's growing libidinous pathologies - taught as "safe" and "safer" sex in primary, secondary, and graduate schools and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law, and public policy - largely mirror the documented190 sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey Institute team itself.191
This "free sex" movement coarsened the populace by demoting sex from its rarified, idealistic, marital pedestal and private expression into ye old pagan rituals of public display, discourse and performance. One of the end results of Kinsey's "grand scheme" would be the revival of the traffic in both adult and child heterosexual and homosexual prostitution and pornography.
"The White Slave Trade," i.e. sex traffic in women and children, was crippled in 1912 by the Mann Act,192 based on the realization that, unless they are prematurely interfered with, or suffer from genitally related hygenic or medical problems, preadolescent children are normally asexual and deserving of governmental protection from adult sexual predators. Child prostitution centers closed everywhere and venereally-infected and dying children were nursed and buried by women's church groups. However, after Kinsey the child sex industry rose again,193 carried forward by two Kinsey acolytes. A virginal college youth, Hugh Hefner, read Kinsey and became his "pamphleteer" aiming to legitimize adult and, more subtly, child194 pornography.195
Harry Hay, a bisexual molested as a fourteen-year-old boy,196 read Kinsey's claim that ten to thirty-seven percent of men are sometime- homosexuals, left his wife and children, and began the campaign to legitimize sodomy. Hay elevated sodomy from a defining pathological and illegal act to a state of being. Homosexuals, Hay said, are an oppressed "minority"197 deserving special or civil rights, thereby spawning the "gay" rights movement.
Kinsey's anthem of sexual promiscuity without consequences would be played out over the decades, but Kinsey's data deliberately covered up the disastrous consequences of deprivatizing sex to promote greater "public sexual expression" - increased prostitution, public sexual solicitations, sodomy and obscenity, venereal disease, illegitimacy, abortion and finally drug abuse, suicide, rape, homicide, child sexual abuse, and a myriad of other social disorders. Absent bad consequences, Kinsey, Hefner, Hay, The American Law Institute, etc., said that laws restricting public or private sexual activity were obsolete. After 1948, pressured by media and scholars, and with the legal profession parroting the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey, the omnipresent "vice squads" rapidly disappeared.198 Kinsey admirer and Princeton historian David Allyn explained:
[Kinsey undermined] the very legitimacy of public morality itself . . . . In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of "public morals," a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870's onward . . . . Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was virtually silent when it came to questions of public sexuality; this silence served Kinsey's deregulatory ends.199
"Consent" has become the moral imperative surrounding sexual conduct. Not only has "consent" legalized unwed sex between adults ("fornication"), but implicitly between youths as well, justifying "safe sex" instruction to schoolchildren and even allowing Harvard Ph.D. John Money, Johns Hopkins Professor Emeritus, to claim that should a boy die, having been party to "a death pact, [as] a couple who are sadomasochistic," perhaps that should be legal if "it was totally a consensual relationship."200
Kinsey had a profound impact on psychiatry. Before Kinsey, psychiatry had a long tradition of believing that "too much sex is a bad thing . . . that masturbation is unhealthy, and psycho-dynamically oriented thinkers have written on Don Juanism and nymphomania."201 But, Kinsey and his followers taught clinicians that "sexual hypofunction . . . is natural, healthy, and pleasurable. Mastery of masturbation is now seen as an important first lesson for the patient or couple undergoing sex therapy."202 Moreover, his pedophile data203 claiming that children are "sexual from birth," are carved into the fabric of science, pedagogy, and law. This "fact" is still taught worldwide to psychiatrists, pediatricians, psychologists, sexologists, pedagogues, law and justice professionals, media moguls, theologians, public policy makers, and other movers and shakers - moms and dads.
Kinsey's pedophile data "proving" infants and children capable and deserving of orgasm from birth, and homosexuality and sodomy as normal, have justified teaching "sexual diversity" from grade school onward. With childbirth the only undesirable sexual outcome, and sodomy and masturbation (alone, in dyads, or groups) taught as harmless contraceptives and part of a well-rounded sexual repertoire, schoolchildren would be smoothly socialized into the hypersexual culture.
Next Page:
V. Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth
1,
2, 3,
4,
5,
6,
7