Sex, Lies and Society Part III

"Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"

The pioneering academic sex study centres under scrutiny includes The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality [IASHS] (thereafter called the “Sex Institute”) which offers extensive training and advanced degrees and directed by Penthouse Forum Board member and Kinsey co-author, Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, and Hustler Magazine contributors, Drs. Ted Mcllvena and Erwin Haberlae. The accreditation curricula includes a wide variety of Kinsey inspired material such as The Sex Institute’s degree programme which incorporates: “ ‘advanced graduate’ studies such as: ‘erotic sensate and massage therapy,’ and focuses most of its scholarly training on student viewing, using, even making, ‘erotic’ films….And the “training in the design and implementation of ‘sex education curricula’ for all ages.”

 
So, we have Dr. Pomeroy, co-author and a Kinsey Institute principle, who recommended incest as beneficial to the juvenile to adult readers of Penthouse, Chic, and other pornographic magazines and for whom a belief in “positive incest” allows him to still teach child sexuality.

Furthermore:

These now-accredited Sex Institute experts commonly testify for sex offenders and for businesses which specialize in the production of obscenity and pornography. ‘Experts’ from the American sexual Establishment regularly testify in courts and provide their expertise to legislatures and other public agencies.  For example, in 1980, Wardell Pomeroy testified for a pornographer in Happy Day v. Kentucky, a court case in which Pomeroy admitted under oath to seeking funds from the sex industry to produce his own child pornography. 1

This may go a little way in explaining the present chaos in the European and especially US courts in cases of child abuse and custody cases. One particular form of sexual education in the San Francisco “Sex Institute” and in other universities comes under the formal sounding “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” (SAR) as promulgated by Pomeroy himself and which is achieving a shift in pedagogical attitude and teaching. It incorporates specific images of a both hard and soft-core nature that: “scars the viewer's brain as it short circuits his and her conscience.” This is particularly interesting in light of ponerological aspects of psychopathy that inflict a progressive cognitive dissonance that effectively cuts off the conscience and ability to empathise. The entrainment of SAR is said to erode “emotional refinements by using high resonance images that “psychopharmacologically and neurochemically mold, coarsen and reform viewer's brains, minds and memories.” In effect, it channels sexual energy to a strictly mechanical and animalistic perception of sexuality and in Pomeroy’s words: “The SAR is designed to ‘desensitize,’ that is to disinhibit, all viewers. 2 

This has a particular resonance with the CIA led mind programming operations under the generic term of MK-ULTRA in the 1950s and 60s. Kinsey himself was indirectly associated with some of the main proponents of such mind experimentation. One can’t help but wonder if these are offshoots of that same secret research which became purposely mainstreamed into academia.

Even before Kinsey left his intensive study of wasps and launched into the field of sexuality, he was an ardent New Biologist or Eugenicist who “recommended that a portion of the ‘lower classes’ be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.” 3  It becomes more worrisome when eugenics appears so frequently as a prominent principle behind Kinsey’s drive to collect “data” as it does with so many of the academic and intelligentsia of his day. It also becomes somewhat tame in comparison to the company he kept, the mutual friends and acquaintances of which included Dr. Herrmann Muller, a co-worker at IU for several years who had done research at the “Sex Institute” in Berlin, primarily as it was not legal in the United States. It was also at a time when the German, Darwinian Eugenics programs had full Academic approval since before the 1920s, as a definite precursor to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

In 1943, fellow eugenicist and infamous “scientist” Dr. E. Ewen Cameron became a fellow Rockefeller grantee. In 1973 as president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Cameron was a covert CIA “mind-control” researcher who conducted human experiments outside the borders of the United States, at McGill University in Canada, for CIA director Allen Dulles. Satanist Aleister Crowley, American Nazi George Sylvester Viereck, French paedophile Rene Guyon and occultist film maker Kenneth Anger. The latter director has said:

Kinsey was obsessed with obtaining the Great Beast's (Crowley's) day-to-day sex diaries... To obtain grant monies and maintain the support of the university, Kinsey needed the excuse of research to validate his twenty-four-hours-a-day obsession with sex. However, Prok’s (Kinsey’s nickname) battle cry of ‘Do your best and let other people react as they will’ seemed a variation on Crowley's ‘Do what thou wilt’ maxim. (i.e. "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law"). 4

Granted, we have no way of knowing the truth of Anger’s claims but the historical saga does not end there. With eugenics, Nazism, fascism and sex-magic topping the Kinsey bill, this already heady brew may account for the suspicions which eventually surrounded the so called father of the “sexual revolution” that contributed to an equally dubious counter-culture. It is far too much of a coincidence to have so many friends and acquaintances involved which advocated a mix that could be summarised as Nazi influenced Satanism.

Kinsey’s personal life, as well as his professional life, clearly exhibited an obsessive curiosity with the mechanics of sex. When you mix a sexual obsessive with the above mentioned friends and acquaintances then it becomes clear that Kinsey’s influence could have contributed to the sexual ponerization of society more than any other single individual. But as we know – no-one acts in isolation. It is true - while shunning overly moralistic principles that favour a black and white simplicity - society is indeed degenerating in our confused and distracted visions of sex.  It is interesting that Kinsey’s research conveniently excluded incest and physical abuse/battery yet focused entirely on the more salacious aspects of deviancy giving them undue credence and effectively normalizing them to the point that all now is acceptable, where normalcy is so often pathological and relationships and communicating is just one new party game of buying and selling.

The Kinsey sex studies reported that: “95 percent of American males had violated sex laws seriously enough to put them in jail, 85 percent had experienced premarital sex, 69 percent had used prostitutes, 45 percent were adulterers, as high as 37 percent had experienced orgasm in a homosexual act, and that 17 percent had had sex with an animal.” As the late journalist Jim Keith mentioned: “In these post-Kinsey days this information is not that shocking, in fact it is almost believable, but in 1948 it fell upon the public like a bombshell.”5

Persons such as Kinsey and his sponsors may have exacerbated and played on the lowest instincts in man and brought them to the surface to play an active part in the erosion of social moderation and for a lassaire-faire mentality to reign. This “bombshell” had consequences, the effects of which are still promoted and justified today. Many of these ex-Kinseyian staff and sexologists are now within the court system pronouncing judgements on who they deem fit and proper to look after children in custody cases.

We see the same play-offs between the Christian-right and the liberal left, the former seeing him as a child molesting monster and the latter as a great pioneer and deliverer from the last throes of Victorian values and sexual Puritanism. In reality, neither is correct. He was very likely used for his talents, his failings and his well placed sexual deviancy to act as one of many key influences in another spoke in the wheel of a Rockefeller-led social engineering programme.

Though it would seem that the most vociferous critics of Kinsey are predominantly right wing, “apple-pie” conservatives, they do have considerable justification for their outrage. Admittedly frothing at the mouth with Christian indignation, it would be extremely foolish to write off their criticisms as mere “judgement day” invective. While it could, at a stretch, be said that Kinsey did provide partially valuable data regarding the sexual mores of Middle America and that he was genuinely interested in such “research” it is highly likely that he used this as a convenient method by which he could satisfy his paedophilic fantasies.

Many sexologists and academics dislike having their beloved godfather of sex toppled from his mantle, but when the evidence is carefully pondered, Kinsey’s own sexual demons become the driving force in his research which may have been fully exploited by those who provided his funding. When one puts the Rockefeller foundation in the driving seat it leaves a decidedly uncomfortable feeling that Kinsey’s detractors are onto something, yet they are shackled by accusations of fundamentalism and the parochial middle-American family values that so often slip into overprotection.

According to biographer James H. Jones, he was “among the most influential Americans of the twentieth century.” If so, then you can be sure he was used for a specific purpose precisely because of those hidden demons. Dr. Kinsey, in 1948, publicly advocated adults engaging in sexual relations with children, making the “scientific” finding that they “derived definite pleasure” from sexual use by adults. Kinsey wrote those children’s screams of pain, their striking and struggling to get away from their “partner” were all supporting evidence of the child subject’s pleasure from sexual contact with an adult “trained observer.” Dr. Reisman, wrote that “While it is clearly established that these above children’s responses were obtained by adult male child sex offenders, the Kinsey group accepts child offender/evidence re: the child victims.”

Knowing that the nature of the sexual predator in our midst is highly adaptive, manipulative and very, very clever, it is not without good reason that this is exactly the kind of niche post that such individuals seek out. Their molestations can then proceed undetected through a variety of ingenious covers. Perhaps Kinsey had his own mandated stamp of approval that allowed him to do as he pleased. A handwritten Kinsey Institute reply reads: “not an offender unless legally charged,” as Kinsey himself had stated, that “one is not a criminal unless one is caught.” Kinsey said in 1940, that “at no time did he allow the question of morality to determine what was scientifically acceptable.”

It seems he was true to his word.


Notes


1  Chapter 7, pp 172-174 (Reisman, 2003)
2 (Chapter 7, pp 172-174 Reisman, 2003) See also pp. 174-175 and the following extract: “In December 1982, George Leonard reported his Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) experience in Esquire magazine. [Esquire: The End of Sex, p. 24]   Noting at least 60,000 people trained in colleges and university by the SAR beginning in the early 1980s, Leonard expects his experience is typical: The sensory overload culminated on Saturday night in a multi-media event called the F—korama ... in the darkness ... images of human beings - and some-times even animals — engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, squeals, moans, shouts, and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto.  Some seventeen simultaneous moving pictures ... Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group.  The subjects were nude,..I felt myself becoming disoriented ... was she kissing a man or a woman?  I struggled to force the acts I was watching into their proper boxes ... and now I couldn't remember which was which.  Wasn't I supposed to make these discriminations?  I searched for clues.  There were none.  I began to feel uncomfortable.  Soon I realized that to avoid vertigo and nausea I would have to give up the attempt to discriminate and simply surrender to the experience ... The differences for which lives have been ruined, were not only trivial, but invisible.  By the end ... Nothing was shocking....But nothing was sacred either.  But as I drove home, I began to get a slightly uneasy feeling.  It was almost as if I had been conned ... by my own conditioned response of taking the most liberated position ... whatever my deeper feelings.... love had not been mentioned a single time during the entire weekend.”
3  ‘Sex Experiments of Alfred Kinsey.’ By Jim Keith
4 p.50. Mass Control: Engineering Human Consciousness by Jim Keith.

5 Ibid. p.49 Keith.

• Sex, Lies and Society Part I
• Sex, Lies and Society Part II
• Sex, Lies and Society Part IV
• Sex, Lies and Society Part IX (2006)
• Sex, Lies and Society Part V
• Sex, Lies and Society Part VI
• Sex, Lies and Society Part VII
• Sex, Lies and Society Part VIII