free web hosting | free website | Business Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting
'Crafting "Gay" Children: An Inquiry Into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth via Government Schooling & Mainstream Media' by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. Author, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, A Work in Progress c ® 10/00 by Judith A. Reisman 8/7/01 - The Institute for Media Education, Crestwood, KY. 1 800 837 0544


An Inquiry Into the Abuse of
Vulnerable Youth via Government
Schooling & Mainstream Media[1]

        This paper will focus upon three related issues. First, a brief comment on the role of mainstream media in shaping public opinion by suppressing truth in the service of special sexual interests. Second, an overview of Alfred Kinsey's role in promoting the current cultural advances in pedophilia and homosexual- ity. Lastly, the schoolroom initiation of children into heterosexual and bi/homo- sexual sex, as feeding child prostitution, chiefly "[t]ightly run organizations" that traffic in roughly half-a million boy prostitutes. [1]

         Gay liberationists in general, and boy-lovers in particular, should know Kinsey's work and hold it dear. implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today. [2]

(NAMBLA) 1981

       "PROJECT 10, named after Kinsey's (1948) estimate that 10% of the popula- tion is exclusively homosexual, originally envisioned as an in-school counsel- ing program, has become a district-wide and nation-wide forum for the articu- lation of the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual teenagers." [3] - VIRGINIA URIBE ['Coming Out of the Classroom Closet' (1991)]

        "Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV positive men having unprotected sex with boys. They don't think it matters." [4] - HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST ["The Advocate" (March 1992)]

        "Kinsey's carefully planned publicity program was designed to create an in- ternational mass media sensation which would appear to be spontaneous and unanticipated." [5] - JUDITH A. REISMAN ['Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences' (1998)]

       "Dr. Reisman'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." [6] - CHARLES E. RICE [Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School, Indi- ana  - Book endorsement for 'Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences']


        In his famous June 1978 Harvard commencement address Aleksander Sol- zhenitsyn indicted America's mass media for the betrayal of its office:

      "The press can both stimulate public opinion and miseducate it. The press
has become the greatest power within the Western countries, more powerful than the legislature, the executive, and judiciary. One would then like to ask: 'By what law has it been elected and to whom is it responsible'?"[7]

        Based on its free speech privileges, the American press is charged with providing a "window to the world" by which the polity may locate the source of a social malaise, evaluate and correct it. But, if establishment media - news and entertainment - broadcasts disinformation and conceals adverse information about a matter or malaise, than the Fourth Estate becomes an unelected fifth column directing law and public policy. Especially now, when the millions do- nated to gay and lesbian charities and social service agencies are supplement- ing millions in federal and state AIDS Prevention funds to retrain schoolchild- ren, gay and lesbian groups are actively recrafting the national personality.

        The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) website states that it "works from within the news industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian and gay issues and opposes newsroom bias against les-
bians, gay men and all other minorities." Much of the Fourth Estate currently discriminates by employing only bi/homosexuals to cover "sexual orientation" issues, further compromising the public's ability to obtain unbiased reports. [8] On the evidence, what the NLGJA views as "fair" and "accurate" and what it views as "bias" evidences a serious conflict of interest.

       Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of "WorldNetDaily," described the problem as follows:

        "There's an indelicate old newspaper saying that summarizes succinctly the way the industry traditionally viewed the issue of personal and journalistic con- flicts of interest. The curmudgeonly city editor would say to his reporter: 'Hey, I don't care if you sleep with elephants, just don't cover the circus'...
        "That was the American journalistic standard for a long time - right up until the 1970s. Today, I'm sorry to say, the circus is being covered by people sleep- ing in the elephant tent, the hyena cage, the sheep exhibit and the gerbil dis- play. We have witnessed in the last quarter decade the transition of American journalism from a profession of disinterested chroniclers, to one more akin to a band of lobbyists, using the press to support activist causes.
      "One of the most effective pressure groups in this brave new media world is the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Have you ever wonder- ed why coverage of homosexuals and their cause is so universally positive? Now you know. The NLGJA's president works at the 'Dallas Morning News.' One vice president works at CNN. Another works at 'Newsday.' The treasurer works at the 'New York Times.' The secretary works for 'USA Today.' Looks like they've got most of the bases covered. Barbara Walters, Lesley Stahl, 'New York Times' Publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger participate in NLGAJA events." [9]

        And, following up on the above column, on September 13, Farah reported on the NLGJA convention in San Francisco:

        "I told you this conference was important for one reason - it's the best ex- ample of how our national press corps has become a band of activists, promo- ting political and cultural causes under the guise of objective news reporting.
      "While I have been chronicling the activities of this group for several years, it wasn't until the 10th anniversary convention in San Francisco last weekend that the group truly came out of the closet with regard to its own activist agenda. This is not, as the group has portrayed itself, a 'professional organization' that promotes higher standards, or gives its members a chance to compare notes, or an outfit that plans good parties for homosexual journalists once a year. It is, in- stead, a group that has bent so far toward changing the newsroom culture that the big debate in San Francisco was whether journalists should even bother getting other points of view on homosexuals' issues and stories.
      "CBS correspondent and NLJGA member Jeffrey Kofman made his think- ing clear: 'The argument [is]: Why do we constantly see in coverage of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues the homophobes and the fag-haters quoted in stories when, of course, we don't do that with Jews, blacks, etcetera?'
       "Paula Madison, vice president of diversity at NBC and news director for the NBC's New York City affiliate WNBC, added: 'I agree with him. I don't see why we would seek out...the absurd, inane point of view just to get another point of view.'
       "Up until now, lip service has been paid to the notion of balance in the press. Even though we all know it is a myth and that the corporate media are in bed with the very groups they claim to be covering objectively, there was a 'pre- tense' toward fairness. That's gone. Hasta la vista. Bye-bye."[10]

        Farah's charges are supported by the ongoing draconian efforts to censor 'Dr. Laura's' media access by threatening her sponsors, and local disruption, despite the desire of at least 18 million Americans to hear her views and by the one-sided mass media support of homosexuals revolutionaries against the Boy Scouts. [11]

        The normalizing of bi/homosexuality seems to have so overtaken the me- dia that the press totally ignored two1999, 'Annals of General Psychiatry' stu- dies correlating homosexuality with significantly higher levels of mental illness than among the population at large. [12] A Westlaw search did not reveal a sing- le newspaper story in the United States reporting either of the two studies. Fa- rah is correct. By 1996 the press rarely covered scientific research unfavorable to gay activists, while repeatedly citing those studies that allege bi/homosexu- ality is healthy and biologically determined.

        Although Farah notes the NLGJA has only recently become candid about its agenda, that blatancy is the product of a well-considered and brilliantly-exe- cuted strategy, that began about the time the NGLJA was founded. Below is the diagram provided by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Mad- sen ('After The Ball' 1989), addressing what they call their bi/homosexual "conspir- acy" (in their own words) to create a bi/homosexual revolution. Kirk's psychologi- cal background and Madsen's Madison Avenue commercial advertising back- ground enabled the two Harvard graduates to market a new homosexual pub- lic face. Kirk and Madsen argued that the AIDS epidemic could "conquer" Amer- ican resistance to "Gays in the '90s."

        In sum, this would be accomplished by citing Alfred Kinsey's now-discre- dited claims of 10 to 37 percent male homosexuality, by covering up male ho- mosexual promiscuity and predation toward youth and boys, and by claiming to be traditionalists, victims of religious bigotry. M&Ks 'Portfolio of Pro-Gay Advertising' (:216-245) has been the national model for the revolutionary efforts. To change public attitudes toward homosexuals, M&K explain, activists must target an "unbigoted" audience, with the most unbigoted audience being child- ren. Instead of free and open debate, M&K advocate silencing critics, desensi- tizing mainstream America to bi/homosexuality, "jamming" any contrary infor- mation and converting and mobilizing sympathetic political forces to attain the revolutionary goals. Intransigents Ambivalent Skeptics Friends Passive-Ambi- valent-Negative Positive


                                                                    - MARSHALL AND KIRK
                                                                  ['After The Ball' (1989: 175)]

        Even now, purging/silencing critics from mainstream academic and media channels involves homosexual activists demonizing those they cannot "de-  sen-sitize." M&K explain how to depict people (like this author) who would chal-  lenge bi/homosexuality as a healthy norm:

      "[Following our techniques] propagandist advertisement can depict homopho- bic and homo-hating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes - people who say not only 'faggot' but 'nigger,' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets - who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of the homo-hatred-suf- fering, of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homo-hating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary." [13]


        The success of this small group of dedicated revolutionaries is explained in Philip Kotler's classic work, 'Marketing Management.' Kotler documents how controlled news is used to "both stimulate public opinion and miseducate" it. Kotler reports that in a successful media campaign, 20% of our social leaders will sway roughly 13% of the public, who later move another 34%, and so on until a majority accept and adapt the proffered new product or idea. [14]

        This diffusion is visible in the shift from the Pre-Kinsey 1950s view of ho- mosexuality, as caused by early familial and/or sexual trauma, to the Post-Kin- sey view of homosexuality as normal and children as "born gay." The shift was sustained by the Fourth Estate - turning a police raid on a boy prostitution and pedophile hub (the 1969 Stonewall Riots) into a clarion call for sexual and civil rights. And the diffusion is seen in the magical transformation of AIDS from a fatal, infectious disease caused largely by violent forms of aberrant promiscui- ty into a "homophobic" attack on minority rights. [15]

        The on-going media campaign effect is visible in the eight-year shift from youthful rejection, to acceptance - even practice of homosexuality. A recent "teen poll" conducted by the establishment upscale media teen magazine "Seventeen," claimed that 17% of teens polled in 1991 versus 54% polled in 1999 accept homosexuality as appropriate. "Seventeen" casually noted:
        "Teens today are likely to experiment: 21% have fantasized about fooling around with someone of the same sex - and 15% say they have actually done so." [16]

         As in "Seventeen," at the same time that establishment media carelessly announces juvenile homosexual experimentation, it suppresses data on the culture of inter-gay violence - men battered and killed by pickups and prosti- tutes - although these cases are often reported by the homosexual press itself. Especially hidden by both homosexual and establishment media, are the data on homosexual violence against children and inter-gay "domestic" battery, discussed in some detail in this monograph.


         Perhaps one of the most memorable media events of 1998 was the murder of Matthew Shepard, a freshman at the University of Wyoming. The Shepard murder is a case study in media bias and the politicization strategies outlined by M&K. Shepard was lured from a bar, robbed, beaten mercilessly, and left un- conscious (he later died in a hospital). The press and gay activists quickly turned Shepard's death into a cause celebre, assigning blame for a "culture of hate" on conservative Christians.

        The Media Research Center documented how establishment media, in- cluding NBC Today, "Time," and "Newsweek," blamed Christians and conser- vatives for an "anti-gay climate" that resulted in the death of Matthew Shepard. In an October 12, 1998 interview with Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, Today co-host Katie Couric framed her opinion in the form of a question:

      "Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organi- zations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who's homosexual, I'm going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them. Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?"[17]

        In his weekly column, L. Brent Bozell, director of the Media Research Cen- ter, was outraged that conservatives were "somehow responsible for the Ok- lahoma City bombing; that pro-life activists somehow encouraged the killing of abortionists" and now endanger gays and lesbians. [18] Bozell observed that mainstream environmentalists were untarnished when the Earth Liberation Front set a Colorado ski resort ablaze, while conservatives were blamed for the deaths of Shepard and an abortion doctor. [19]

        Whether intended or not, the media's portrayal of Shepard's murder follow- ed the precise strategy advocated by M&K: silence those who disagree with the agenda, demonizing them by associating opponents with Hitler, murderers, racists and the like.

        However, the conservative/Christian groups, slandered by "gay" revolu- tionaries and the press, always condemned mistreatment or persecution of ho- mosexuals. Moreover, also ignored was the Wisconsin police finding, that while Shepard's orientation factored into the killers' decision, robbery was the main motive for the murder.

        On the other hand, the press ignored the nearly simultaneous rape-murder of a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising found "bound, gagged - repeat- edly raped in a sado-masochistic ritual" by two trusted homosexual "partners" - friends of the child's mother. [20] Likewise, the press ignored the 1997 rape/mur- der of Jeffrey Curley, age 10, by two homosexual "partners" until the parents filed a $200 million lawsuit against the North American Man/Boy Love Associa- tion (NAMBLA). [21] Yet knowledge of any and all such bi/homosexually-driven vio- lence is critical, if parents and the polity are to make informed choices about leaving their children with bi/homosexual acquaintances or authorities.

        Parents could have been informed about the homosexual AIDS-infected Minneapolis man, recently arrested for anally sodomizing a 4-year-old boy. A brief Minneapolis press story notes the 4-year-old was found with "bruises on his neck indicating choking" and "in shock." He led his mother "to a room where [v]omit and feces were on the floor. The boy told her that a man covered his mouth and forced him to his hands and knees and hurt him." With no prior con- victions the accused rapist-qua murderer could be eligible for release within 16 years. [22] There has been no public condemnation of these killers and rapists by the organized "gay community."


        Evidence of the impact of bi/homosexual "jamming" and "silencing" on re- search 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,' (1991) 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." [23]

        Dr. Day documents some homosexual revolutionaries' 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." [24] 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.

      "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 terror- ism, so be it." [25]

      "BLOOD TERRORISM?" In 1990, while the "Los Angeles Times" quietly not- ed that 24 percent of intravenous drug abusers studied, who donated blood to the blood bank had HIV, [26] no data were reported on what percentage of this group were bi/homosexual. The effort to integrate AIDS into the heterosexual world as a means to force a cure appears as a revolutionary strategy in the im- mense "gay" literature. Homosexual activist Randy Shilts ['And The Band Played On'], documents the efforts of gay organizations which "firmly opposed taking any action to screen blood donors, saying the screening would pose serious civil rights questions." Shilts fairly reported that "hemophiliac organizations were stunned by the gay perspective. What about a hemophiliac's right to life? they asked." [27] Despite Shilts' insider expose, the prevailing plan of gay organ- izations and a greedy blood bank industry, to allow innocent Americans to be infected with, and to die from AIDS, was unreported by mainstream American media.

        While failing to massively infect heterosexuals, Michael Fumento in 'The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS' exhaustively documents how gay terrorists delib- erately represented AIDS as a threat to heterosexuals in order to get research funding and sympathy. Yet the current CDC Website, HIV/ AIDS Surveillance Report, Vol. 11, No. 2, data through December, 1999, identifies HIV infection cases caused by alleged "heterosexual" contact at 9% for 1999, 7%, cumula- tive total and AIDS cases caused by heterosexual contact at 8% for 1999, and 4% cumulative total.


        When "dirty linen" is hidden, public debate is uninformed and distorted. Homosexual authors David Island and Patrick Letellier expose inter-gay vio- lence in their book, 'Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them,' estimating that up to "650,000 gay men" [28] are annually battered, "a gay man is abused every 90 seconds."[29] How many of these battered men die at the hands of other ho- mosexual men? Yet, even Island and Letellier find establishment media and the homosexual media will not print the truth about inter-gay violence. Why? They say:

      "It would be just plain bad press for gays, and all bad news needs to be sup- pressed" [Add the authors] "Gay men truly have a proportionate share of violent individuals in their midst who bash other gay men [and boys] in startlingly high numbers." [30] "The gay community needs to recognize that wealthy, white edu- cated, 'politically correct' gay men batter their lovers." [31]

        As Farah noted, much of the Fourth Estate currently discriminates by em- ploying only bi/homosexuals to cover "sexual orientation" issues, further com- promising the public's ability to obtain unbiased reports. [32] In a rare "politically incorrect" media event, the popular television drama "ER" [33] showcased inter- gay male battery as a not uncommon occurrence in emergency wards - and one that too often has led to domestic "homicides."

        As homosexual activists have shifted their lobbying efforts to school-  rooms coast-to-coast, over the electronic fence of e-mail, outraged parents, neighbor-to-neighbor, are reporting the radical forms of "pedagogical eros" [34] taught to schoolchildren. In his book on boy prostitution, 'For Money or Love,' liberal reporter Robin Lloyd, confirms the Island and Lettellier admissions, adding that the press suppresses police reports of raids and arrests of adults preying on young boys:

        "[The police raids] usually go unreported by the press. Both wire services, the 'Associated Press' and the 'United Press International,' file the stories to their clients (newspapers, radio stations, and television stations), but the stories are always preceded with the cautionary 'EDITORS' (Note nature of the story). Editors do - and often - elect not to use them."[35]

        Further on, the barbarous dearth of funds for research on the connection between child sexual abuse and pediatric AIDS is addressed as an example of politics corrupting the discovery of life-saving facts about bi/homosexuality and AIDS.


        So the censorious tactics of gay activists are not limited to the media. Toby Morotta, an "out" Harvard homosexual PhD writes of "How the media and es- tablishment politicians were used to build gay power" in his seminal work, 'The Politics of Homosexuality' (1981). Marotta states that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - trained in "zapping - GAA's trademark," [36] of any who rebuffed homosexuality [37] - formed the "Gay Academic Union," (GAU) made up of faculty and students in major universities. Like the NIH, professional jour- nals have commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. [38]

        The GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the aca- demic community. One popularized establishment academician, Kate Millet, counseled the members of the GAU "we are powered and have lived and sur- vived on the value, the energy of our [homosexual]passion." 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. [39] In her interview in the pedo- phile activist's revolutionary organ, "Paidika, The Journal of Pedophilia'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." [40]

        As mentioned previously, researchers and academics with politically in- correct results or opinions may find their careers at a sudden dead end. More- over, college campuses - ostensibly the bastion of intellectual freedom - com- monly exclude conservative thinkers and have become a haven for pseudo- Marxist extremists. [41]

        Ex-gay speakers and those critical of the homosexual movement face such silencing everywhere. The outspoken and brilliant "pagan" lesbian, Ca- mille Paglia, described her reaction to the tactics employed by ACT-UP, a rad- ical homosexual organization:

      "ACT-UP's hysteria made me reconsider those vilified therapists and minis- ters who think change of homosexual orientation is possible and whose meet- ings are constantly disrupted by gay agitators. Is gay identifying 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 - 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." [42]

        Paglia's observation that "Heterosexual love is in sync with cosmic forces" is one, which is not supported, in the current political climate.

        The official "Statement of Policy" for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), psychoanalysts, psychologists and other behavioral scientists - as well as those in law, religion and education - addresses [and] identifies academic censorship and conscious misinformation as the impetus for forming their organization.

      "With the sharing of knowledge, NARTH serves as an antidote to the mis-
information disseminated by the media, as well as the misinformation of some of our own psychological and psychiatric professional organizations. The ho- mosexual, his or her family, and the public have a right of access to scientific information. We believe this is true even when this information runs counter to the ideas of socio-political activists. During the last twenty years, powerful po- litical pressures have done much to erode scientific exploration and study of this disorder. Many researchers have been intimidated into trading truth for si- lence. Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would norm- ally unite persons of the same sex. It works against society's essential male/ female design and family unit. Yet today children from kindergarten and beyond are being taught in public school that homosexuality is nothing but a normal, healthy option. Our task is to discuss issues misrepresented by social-activist groups, who have portrayed sexual deviancy as a normal way of life." [43]


        Absent any biological evidence of homosexuality, those now labeled "les- bian, gay, and bisexual teenagers" are exhibiting classical symptoms of child- hood trauma (e.g., parental violence, alcoholism, sex abuse and/or other dysfunctions). Concerned lest the public become aware of the traumatic histories of most al- legedly "gay" youth, by 1987, National Research Council advisor and Kinsey researcher, John Gagnon, told sex researchers to hide the causes of homo- sexuality:

      "The wish of some gay men and lesbians to locate the origins for their de- sires 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." [44]

        Eager to conceal any causes rooted in bad parenting or early sex abuse which suggest adult responsibility, even crime, Kinseyans, supported by the media, formed groups like, PROJECT 10, PFLAG, (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and later, GLBT, (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgendered) youth. Since historical, cross-cultural, literary and testimonial evidence clearly identifies a homosexual etiology of family disorders. it is understandable that many par- ents zealously insist their child was "born that way," avoiding the personal blame and public disgrace inherent in their offspring having been placed in harm's way. But, how did 21% of America's leaders - largely America's intellec- tual community - adopt these radical new views on sex and homosexuality?


        To answer that question we turn to Alfred C. Kinsey. In 1989 the prestigi- ous National Research Council proclaimed that sex science, "can be divided somewhat crudely into the pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey eras."[45] On April 23, 2000, The "New York Times" Book Review celebrated the fact that Indiana Uni- versity had given America, "the man whose studies started the sex revolu- tion."[46] 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 Victori-  ans. This epoch of libidinal prohibition lasted until January 4, 1948. The follow- ing day, Professor Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana published 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.' Whereupon, as the expression has it, the earth moved."[47]

        True. Since 1948, the Kinsey canon revolutionized and refashioned the American libido. As NAMBLA says, [48] 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.


        Many Americans born post WWII may not recall the Kinsey team and their reports, 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Male' (1948) and 'Sexual Behavior in the Human Female' (1953). A vast and meticulously orchestrated media-relations  campaign made Kinsey a household name, heralded as a folk hero in over 70 percent of the nation's press. [49] "Life," "Look," "Time" and every other major mainstream magazine promoted his bold sex "findings" as fearless scientific truth. [50]

        Indiana University had set the stage by posing zoologist Kinsey as a con- servative Republican academic, a family man, who serendipitously stumbled
onto sex research only to discover (surprise!) that while Americans pretended to be virtuous, virginal, monogamous and faithfully heterosexual, they were really hypocritical, promiscuous, closeted bi/homosexual adventurers. [51]


        The Kinsey team, not America's parents, played false. Kinsey's most re- cent admiring biographers both confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and their wives to perform for - and with him - in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. [52] Kinsey and his mates - Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Geb- hard - 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. [53] 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, orgi- astic "self- abuse." [54] Now at the time of this writing, new myths are in prepa- ration as 20th Century Fox announced plans for a major film on Kinsey's life, with Tom Hanks or Harrison Ford glamorizing the Indiana pedophile advocate revolutionary.


        Kinsey's closet team 1) "forced" subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, [55] 2) secretly trashed their research data, [56] and 3) based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86% aberrant male population - including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. [57] 4) 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 prostitutes and other unconventional women as "Susie Homemaker."[58]


        Kinsey solicited, encouraged, and even paid pedophiles - at home and
abroad - to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleg- ed data on normal "child sexuality." [59] Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed by "Kinsey's pedo- philes" for his data are quantified in his own graphs and charts. [60]

        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." Here, in- fants as young as 5 months are timed with a stop watch for "orgasm" by Kin- sey's "technically trained" aides, with one 4-year-old, tested 24-hours around the clock for an alleged 26 orgasms. [61] These child "data" are commonly quot- ed by sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates to prove children's need for homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual satisfaction via "safe"-sex education. [62]


        How could a dry, scientific tome be hyped globally to bestseller status - and draw no questions from skeptical reporters or scientists as to where child- ren 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.), [63] as "orgasms" for in- fants 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,"[64] and who, more specifically for this writing,
is the man the homosexual and pedophile movement thank for their advance. [65]


      Westlaw journal articles cite Kinsey positively roughly 650 times (1982-2000) from hate crimes and homosexual marriage to child custody and rape. The 'So- cial Science and Science Citation Indices' reference Kinsey roughly 6,000 times over this same period. On the evidence, Kinsey is far and away the most influ- ential sex scientist in the law. [66] Fully 100% of the American sex science cita- tions in the original 1955 American Law Institute's "Model Penal Code" cite Kin- sey's data - alive today in courts and legislatures.


        His critics were largely ignored and/or slandered by Kinsey and establish- ment media, as sexually-repressed, ignorantly religious, mean-spirited, unsci- entific, and backward. Continued media applause prized Kinsey as the proph- et of the sexual revolution. This author's book on the subject, [67] argues that America's growing libidinous pathologies - taught as "safe," then, "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 documented [68] sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself. [69]

        This "free sex" movement coarsened the populace by demoting sex from its rarified, idealistic marital pedestal and private expression into public display, discourse and performance. One of the expressions 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" - sex traffic in women and children -  was finally crippled in 1912 by the Mann Act, based on the national view that children are asexual and deserving of governmental protection from adult sexual predators. Child prostitution centers closed everywhere, and venereally-infected and dy- ing children were nursed and buried by women's church groups. However, Post-Kinsey's sexual revolution, the child sex industry rose again, [70] carried forward by two Kinsey acolytes.

        A virginal college youth, Hugh Hefner, read Kinsey and became his "Play- boy" pamphleteer, aiming to legitimize "adult" (and, more subtly, child) pornogra- phy. [71] Harry Hay, a bisexual communist (molested as a boy by a man) [72] read Kinsey's claim that 10% of men are homosexual, left his wife and children and began the campaign to legitimize sodomy. Hay elevated sodomy from a defin- ing pathological and illegal act to a state of being. Homosexuals, Hay said, are an oppressed "minority" [73] deserving special or civil rights, thereby spawning the "gay" rights movement. Flowing continuously from this movement of ap- proximately two percent of the American population has been a thriving traffic in male child pornography and prostitution. [74]

        Kinsey's anthem of sexual promiscuity, without consequences, would be played out over the decades. But Kinsey's data were silent on the disastrous consequences of "public sex" - prostitution, public sexual solicitations, sodo- my and obscenity, venereal disease, "illegitimacy," abortion, drug abuse, sui- cide, rape, homicide, child sexual abuse and a myriad of other social disorders.


        Since Kinsey proved the sexual life had no bad consequences for undif- ferentiated promiscuity, Kinsey, Hefner and Hay said, laws restricting public
or private sexual activity were obsolete. Post 1948, pressured by media, scho- lars and with the legal profession parroting the Rockefeller-funded Kinsey, the omnipresent "vice squads" rapidly disappeared. [75] Kinsey's fallacy of promis- cuous, public-sex-without-consequences fueled promiscuity, two dozen new STDs and the lethal AIDS. Kinsey admirer and Princeton historian David Allyn explained that,

      "[Kinsey undermined] the very legitimacy of public morality itself In the post- WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of 'public morals,' a concept that had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870's onward. Kinsey's silence when it came to questions of public sexuality served Kinsey's deregulatory ends."[76]



        If sodomy and pubic sex were normal and harmless, it was logical for po- lice and press to ignore homosexual "cruising." of public parks, baths, rest rooms and other public spaces. It was also logical to ignore sex acts in heter-
osexual and homosexual "adult" pornography stores, films and other public entertainments. "Consent" became the single moral imperative surrounding sexual conduct for adults, and shortly, for children. [77]


        Pre-Kinsey, say the authors in 'The International Journal of Neuropsychi- atric Medicine,' psychiatry taught prostitution, "bi/homo-sexuality, sadism, mas- ochism, promiscuity and compulsive masturbation as unhealthy." 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 les- son for the patient or couple undergoing sex therapy." [78]

        Without a belief in "sin" or immorality, psychiatry and psychology must re- ly on "sex scientists" to inform the professions on sexuality issues. Thus, fol- lowing the Kinsey model that all sodomy is normal and natural, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) determined homosexuality, sadism and pedophi- lia can also be normal and unproblematic. [79]


        Post-Kinsey, his pedophile data [80] claiming that children are "sexual from birth" are carved into the fabric of science, pedagogy and law. This "fact" with all of its far-reaching societal consequences has taken root in the mindset of most psychiatrists, pediatricians, psychologists, sexologists, pedagogues, law and justice professionals, media moguls, theologians, public policy makers, and other movers and shakers worldwide.


        Kinsey's pedophile data "proving" infants and children capable and de- serving of orgasm from birth, and homosexuality and sodomy as normal has justified teaching "sexual diversity" from grade school onward. When both the Bible and biology were abandoned as models for restricting dangerous or coarsening sexual activity, the pedagogical and personality vacuum was filled by the Kinsey advocates of "juvenile sexual entitlement." With childbirth and STD's the only undesirable sexual outcome, and sodomy and masturbation (alone, in dyads or groups) taught as part of a well-rounded sexual repertoire and harmless contracepting schoolchildren could be smoothly socialized and in- cluded in the bi/homosexual adventure.