Educazione sessuale? Dietro c'è la lobby dei pedofili - di Josip Horvaticek

In NBQ 

I programmi di educazione sessuale per i bambini recentemente imposti in Croazia, ma già attuati in molti paesi secondo il metodo Kinsey, sono stati redatti da pedofili. E’ quanto sostiene la studiosa americana Judith Reisman che, invitata recentemente in Croazia per una serie di incontri e conferenze legate alla recente introduzione di (sconvolgenti) corsi di educazione sessuale, ha anche dimostrato i legami di questa lobby con la Fondazione Soros.

Judith Reisman, in passato consulente dell’FBI nonché del Parlamento e di diversi ministeri statunitensi, è uno dei maggiori esperti mondiali sul malfamato Kinsey Institute e il suo fondatore, Alfred Kinsey. La dottoressa Reisman ha dolorosamente vissuto in prima persona gli effetti della diffusione delle teorie di Kinsey: una figlia di dieci anni è stata stuprata da un violentatore seriale tredicenne, accanito lettore di Playboy. Dopo avere constatato come molte persone giustificassero questo atto affermando che forse la figlia era stata consenziente poiché i bambini sarebbero esseri sessuali, cioè desidererebbero il sesso, fin dalla nascita - una delle teorie di Kinsey -, la Reisman ha iniziato a studiare gli effetti di queste teorie, constatando come esse abbiano provocato nel secondo dopoguerra una diffusione esponenziale della pornografia e della pedofilia.

Considerate queste premesse, non sorprende che, una volta appreso dell’arrivo di Judith Reisman, i media croati di sinistra e laicisti, che appoggiano il governo nel suo programma di educazione sessuale, abbiano allestito una vera e propria propaganda di guerra nei confronti della scienziata americana, fatta di menzogne, insulti personali e diffamazioni, tra le quali quella di essere una «negatrice dell’Olocausto», il che, detto di un’ebrea americana che ha perso la maggior parte del ramo europeo della sua famiglia nei campi di concentramento nazisti, ha rappresentato un segno di inciviltà e arretratezza culturale veramente deprecabili.

I toni non sono scesi neppure durante la sua permanenza in Croazia. Al termine della lezione tenuta presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche, la dottoressa Reisman è stata aggredita verbalmente dal preside della medesima Facoltà, Nenad Zakošek. Alcune forze politiche di governo hanno cercato di impedire una conferenza della studiosa americana nel Parlamento croato, mentre il previsto dibattito alla Facoltà di Filosofia tra la dottoressa Reisman e il prof. Aleksandar Štulhofer, discepolo di Kinsey e ideatore del programma di educazione sessuale adottato dal Ministero croato per l'istruzione, è stato sospeso per ‘motivi di ordine pubblico’ a causa della ressa, creata ad arte dai gruppi appartenenti alla galassia omosessuale, che si è creata nell'aula dove il dibattito si sarebbe dovuto tenere.

Un improvviso ‘problema tecnico’ ha interrotto subito dopo l’inizio la proiezione del documentario su Kinsey del giornalista britannico Timothy Tate, collaboratore della dottoressa Reisman, in uno dei più grandi e moderni cinema di Zagabria alla presenza dell’autore e di circa 800 persone (tale problema non si era presentato nella proiezione di prova del DVD né a un successivo tentativo a porte chiuse compiuto in un altro locale).  Un altro guasto, questa volta al sistema di amplificazione, ha poi impedito alla dottoressa Reisman e a Tate di tenere un’improvvisata conferenza dal palco del cinema che sostituisse la proiezione del film.

Questi avvenimenti hanno peraltro provocato la durissima reazione della sezione croata del Comitato di Helsinki.
 

In ogni caso la Reisman ha avuto modo di stupire i suoi ascoltatori non solo illuminando la figura di Alfred Kinsey (in Parlamento, davanti agli attoniti parlamenmtari del centro-destra che l’avevano invitata, lo ha definito il «pedofilo che ha cambiato il mondo» e uno «psicopatico sessuale che ha contaminato le nostre famiglie, la nostra cultura, le nostre leggi»), ma soprattutto ricostruendo l’origine dei programmi di educazione sessuale imposti alla Croazia. La studiosa americana ha rivelato come il professor Štulhofer abbia scritto un libro con lo studioso olandese pedofilo Theo Sandford, attualmente professore presso la Columbia University. Va notato che Sandford non è un esimio professore universitario con inconfessabili vizi privati, bensì un pedofilo dichiarato, co-fondatore e redattore della rivista olandese in lingua inglese di pedofili dichiarati Paidika, nonché autore di uno studio che si può trovare anche in rete dal titolo Boys on their contacts with men: a study of sexually expressed friendships (I ragazzi maschi nei contatti con gli uomini adulti: uno studio di amicizie espresse sessualmente), che non si limita a compiere un’indagine sulla pedofilia, ma esprime sulla stessa una chiara valutazione positiva.

In una successiva conferenza stampa, il giornalista inglese Timothy Tate ha poi affermato come Štulhofer abbia avuto non solamente uno, bensì tre collaboratori pedofili dichiarati e propagandisti della liceità della pedofilia, e cioè - oltre a Sandford - il sessuologo americano Vern Bullough, scomparso nel 2006,  e il sessuologo tedesco Erwin J. Haeberle.

Bullough è stato, come Sandford, cofondatore e redattore di Paidika. Nella dichiarazione di intenti relativa a questa pubblicazione, egli afferma: «Il punto di partenza di Paidika è necessariamente la coscienza del nostro essere pedofili. Consideriamo la pedofilia come un rapporto sessuale consenziente tra persone di generazioni diverse».

In un’intervista concessa nel 1978 alla rivista pornografica americana Hustler, Haeberle ha invece affermato che è del tutto normale avere rapporti sessuali con bambini, i quali dovrebbero avere libero accesso ai libri per adulti – cioè pornografici – ed essere liberi di scegliere i propri partner sessuali, ivi inclusi gli adulti. Questo pedofilo dichiarato è stato membro dal 1977 al 1988 dell'Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, che ha redatto la maggior parte dei programmi di educazione sessuale nel mondo, corredato di fotografie pornografiche anche di bambini in seguito vendute a Hustler.

Una prova della stretta collaborazione tra Štulhofer e questi colleghi sessuologi pedofili è l’avere fatto parte tutti e quattro del comitato organizzatore di un convegno internazionale di sessuologi tenutosi a Dubrovnik, in Croazia, nel 2001 e finanziato dalla fondazione Soros.

Della stessa tendenza è un altro collaboratore di Štulhofer, il sessuologo tedesco Gunther Schmidt, il quale ha scritto la prefazione al libro di Sandford Male Intergenerational Intimacy (trad.: Intimità intergenerazionale tra maschi), affermando tra l’altro: «La minaccia che tutti gli atti di pedofilia vengano puniti dalla legge molto difficilmente potrebbe essere considerata un’azione degna di una società civile … Ciò rappresenta una discriminazione e la persecuzione di una minoranza, e quindi tali disposizioni di legge andrebbero abrogate».

Judith Reisman ha quindi provato che il programma di educazione sessuale imposto in Croazia, preparato secondo il metodo Kinsey dal prof. Štulhofer, è simile, quanto ai suoi tre scopi principali, a quasi tutti i programmi di educazione sessuale adottati a livello mondiale. Si tratta cioè del tentativo di sessualizzare i bambini e fornire 'carne fresca' per le voglie malsane di adulti perversi, di sdoganare l’omosessualità e altri gravi disordini della personalità come normali manifestazioni della sessualità umana, nonché di rendere i giovani dipendenti dal sesso a tutto vantaggio dell’industria della pornografia e dei preservativi, e ciò con il pretesto della lotta alle malattie trasmissibili sessualmente.

La presenza della dottoressa Reisman in Croazia ha provocato un terremoto che ha fatto vacillare i palazzi della politica, e ha indotto il governo a muoversi anche per vie diplomatiche. Secondo quanto rivelano fonti della Curia romana, l’ambasciatore croato presso la Santa Sede, Filip Vucak, avrebbe avuto un incontro con il segretario per i rapporti con gli Stati, mons. Dominique Mamberti, allo scopo di ammorbidire la posizione della Chiesa sulla questione, ricevendo un netto rifiuto da parte del suo interlocutore vaticano.

In un Paese democratico, la presentazione delle prove inconfutabili degli stretti legami di collaborazione tra l'ideatore di questo programma e i circoli pedofili, oltre a conseguenze di natura penale per l’interessato, avrebbe portato alle immediate dimissioni di Štulhofer e di tutti i funzionari del Ministero dell’Istruzione coinvolti nell'elaborazione del programma, ivi incluso lo stesso ministro. Non così nella Croazia di oggi che si appresta a entrare nell’Unione Europea. Anzi, passato il “terremoto” Reisman, i media di regime hanno fatto calare il silenzio sulla vicenda, e Štulhofer viene spesso chiamato in televisione a pontificare su questioni di sessualità, specialmente infantile (!) e giovanile, mentre nelle scuole elementari vengono proposti ai bambini di dieci anni temi di ‘lingua croata’ in cui si rappresentano situazioni esplicitamente sessuali.

Post-Kinsey: Is There Anything Normal About Pornography? - by Cassandra Hough

An “adaptationist” approach to pornography is dangerous because it ignores widespread research showing that pornography harms society at many levels.

by Cassandra Hough

In The Public Discourse

More than fifty years after Alfred Kinsey’s discoveries about human sexuality, two neuroscientists have offered what they hope is an improved answer to the question of human sexual desire. To access and analyze the sexual desires of human beings on a mass scale, Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam studied the internet use of more than a hundred million men and women across the globe. In their book, A Billion Wicked Thoughts, they share their findings based on their analysis of the websites, erotic videos, and even the digitized romance novels that these users frequent.

Ogas and Gaddam warn the reader in the preface of the explicit nature of their study, and they hold nothing back in presenting a very vivid picture of human sexual tastes. “The sexual brain is guaranteed to upset the politically correct, the socially conservative, and just about everyone in between,” they write, adding that readers are “certain to be challenged and occasionally dumbfounded.”

The first part of their book details the most obvious observations about male and female desire. Men are highly visual and easily aroused by certain parts of the female anatomy. Their search histories show a preference for these feminine parts, as well as a preference for younger women. Women are more complex, and often need many physical and psychological requirements to be met before experiencing arousal. Women are largely attracted to the strength and power status of alpha males. While men often satisfy their desires through pornography, women look to the romance novel. Ogas and Gaddam compare male desire to the cartoon character Elmer Fudd, “wabbit” hunter: Men are “solitary, quick to arouse, goal-oriented, driven to hunt … and a little foolish.” They nickname female desire the “Miss Marple Detective Agency,” for its aim to “uncover, scrutinize, and evaluate a dazzling range of informative clues” present in potential sexual partners. Though men and women seem to share the same brain circuitry governing physical arousal, psychological arousal, sexual reward systems, motivation, and response to sexual cues, Ogas and Gaddam assert that “there are dramatic differences in how these components operate” in the sexes.

To explain these differences, the authors rely on evolutionary theory. Men have developed visual cues to help them identify women who are most likely to provide healthy children for many years to come. Women have developed their complex system of visual and psychological cues in order to identify the men most likely to protect them and their offspring, and they then weigh the various risks associated with pursuing sex.

Surprising and challenging content follows these chapters, where Ogas and Gaddam detail desires too graphic to recount here (let it suffice to say that BDSM is on the tamer end). It is in these pages that their use of the “adaptationist lens” becomes a problem: Rather than account for their findings by discussing the desire and pleasure systems in the brain already known to us, and how those systems might account for the abnormality of the “politically incorrect” desires they have discovered, Ogas and Gaddam simply explain these desires by proposing other “cues.” For example, to explain why some men are aroused by seeing their wife or girlfriend cheating on them, they suggest a “cuckold cue” that leads to a desire for “cuckold pornography.” To account for some women’s attraction to rapists and paranormal heroes such as vampires and werewolves, the authors conclude that these women must be attracted to men who are, in a sense, the alpha of alphas—extreme loci of male social status and power.

By taking an “adaptationist” approach, Ogas and Gaddam can only conclude that labeling these darker desires as anything other than a healthy part of sexual life is a matter of fearing the unconventional. In their last chapter, they reflect on the diversity of sexual interests that their study revealed, noting that it may be “hard for us to accept that other people’s most intimate desires are different from our own—and when confronted with this fact, we often dismiss their desires as deviant or dangerous or just plain hurtful.” They go on to assert that “science can’t offer any moral prescription about which [sexual] cues should be judged acceptable,” but that “we can accept our fantasies without becoming slaves to them.”

But can we? As evidenced by works such as The Social Costs of Pornography, numerous scholars have agreed that there are myriad harms associated with the pornography industry and with pornography use that reach everyone—individuals, couples, children, the economy, and society at large. Science may not be moral philosophy, but science can help us distinguish what is healthy from what is unhealthy, and it can help us make reasonable, practical, and ethical judgments about behaviors that should and should not be encouraged. And science has spoken quite definitively that pornography should not be encouraged if we are to preserve the health of individuals and communities.

See, for example, the work of neuropsychiatrist Norman Doidge in his book The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science. Building from an explanation of the two pleasure systems that operate in the brain (one that regulates “appetitive” pleasure—the pleasure of desire—and one that regulates “consummatory” pleasure—the pleasure of satisfying desire), Doidge concludes that the brain is quite malleable when it comes to pornography use. New brain maps develop that reinforce the pathways connecting pornographic viewing with excitatory pleasure (and dopamine release).

There is an irony in Doidge’s findings. Contrary to popular culture’s promise that pornography offers a healthy and pleasurable outlet for sexual tension, his research shows that using pornography often only increases and exacerbates such tension. Doidge notes that many of his male patients “often craved pornography but didn’t like it.” For both men and women, exposure to pornography decreases sexual satisfaction with one’s partner. He explains that what pornography “often delivers is an addiction, tolerance, and an eventual decrease in pleasure.”

Journalist Pamela Paul reached similar conclusions in her survey of pornography users. She discovered that for many individuals, using pornography quickly becomes a slippery slope, where users seek out and become habituated to material they once held in disgust, such as “bestiality, group sex, hard-core S&M, genital torture, and child pornography.” For some, this slippery slope quickly leads to a form of addiction.

It would be unreasonable to suggest that all of the subjects that Ogas and Gaddam studied were sex addicts, but in light of the above-cited research, it is reasonable to at least question the subjects’ sexual mental health. Ogas and Gaddam take it for granted that pornography is a normal, healthy part of the human sexual experience. By using widespread internet use to show just how common and “normal” deviant sexual desires and interests are, their methodology takes its cue from the Kinsey mentality that deviant sexual behavior begins in infancy and is not so deviant after all.

Ogas and Gaddam claim that their wide-reaching survey of “millions” improves upon Kinsey’s “landmark” study. To the contrary, they fail in many of the same ways Kinsey did. Kinsey may have surveyed 18,000 subjects for his report, but hundreds of his subjects were sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates, and exhibitionists. Another several hundred were mere children. Kinsey’s “science” not only drew from an unrepresentative sample of people, it drew from unhealthy members of society and, in the case of the children studied, from the sexually abused.

Even if we grant that Ogas’s and Gaddam’s research represents the desires of millions, it is a far stretch to claim that their sample is a representative one. Although the amount of online pornography consumed is astounding, only one in four internet users views a pornographic website in a given month. This means that Ogas and Gaddam neglected to account for the sexual desires of the vast majority—75 percent—of people who comprise their target population. Moreover, when one considers current research that details the harmful effects of frequent pornography use on one’s brain and social relationships, there is reason to question whether Ogas’s and Gaddam’s study represents human desire more broadly, as it claims, or whether it reflects the desires of the sexually troubled.

Overall, the authors’ study is limited by subscribing to a type of biological determinism where the sexual cues in our brains determine our desires and thereby excuse them. In this way, Ogas and Gaddam take the ideology of Kinsey a step further. It is both unscientific and unacceptable that the Kinsey reports have been hailed for over half a century as a liberating turning point in American sexual identity, awareness, and health. We would be wise to keep the reports of A Billion Wicked Thoughts from being acclaimed in the same way.

Unmasking Alfred Kinsey

Dr. Judith Reisman Institute for Media Education

Sexual anarchy: The Kinsey legacy

by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.

August 24, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Our children are under attack by an insidious and virulent enemy.

On August 17, 2011, more than 50 activists attended a conference for “minor-attracted adults,” i.e., pedophiles, which sought to eliminate the “stigma” attached to pedophilia and to redefine pedophilia as a normal “sexual orientation.” The United States Department of Justice has determined that 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims are boys under the age of 12 and that 58,200 children were kidnapped by non-family members in 1999.

So-called “experts” in the field of human sexuality claim that children are sexual not only from birth, but even in the womb and are willing participants in sexual acts with adults.

Children are encouraged to experiment with sex early and often and to engage in sex with members of the same-sex as well as the opposite sex. Sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers are at epidemic proportions, and new and sometimes fatal strands of diseases are being reported. More than 50,000 teens have contracted HIV which has advanced to full blown AIDS and by 1992 more than 7,000 boys and 1,500 girls have died from HIV/AIDS.

How did we get here? How do we stop the madness before we lose an entire generation?

The question of how we got here can be answered by two words: Alfred Kinsey. Even 55 years after his death, Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey continues to profoundly affect American culture. Two of his most ardent supporters, Dr. Carol Vance, Columbia University anthropologist and lesbian activist, and Dr. John Money, an “out” pedophile advocate and pioneer of transgender surgery at Johns Hopkins, have cogently summed up Dr. Kinsey’s legacy – a legacy they consider sexual “progress” but is in reality sexual anarchy.

Speaking at a 1998 Kinsey symposium of fellow sexologists at San Francisco State University, Dr. Vance said, “Biography is the battleground.”[1] Should Kinsey be discredited, she warned, “200 years of sexual progress can be undone.”

Dr. Vance’s statements echo comments made in 1981 by Dr. Money at the 5th World Congress of Sexology in Israel. They also agreed that the information contained in Table 34, below, and the other data chronicling Kinsey’s and his team’s widespread child abuse, described in detail in Kinsey’s 1948 study on male sexuality, would be the undoing of the “Pre and Post Kinsey eras” globally and in the USA.

In fact, Dr. John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute said at the 1998 conference, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of Kinsey’s studies, that he “prayed” that a British television program, “Secret History: Kinsey Paedophiles,” would never be shown in the United States because the public would not understand the “science” involved in Kinsey’s publication of tables 30-34. He understood that should those tables be widely publicized in the United States, then the whole field of human sexuality and human sex education would be destroyed.

This field of human sexuality and human sex education and 200 years of “sexual progress” that these elite “scientists” were so worried would be destroyed is better described as sexual anarchy. This sexual anarchy that has given these scientists and their followers prestige, money, credibility and control over the deconstruction of the Judeo-Christian civil society was crafted by Dr. Kinsey.

A gall-wasp zoologist at Indiana University from 1920 to his death in 1956, Dr. Kinsey is most famous for his earth-shaking books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)[2] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953),[3] funded by Indiana University and the Rockefeller Foundation. Dr. Kinsey said that his mission was to eliminate the sexually “repressive” legal and behavioral legacy of Judeo Christianity. He claimed that this “repressive” sexual legacy was responsible for socio-sexual ills like divorce, rape, illegitimacy, venereal disease, juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, homosexuality, adultery, and child sexual abuse.

Furthermore, he argued that if we Americans would admit that we really were engaged in widespread licentious conduct, instead of hypocritically denying it, then these socio-sexual ills would be dramatically reduced.

In large measure, Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been accomplished, mostly posthumously, by his legion of true believers–elitists who have systematically brainwashed their fellow intellectual elites to adopt Kinsey’s pan-sexual secular worldview and jettison the Judeo Christian worldview upon which this country was founded and flourished.

The result of Dr. Kinsey’s mission has been totally antithetical to the utopia he predicted. Instead of reducing the socio-sexual ills that he claimed were rampant in pre-Kinsey America, the implementation of the Kinsey worldview has increased extant global sexual trauma while ushering in a host of new ills that are objectively defined as sexual anarchy. Like a cancer spreading throughout the body, sexual anarchy has spread throughout the fabric of society, affecting every aspect of American life and every man, woman and child.

According to the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey “study,” his “science” proved that humans had all along been copulating like insects or monkeys but systematically and hypocritically lying about their conduct. Adults claimed they were virgins, or maritally faithful, but, according to Kinsey, the truth was that most people were promiscuous and the widespread promiscuity had done no harm to the civil society.

Therefore, Kinsey said, all of the laws restraining sexual behavior–the laws that had favored and protected women, children and the family for generations –were simply old-fashioned leftovers from an uninformed and hypocritical era. Such sex laws were no longer valid in a “sexually enlightened and honest era.”

Enter “Kinsey’s pamphleteer,” Hugh Hefner and his Playboy magazine. At Kinsey’s urging, the country’s laws were gutted to resemble the free love, free life style Kinsey alleged Americans were living all along, and could finally live out with a free and open spirit–no more lies or pretense. Thus the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code jettisoned the “common law” sexual standards that were based upon Biblical authority/precedent for “scientific law” based on Kinsey’s allegedly “objective data.”

The ALI recommended laws trivializing rape and allowing fornication, cohabitation, sodomy and adultery. Shortly thereafter, fornication, cohabitation and adultery were decriminalized so that they would become common, normal, and harmless, as Kinsey said they had been all along. In 1957, the United States Department of Defense used Kinsey and his team to conclude that homosexuals do not pose a security risk.

The ALI also recommended changing the definition of obscenity, which the Supreme Court did in 1960. That same year Kinsey’s claim that 10% to 37% of the male population is at least sometimes homosexual was used to promote “gay rights” in elite professions, e.g., medicine, psychiatry, social work, education, etc.

In 1961, Illinois became the first state to legalize heterosexual sodomy. In 1962 Ralph Slovenko wrote in the Vanderbilt Law Review that four or five year olds are provocateurs: “Even at the age of four or five, this seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense.”

That same year, the United States Supreme Court declared prayer in public schools unconstitutional[4] and the following year declared that Bible reading in public schools was unconstitutional.[5] The Judeo-Christian worldview was expunged from the classroom. Schools could no longer teach that fornication, adultery or cohabitation were illegal, nor could the health teachers imply that sex should be confined to marriage because that would reflect a “religious,” thus allegedly a non-scientific, worldview.

The only avenue remaining for the teaching of human reproduction was the “scientific,” i.e., Kinseyan, secular worldview.

By 1968 over 51,000 sex professionals had been trained by the unaccredited IASHS (Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality) to teach Kinseyan sexuality in schools and medical schools and to design school sex education curricula. In 1975, the IASHS began to accredit sex educators in “safe sex” through the Ph.D. level.

Contraception became a necessity in the face of the radical changes in the sexual landscape, and so it was legalized in 1965.[6]

TABLE 34, one of five tables documenting the Kinsey team’s child sexual abuse protocol in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).

As evidence of lack of “consent” became the only criteria for sex crimes, alleged rape victims were commonly challenged as “liking” the rough sex and as consenting to the sexual activity. Prostitution and rape were increasingly referred to as “victimless crimes” in the courts and in the media.

Thus, the right to have sex for ‘fun’ and profit became the justification for a sex industry, inaugurated by Kinsey’s publicist, Hugh Hefner, that includes child and adult pornography, exhibitionism, prostitution and strip clubs, to name a few. That industry has grown to a multi-billion dollar market, giving its purveyors the resources and clout to negotiate grants to sexology research groups and organizations that create the sex education curricula for the nation’s schools, as well as access to lobbyists and, arguably, to state and federal legislators to continue to change the law to favor the sex industry’s interests.

Playboy, et. al also have funded Planned Parenthood, Sex Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), the Kinsey Institute, and other “sexology” institutions. In 1967, Playboy provided the first of many grants to the ACLU to support drug use, pornography, abortion, homosexuality, school sex [mis]education and the elimination or reduction of sex offender penalties. Beginning in 1970, Playboy officially granted funds to NORML, the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws.

The year 1969 brought about significant events related to the systematic effort to normalize homosexuality as championed by Kinsey 21 years earlier. The Gay Liberation Front was formed at the New York Alternative University. The American Sociological Association officially stated that homosexuality is normal, citing Kinsey’s “research.” The National Institutes of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality recommended legalizing private consensual homosexual acts (sodomy) citing to Kinsey’s “data.”[7] In 1972, the NIMH Task Force, led by Kinseyan disciples, urged that homosexuality be taught as a normal sexual variation in the nation’s schools.

“No fault” divorce was ushered in by California in 1970. By 1985, no fault divorce was the law in 49 states. This triggered a massive increase in the divorce rate and the impovertization of women and children, increasing the need for welfare and abortion, with the latter legalized in 1973.[8]

The absence of fathers in the home decreased the economic, social, emotional and spiritual home life, which triggered epidemic child sexual abuse, increased promiscuity, increased criminality–including rape and prostitution–increased venereal diseases and sterility in young women. With no father in the home, children were significantly more vulnerable to molestation by older children, which was redefined as “harmless” peer sex play by Kinsey. This “harmless” sex play led to increased rates of venereal disease, promiscuity, homosexual acting out and suicide.

These disorders then opened the door to additional, more virulent forms of mandated sex [mis]education couched as “pride” in one’s sexual “orientation,” anti-bullying, AIDS prevention and more instruction in “safe sex,” including mutual masturbation, oral and anal sodomy and viewing pornography.

By 1981 Dr. Mary Calderone, SIECUS president and past medical director of Planned Parenthood, took Kinsey one step further, asserting that children are sexual in the womb (Kinsey said children were sexual from birth).

Calderone announced that awareness of childhood sexuality was a primary goal of her organization. This set the “scientific” standard for distributing condoms to children nationwide. Therapeutic interventions were instituted to aid the now increasingly traumatized youth. Pharmocological intervention also increased, including mandated Hepatitis B vaccines for infants and HPV vaccines for elementary age children as STD “protections,” both of which were advocated in a 1977 “Child Rights” pedophile manifesto.

Hundreds of pages could be written on these issues and the additional fallout from Kinsey’s successful promiscuity propaganda that plummeted Reagan’s shining City on a Hill into a state of sexual anarchy.

We must focus now on how we stop the madness – not by ignoring the problem or by giving up in despair. God is on our side, just as He was on the side of those who founded this country. God used 56 God-fearing men to stand up to the largest imperial force in the free world and birth this great nation. He can use us to stand up against the current state of sexual anarchy, return this nation to our Judeo-Christian roots and rescue our children from the enemy who seeks to steal, kill and dstroy. As beneficiaries of God’s miraculous creation of these United States we cannot do anything less. Kinsey and his disciples at the Kinsey Institute have had more than 60 years to re-shape American culture. With Dr. Reisman’s decades of research we have the weapons to gain the upper hand, and we must band together to create the Judeo-Christian answer to the Kinsey Institute. We have the backing of the God of the universe. We can and must win this battle.

Notes:

1 - “Biography has become a battleground as moral conservatives like Dr. Judith Reisman strive to discredit

Alfred Kinsey in order to revisit another America era” warned Professor Carole Vance. Another infamous sexologist stated, “I have some problems, and I’m sure several of us do, with the use of the word “normal.” If you look at sexual abuse in children, the problem with defining it is, to what extent are we talking about aspects of behavior that we would call wrong….we don’t know really how harmful those experiences are….” (November 6, 1998, San Francisco State University seminar, “Kinsey At 50: Reflections On Changes In American Attitudes About Sexuality Half A Century After The Alfred Kinsey Studies,” lionizing Kinsey and addressing anarchist strategies for a new global sexual future).

2 - In the same year, Carnegie Foundation funds the ABA/ALI Legal Education Committee. Other pro-Kinsey books are published calling for sex law reforms and leniency for perpetrators.

3 - In that year, the Reece congressional committee was prohibited from investigating Kinsey’s data. Also, Planned Parenthood is founded in Washington, D.C.

4 - Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

5 - Abington School District v. Schempp, 372 U.S. 203 (1963).

6 - Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (married couples), Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (unmarried couples).

7 - The Supreme Court upheld the criminalization of sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), but then overturned Bowers and found that homosexual sodomy could no longer be criminalized in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Lawrence was based largely on the 1955 ALI Model Penal Code, which has been widely referred to as a Kinsey document.

8 - Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973). As Justice Kennedy noted in the Lawrence opinion, Griswold and Eisenstadt were part of the background for the opinion in Roe. Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 565. This illustrates how Kinsey’s legacy has permeated every aspect of society.