Darwin’s Fairytales Have Led Us to Savage Waters

/0 Comments/in , /by
Judith Reisman comments on David Stove’s book Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution
Do you realize, reader, that you are an error of heredity, a biological error? … And not only an error, but an error on an enormous scale. At least, Darwinians say you are. And who knows more about biology and heredity, pray, than they do?”

Thus wrote the hardened atheist and Darwin critic David Stove in “Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution.” The “new religion of selfish genes” classifies all humans as biological errors.

In his posthumously published sparkling tome, science philosopher Stove dubs Darwin’s theory of evolution a religious creation myth. Why, moral philosopher Mary Midgley writes apologetically (in the “Royal Institute of Philosophy”) that “Social Darwinism” is perhaps “the unofficial religion of the West,” even blessed by Richard Dawkins (of “The Selfish Gene”).

That worries prominent Social Darwinist Michael Ruse: “If Darwinism equals atheism, then it can’t be taught in U.S. schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state.”

Stove’s book then crashes headlong into the “what do we teach the children” controversy. Do we teach them, asks Stove, Dawkins’ fantasy–that “selfish genes … leap from body to body down the generations … the genes are the immortals?” Are they our gods and we their puppets? Although Stove agrees with Darwin’s theories for “pines or cod,” he also sees a cosmology that equates human and cod reproduction as ludicrous junk science.

Stove begins before Darwin with T.H. Huxley, pasha of the Huxley dynasty, who defined humans as savages in a “continual free fight” for survival–when not involved with “temporary” family ties. “Darwinian Fairytales” asks the obvious. Why would killer savages have any family in the first place? Stove answers:

“Huxley’s man, if he wanted to maximize his own chances of survival, and had even half a brain, would simply eat his wife and child before some other man did. They are first-class protein.” Women and children would be “easy meat” on the daily menu, making life a very short, open-pit outdoor barbeque.

Stove poses core questions. If “every single organic being … [is] striving to the utmost to increase in numbers,” and only the most fit survive, then why do, as the song goes, “the rich get rich and the poor get children?”

On that musical note, says Stove, the “fitness” genes collapse further when we consider childless geniuses like: “Newton, Faraday and Mendel; Vivaldi, Handel and Beethoven; Gibbon, Macaulay and Carlyle; Plato, Aquinas, Bacon, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant and Mill. . . . No rational person will suppose that this association of extremely low fertility with the highest intellectual or musical genius is accidental” or due to starvation.

Humans, not being cod or pines, often prefer to do something other than copulate–such as writing books and symphonies, painting and even sleeping. Moreover, few families that stay together commonly mate together. And beyond incest prohibitions, humans, not cod, restrict birth via infanticide, abortion and contraception, says Stove, “and we appear to have done so always.”

Obviously, if “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” were true, we’d have neither homosexuals nor celibate altruists caring for unrelated others. “Hospitals, welfare programs, priesthoods,” heroes and such exist in most civil societies. Yet, quips Stove, Neo-Darwinians reject direct proofs of human altruism, preferring selfishness piloted by invisible genes.

Stove delights in Darwin’s delusional claim that child mortality is “about 80% at least,” observing that his wife Emma should have birthed thirty-five babies in order to get her seven “to puberty.”

Ideas Have Consequences

Yet Darwinians ignore such glaring theoretical silliness. “Having been to college, he believes all the right things: That Darwin was basically right, that Darwin bridged the gap between man and animals, etc., etc.”

One almost slap-stick Stovism involves monkey-mom “baby snatching.” Like humans, sometimes a bereaved monkey mom steals another mother’s baby, adopts and cares for it like her own.

Dr. “selfish gene” Dawkins is mystified by such monkey-love. Why does the dippy adopting mom waste her time and release a rival to make more babies? Dawkins wonders if maybe real moms deceive “naïve young females into adopting their children” for some selfish gain? Stove replies that Dawkins might ask “his own mother why she did not offload him?” (One wonders if any fit socio-biologists have survived?)

‘Sexual Freedom’

“Darwinian Fairytales” reveals how such “selfish gene” and “natural selection” fancies have led us into savage waters. To save his disproved theories, Darwin charged that humans often allow “one’s worst animals to breed,” thereby justifying eugenics and sterilization. Soon “the fit” would run the state and cull out the weak–one infamous example among many of how bogus science has licensed barbarism.

Finally, Darwin’s fairytales advanced sexual freedom says Stove–that is, if animals and plants have sex, “sexual intercourse is innocent.” Naturally, “the great sexual emancipators after 1859”–Ellis, Freud, Lenin, Stopes, Sanger, Mead, Reich– “were all Darwinians.” Genetics gave “the new religionists,” he said, “their gods … the chromosomes of the sex cells.” On point, Stove warned, “freedom of the press, except for really precious things like pornography, has greatly diminished in the last hundred years, and especially in the last twenty” [emphasis added].

Yet, with roughly 33,000 Americans infected daily by a venereal disease, the cost of “sex science” controlled by ideologues and sexual psychopaths is dear indeed. Stove was apparently unaware that Hugh Hefner, the father of “precious things like pornography,” launched Playboy as “Kinsey’s Pamphleteer” after reading Alfred Kinsey’s two sexuality books in college.

Nor did Stove know that Kinsey, the high priest of sex, decided to sexually reform America after reading Darwin in college.

In 2005, HUMAN EVENTS scholars voted Kinsey’s reports among the “most harmful” American books published in the last 200 years. Although Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” made it only as an “honorable mention” in that pantheon of injury, just as Hefner was a Kinsey clone, Kinsey was a Darwin clone. Genes may not leap and travel from generation to generation but ideas certainly do.

Ideas have consequences. Stove’s “Darwinian Fairytales” is required reading for anyone still on inquiry.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on HumanEvents. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

French resistance defeats LGBT lobby

/0 Comments/in , /by
Judith Reisman spotlights parents’ boycott that got ‘equality’ program axed
In May 2012, it was reported by Worldcrunch: “Following Barack Obama’s surprise public support for gay marriage, incoming French President François Hollande may be poised to push through legislation to give same-sex couples in France the right for the first time to marry.”

Well, the plans for homosexual marriage met with massive French opposition from the French people, and it looks like gender re-education has taken a major hit as well. I just received this announcement from Farida Belghoul, leader of the French resistance movement to the homosexual agenda:

Despite recent LGBT lobby groups [opposing] the announcement of the possible removal of the “ABCD of Equality” program, the government, through its Minister of National Education, Benoît Hamon, announced its final decision: He abandons the ABCD. Already, the intervention of LGBT activists planned for the autumn in schools are erased from the schedule.

Tribute to the popular areas that have suffered for this victory! Tribute to Mothers of France! JRE Cheers! Cheers to the Islamic-Catholic convergence! Cheers [to] all the forces of the nation fighting to save the modesty and integrity of children.

Tribute to the rare priests – Fathers Blin and Horovitz, Father Pagès, Abbé Tanouarn. Thanks to the Imam Rahhaoui and rare others who have supported us. Tribute to local committees and alternative media. …

Shame on the traitors, cowards and collaborators.

Our determination, our strength, our sufferings and sacrifices were rewarded.

JRE movement won this first battle without ever appealing for donations. It is the victory of men and women of integrity and selflessness. So be it … and God be praised!

In April, we wanted to wish Christians a Happy Easter. The time has come to wish Muslims a good month of Ramadan.

Background to the victory

Deutsche Welle reported earlier this year: “A French government program aimed to combat gender stereotyping among primary school children is facing an unprecedented backlash from parents. Parents in France are pulling their children out of class for one day each month to protest against what they say is an attempt by the government to teach primary school children that ‘they aren’t born boys or girls, but neutral.’”

Farida Belghoul, from Strasbourg, created a calendar in Journées de retrait de l’école (days of withdrawal from school) in which she assigned different days for the school boycott. With little or no support or exposure from the mainstream media, Belghoul relied mainly on text messaging. She called on parents to “resist” the government’s ABCD of Equality program, which was planned for primary schools.

Some 100 schools in Strasbourg and the Paris region reported losing up to a third of their pupils. The claim that the gender program was merely geared to equality between boys and girls was seen as a cover for promoting varied strains of homosexuality.

Belghoul calls the program indoctrination, saying the aim of the government’s project is “to generalize gender ideology at every level of French schooling, from the kindergarten to the baccalaureat (final exam).

“At a moment when pupils are struggling to master basic arithmetic, the government considers it a priority to fight homophobia and stereotypes of all sorts,” she added.

Not coincidentally, Belghoul also supports the “Stop the Kinsey Institute” campaign and its global “gender” training.

Viv le France! Power to the parents. In this case, the American resistance can learn from the French resistance.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on July, 2, 2014. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

How They Are Hypersexualizing Your Kids

/0 Comments/in , /by
Judith Reisman explains history of teachers’ ‘attitude restructuring.’

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.” – Matthew 10:16

Ira Reiss, a sociologist and professor emeritus at Minnesota University, was a charter member of Alfred Kinsey’s Sex Cult. His papers, articles, and audio and video recordings already are housed at the Kinsey Institute, 57 years of his work so far. Reiss, like other Kinsey disciples, advocated the production of pornography and its display for “training” purposes to prepare students entering the new sexuality fields spawned by Kinsey’s supposed revelations on sex. Kinsey gleefully promoted this type of material, which during the late ’60s started to be called Sexuality Attitude Restructuring (later renamed Reassessment), or SAR, sessions.

These training sessions are promoted as sexual desensitization seminars, pornographic extravaganzas of all manner of enthusiastic sexual activities presented to groups of men and women as training to become certified therapists, counselors, educators or researchers. In addition to desensitizing sexologists to the images of heterosexual activities, sado-masochism, group sex, sodomy, the use of sex “toys” and homosexual behavior, the sex leaders also hold small group discussions to explore the participants’ attitudes and biases in order to neutralize any “negative” views.

But the stated purpose of these sessions is not the whole story, or even the real story.

Early on, these sessions were not used to merely desensitize and encourage acceptance of all sex acts but as indoctrination into a “sex positive” mindset. (Such training has been a requirement for certification by the American Association of Sex Educators Counselors and Therapists, or AASECT, from the beginning.) SAR leaders also often pressured participants into sexual experimentation with each other.

Reiss revealed this in his book, “An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey,” recounting his experience at an eight-day SAR session in San Francisco in 1972. At the time, Reiss already was a professor at the University of Minnesota where its medical school was one the first in the country to offer SAR training to medical students. But it was a new, untested program.

The director of U of M’s SAR program had secured a grant from the Playboy Foundation to send 25 couples from the University, all expenses paid, to San Francisco to receive training from the group that had followed on Kinsey’s practices, the National Sex Forum (aka the National Sex and Drug Forum). The purpose was to improve the programming at Minnesota. Reiss and wife were among the volunteers for the Playboy-sponsored training of future national sex educators. Reiss reports:

“The view presented by many of the staff was supportive of people trying out the full variety of sexual acts that exist (S and M, gay, extramarital, group sex, etc.). The supposed purpose was to allow people to break through their old restrictive sexual attitudes. I had no objection to offering such options. However, as they elaborated, it became clear that this support of broad experimentation was more than just permission giving – it was presented as a demand to experiment.”

When Reiss resisted, the SAR leaders ridiculed him, one of them saying, “Are you hostile to group sex or gay sex, and is that why [you are] so cautious about trying something new? Are you biased?”

Reiss did not object to the activity. Rather, he objected to demanding it. It should be promoted, not required, according to Reiss. Such promoting, demanding and encouraging of freewheeling sexual libertinism SAR trainers have been doing for over 40 years now.

While AASECT requires SAR training as an element in their certification standards, the Kinsey Institute is still involved, and Planned Parenthood has joined in. SAR trainings are regularly available now.

Mentally and emotionally corrupted graduates of the SAR training become the “experts” who design sex-ed courses and teach our children. Thus, they have “determined” that the anus is a “genital” as it is described in the currently used sex education program in Hawaii, that orgies are natural entertainment, that sex addiction is a myth, that addiction to pornography is not possible, that it’s normal for children of any age to have sex and that they have the right to choose whatever sexual activity they may think to try with whomever they want, and that sodomy (legalized by the Supreme Court in 2003) is a healthy sexual practice for all sexual orientations.

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material has been made available on multiple websites and are widely promoted to all, regardless of age. The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT and others all provide, or recommend, sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STDs, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

Typical of schools throughout the country, the Minnesota AIDS Project experts (SAR graduates) tell youngsters they can cut and use plastic wrap as a “barrier” when a child has oral/anal contact.

What?

To make matters worse, many of these groups have for years been spreading the false advertising that condoms and dental dams are FDA approved for such bizarre and damaging use. They are not. (See my recent column, “Condoms never FDA-approved for sodomy.”)

Do “condoms” and homemade barriers give the protection Planned Parenthood and other groups claim? Or do these groups promote their use merely as cover for the real purpose – to hypersexualize younger and younger children, groom them and leave them increasingly vulnerable to disease, death and sexual abuse by peers and adults?

Isn’t it time we start holding these groups legally accountable for knowingly spreading their junk science? Let us hear from you if you are among the millions who have been harmed by their “grooming” lies.

 

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on March 28, 2014. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

The Porn Factor

/1 Comment/in , /by
In December 1953, Playboy magazine was launched and immediately began normalizing a new world order of autoerotic sexual fantasy. Hugh Hefner (until reading Kinsey in college, a virgin like most single young men) pledged that his “romantic” magazine would turn his “Playboy men” into skillful lovers, readying them for lifelong marriage. Yet his monthly magazine ridiculed virginity and marriage while glamorizing adultery and rape and showing consumers ways to trick women and children into illicit sex.

By 1969, millions of Playboy users, struggling with their unexpected, porn-induced “diminished arousal response,” began eagerly embracing the amplified stimuli offered by Penthouse. This gave us another generation of intimacy and potency challenged men.

By 1974, millions of Penthouse users, struggling again with a diminished sexual response, turned to Hustler for help. Hello to yet another generation of arousal–challenged pornography addicts, millions of whom became pushovers for internet pornography.

And the addicts were not just grown men. In 1979, psychologistAaron Hass, in his book Teenage Sexuality, reported that Playboy was commonly sought by juveniles for sex information, advice, values, and mores.

Pornography & Pedophilia

From 1994 to 2007, at least 19 state legislatures in the U.S. passed laws named for a raped and murdered child.1In my considered judgment, almost every lust-crime is now energized by pornography. There is plenty of evidence to back me up.

For instance, in 1984, FBI Agent Ken Lanning testified about pedophiles’ use of pornography at a Senate hearing on the “Effect of Pornography on Women and Children”:

Adult pornography is also used, particularly with adolescent boy victims, to arouse and to lower inhibitions. . . . A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced by viewing other children having “fun” participating in the activity. . . . A third major use of child pornography collections is [for] blackmail. . . . If the child threatens to tell his or her parents or the authorities, the existence of sexually explicit photographs can be an effective silencer. The pedophile threatens to show the pictures to parents, friends, or teachers if the child reveals their secret. 2

John Rabun, then Deputy Director of the National Center for Missing Children, stated at one of the hearings:

100 percent of the arrested pedophiles, child pornographers, pimps, what have you . . . had in their possession at the time of arrest, adult pornography. . . . [It was used] for their own sexual arousal . . . [and] particularly for the pedophiles, was a form of self-validation, “it is OK because I see it in other places. It must be all right, it is published nationally. . . .”3

On September 16, 1987, before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families in the House of Representatives, legal counselor Alan Sears testified:

In child pornography cases in Los Angeles County, police officers testified that since they began to ask the question, over 95 percent of the children involved in that activity had had pornography used as part of the softening up or the inhibition-lowering process to seduce them and induct them into this activity. . . . [A] substantial number of the men who go on to be abusers were abused children themselves. Pornography plays a significant role in the training of our young people to become sexual abusers.4

Detective Lt. Darrell Pope, Commanding Officer of the Michigan State Police Sex Crime Unit, testified at the same hearing:

[I]n 1977, I did a research project where I looked at 38,000 case histories [of sex crimes] and found that 41 percent of those reports indicated that, in fact, pornographic materials were used just prior to or during the actual act.5 (emphasis added)

Pope interviewed hundreds of sex offenders about their porn use, and “almost to a man,” the reply was: “I used it for one of several reasons: One, to encourage me.” Pope went on:

I can remember talking to one young man who was 19 years old; he said, “It excited me and then I got to thinking about it and I wanted to know how it felt.” . . . He wanted to know how it felt to rape a woman and kill her. . . . And when we arrested this young man and searched his home, we found a pornographic magazine depicting this very thing that he had done.6

Feeding Deviancy

Move up to 1988. In Thrill Killers: True Portrayals of America’s Most Vicious Murderers, Clifford Linedecker wrote:

[M]ost of the killers indulged themselves in violent and sadistic fantasies. Responding to a request to indicate their primary sexual interest, 81 percent of the men put pornography at the top of the list. . . . I found overwhelming evidence of twisted sexual fantasizing, and addiction to pornography in the backgrounds of many of the killers profiled in this book.7

By 1990, Dr. W. L. Marshall wrote in Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free, that “there is mounting evidence that in susceptible men, the material [pornography] feeds and legitimizes their deviant sexual tendencies.”8 And in 1997, John Douglas, an FBI serial-rape profiler, reported that serial-rape murderers are commonly found “with a large pornography collection, either store-bought or homemade. . . . [O]ur research does show that certain types of sadomasochistic and bondage-oriented material can fuel the fantasies of those already leaning in that direction.”9

And in 2003, Vernon J. Geberth, former Commanding Officer of the Bronx Homicide Task Force, wrote the following in Sex Related Homicide and Death Investigations, a book that should be required reading for those involved in sex-crime analyses:

[M]any of these pornographic depictions . . . were actually the road map to the offenses that the perpetrators of sex crimes were committing. . . . [T]he plan was in the pornography . . . [it is] the fuel that acts as a catalyst for fantasy-driven behavior. . . . [P]ornography plays an important part in violent sex crimes.

A Late Warning

Back in 1986, then U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop dubbed pornography a “crushing public health problem . . . a clear and present danger . . . blatantly anti-human. . . . We must oppose it as we oppose all violence and prejudice.”10

Koop was ignored. We now have the results of three generations of pornography use, arguably sufficient and necessary evidence to get us to start treating all pornography as a clear and present danger, harmful to women and children.

In the summer of 2013, Ariel Castro pled guilty to kidnapping and raping three women whom he held captive in his house in Ohio for a decade. When asked by a judge how good his English was, Castro replied that his comprehension was bad because “my addiction to pornography and my sexual problem has really taken a toll on my mind.”11 It also took a brutal toll on the lives of three women. How much more evidence do we need?

 

Endnotes
1. The nineteen laws are listed in my book Sexual Sabotage (WND, 2010), pp. 299–300.
2. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Eighth Congress, Second Session, “Oversight on Pornography, Magazines of a Variety of Courses, Inquiring into the Subject of Their Impact on Child Abuse, Child Molestation, and Problems of Conduct Against Women,” Aug. 8, Sept. 12 and 25, and Oct. 30, 1984 (US Government Printing Office, 1985), Serial No. J-98-133, pp. 43–44.
3. John Rabun, testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, 9/12/84, pp. 133–134.
4. https://archive.org/stream/womenviolencelaw00unit/-womenviolencelaw00unit_djvu.txt.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Clifford Linedecker, Thrill Killers: True Portrayals of America’s Most Vicious Murderers (PaperJacks, 1988).
8. W. L. Marshall. Criminal Neglect: Why Sex Offenders Go Free (Seal Books, 1990), pp. 156–157.
9. John Douglas, Journey Into Darkness (Pocket Star Books, 1997), p. 299.
10. C. Everett Koop, M.D., American Medical News (Oct. 10, 1986).
11. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/justice/ohio-castro/index.html?iref=allsearch.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on Salvo Magazine in the Fall 2013 issue. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

‘Gay’ Gypsy Moths and Porn Addiction

/0 Comments/in , /by
On Sept. 21, 2012, Texas neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton Jr., M.D., spoke on pornography addiction and sexual orientation, saying:

“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality even more rapidly through the cyber-acceleration of the Internet. It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.” (emphasis added)

Hilton’s lecture, “Changing the Stamp of Nature: Pornography Addiction, Neuroplasticity, and the ASAM and DSM Perspectives,” put a hard neuroscience face on pornographic brain rewiring, implicating sex-education promotions of homosexuality as a normal genetic variation.

Dr. Hilton cited Shakespeare on “addiction” directing “Each man to what … his addiction leads him” (Othello in Act II, ii 6), and my personal favorite: lust as “perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame. … Enjoyed no sooner but despised straight” etc. (Sonnet 129). Reread the Bard as wisdom literature.

Shakespeare studied and “employed Scripture teachings, facts, poetry, philosophy and language in his writings” (William Burgess, “The Bible in Shakespeare,” Author’s Preface, The Winona Publishing Company, 1903), so he understood well the harms of sexual addiction, seen in Proverbs 6:27 ESV: “Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?”

Hilton detailed myriad studies of addiction, the first medical use of the word appearing in a 1906 report on “opium addiction.” In 1983, roughly 300 years after Shakespeare and 3,500 years after the Bible, Dr. Patrick Carnes coined the term “sexual addiction.”

So, no, there IS nothing new under the sun.

We’ve just been educationally and morally dumbed down enough for deviance to really catch up.

In 2011 the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) added sex as biologically addictive. Via syringe or image, “altered biology affects subsequent behavior.” Widespread pornography consumption has largely crippled “prospective peer-reviewed studies on pornography or sexual addiction,” said Hilton. True. As principal investigator during President Reagan’s term, I piloted the largest unbiased U.S. Department of Justice study ever conducted on pornography. Big Pornography paid millions to taint our rock-solid findings. Our study was “burned” as science confirmed the 3,500-year-old biblical reality: Pornography would have to cause pornography/sex addiction.

Peek at the power in play at drjudithreisman.com.

In 2007 Science magazine quoted National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) director Dr. Nora Volkow saying “her institute’s name should encompass addictions such as pornography, gambling and food … the whole field” of addiction (emphasis added).

Columbia psychiatrist Dr. Norman Doidge reported, “The addictiveness of Internet pornography is not a metaphor … [but] long-term, sometimes lifelong, neuroplastic change in the brain.” By 2011 psychologist Dr. Philip Zimbardo described a “Demise of Guys,” via “arousal addiction” spawned chiefly by “pornography and video games.”

“Boys’ brains are being digitally rewired in a new way for change, novelty, excitement and constant arousal; that means they are totally out of sync [with] … romantic relationships, which build gradually and subtly.”

Pornography, homosexuality and the gypsy moth

Hilton agrees, “Pornography is inducing a cultural pheromonic effect,” recording the mis-orientation of male gypsy moths.

In 1869 gypsy moths, imported to create an American silk industry, instead decimated our deciduous trees – oaks, maples and elms – and devastated our forests for the next 150 years. In the ’60s scientists found male moths mate with the female “by following her scent,” her “pheromone.”

A 1967 paper, “Insect population control by the use of sex pheromones to inhibit orientation between the sexes,” reported that scientists permeated the moth’s environment with strong, artificial female moth pheromone “This … scent overpowered the normal females ability to attract the male, and the confused males were unable to find the females.”

So, our trees got saved by what could be called olfactory moth pornography, a heavy-duty phony scent that unmanned male orientation to create an impotent moth population.

Hilton reports this abstract of the paper: “We have for the first time obtained experimental confirmation that pre-mating communication between the sexes can be disrupted by permeating the atmosphere with an insect pheromone.”

In 1972 another paper described mating disorientation as “preventing male gypsy moths from finding mates,” using pheromones. Called the confusion method:

“An airplane scatters … pellets imbedded with the scent of the pheromone … [that] overpower the male’s ability to find the female. He is thus desensitized to the natural scent of the female by this artificially produced pheromone. … The male either becomes confused and doesn’t know which direction to turn for the female, or he becomes desensitized to the lower levels of pheromones naturally given out by the female and has no incentive to mate with her.” (emphasis added)

Gypsy moth pornography? In the trapping method, male moths looking for the female, enter traps with no exit “only to find a fatal substitute.” As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Hilton concludes:

“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality. … It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.”

So can Cynipidae desensitization tell us genius humanoids about pornographic mating desensitization, say, about pornography as Erototoxic, as the toxic form of Eros? Gosh.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on April 15, 2013. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Have You Ever Really Seen Hustler?

/0 Comments/in , /by
Until the current Flynt media-hype, few Americans had ever seen the Flynt flagship publication in which he vents his barbaric brand of graphic violence-and-sex. Who is the man who now “terrorizes” Congress? I have really seen Flynt and his sadistic imagery and fantasy having been charged by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, to direct a two-year content analysis of Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1953-1984).[1]

Our study documented each issue of Hustler averaging 14.1 children and pseudo-children alongside 47 images of crime and violence; 52 percent of child photos were sexually explicit and most cartooned children were sexually violated. Flynt regularly presents a volatile commingling of images of sex, violence, scatological degradation, fear and horror. Seen routinely are blood-dripping-mutilated hands, arms, heads, breasts and penises, often gutted, decapitated, castrated and satanically murdered and cannibalized, racist and occult images dominate the “magazine.”

December 1978, Hustler published photographs of naked children as young as three-years of age in sex scenes alongside an article, “Children, Sex and Society,” advocating an end to age of consent, calling for acceptance of adult-child sex, and legalization of incest.

Hustler is not for those challenged by human compassion. For example, in:

  • February 1975 in an article entitled “Adolescent Fantasy” an uncle is photographed sexually with his niece;
  • October 1976 a naked girl scout is photographed soliciting sex;
  • August 1981, a nude young girl, photographed with her dollies, saying to the viewer; “You would be surprised what a ‘little girl can do. …”
  • Recurrent cartoon and composite photo themes picturing blood-soaked castration are seen in the reality of child rape and mutilation. In October 26, 1990 a nine-year-old boy in Norman, Oklahoma was raped, his penis cut off and eye gouged out causing Hustler to be   removed from local stores — where a current Hustler depicted a young boy similarly tortured.
  • Flynt’s “Chester the Molester” cartoon character in March 1977, lay in wait under a playground slide for a child to sexually assault. In October 1977 the kidnapping and torturing three girls about 4-years old is depicted; while in February 1979, a car, with “Just Married” is shown driving away, with blood-drenched, aborted babies tied to the bumper.

So much for fantasy! The May 1984 Hustler cartoon of a father sexually abusing his daughter helped convict Hustler editorial cartoon director, Dwaine Tinsely, in real life, of felony child sexual abuse of his own daughter in 1989. He gave her birth control pills at age thirteen, drugged her and sexually abused her until age eighteen, when she became a suicidal drug addict. Tinsley alone had contributed 145 Hustler cartoons of violent child kidnapping and rape. The FBI Uniform Crime Rate from 1972-1991 found a 128% increase in reported rapes, with both offenders and victims increasingly younger.[2] The Reader’s Digest commented on the troubling FBI data, saying, “It could be concluded that some force impelling toward sex crime has been operating on younger males in the United States.”

In reality, the abusive Hustler cartoons commonly exhibit the coarse “humor” which defines the present White House scandal. To this trained eye, the predatory “force impelling” the president toward a powerless White House intern is reminiscent of Hustler’s ongoing themes of deceit, manipulation, degradation and fantasy.

 

 

[1] The peer-approved study required researchers to examine each page of every magazine (126) from Hustler’s 1974 inception to 1984 which, in 1983, reached over four million consumers, numerically on a par with Psychology Today readership.

[2] See Emilie Buchwald, et al., Transforming A Rape Culture, (1993) Milkweed, Minneapolis, Minn., p. 7. and Judith Reisman, “SoftPorn” Plays Hardball (1991). Huntington House, Lafayette, La. (1991), p. 15.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on Salvo Magazine in the Fall 2013 issue. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

Penn State’s Ironic “Child Sex Abuse” Conference

/0 Comments/in , /by
Rodney Erickson, Ph.D., the new president of Penn State, delivered welcoming remarks to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference Oct. 29-30. Erickson assumed the presidency Nov. 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous rapes of young boys.

The 2009 well-funded Penn State Justice Center for Research partnered the conference with the College of the Liberal Arts and University Outreach. The Justice Center’s “press releases,” which appear on the Web, began in 2010. These press releases, like the October conference speakers, ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State network.

I never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky” or “President Spanier” mentioned by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a mention of The Second Mile, the nonprofit charity founded by Sandusky & Co. – of course, to help local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The conference speeches are posted on the Internet, so if someone noted these names or events when I sneezed, kindly email those citations to me.

While Mr. Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse in June 2012, Mr. Spanier has recently been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. In plainer English, Spanier is accused of a long-time cover-up of Sandusky’s homosexual child rapist preferences.

The conference, attended largely by sexuality “experts,” therapists and survivors, was visible in its denial of a multitude of related facts about the violation of children.

Indeed, many therapists and survivors in the audience were stunned to hear the famous keynoter boldly claim a steep decline in substantiated child sex abuse (Finkelhor) and public safety resulting from sex offender treatment (Kaufman).

Although it would be dandy to believe Finkelhor and Kaufman’s fantasy “statistics,” telling us that all is improving so we must be doing things right, one critic said the massive child sex abuse decline parroted by the sexperts suffers from “the smell test – we on the ground see the problem of child sex abuse getting worse, not better.”

In fact, the expert child abuse denier, Dr. David Finkelhor, is the director of the Crimes against Children Research Center, co-director of the Family Research Laboratory and professor of Sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Finkelhor has so successfully pleased all big-government political administrations that he – like the Kinsey Institute and similar agencies – has received government grants from 1978 to today.

Despite the exposure of 5,200 Pentagon staffers found downloading “child pornography,” neither this well-known phrase nor “pornography” make it into the sexperts’ prevention lexicon. Who were these people at Penn State to protect? Not children.

Earlier in writing about pornography’s link to adult and child rape, I exposed some of the phony stats cooked by law professor Glenn Reynolds. Glenn and Northwestern law professor Anthony D’Amato claim “Porn up, Rape down” – with psychologists and therapists grabbing onto that shibboleth like a hungry dog on a bone.

The child abuse speakers didn’t dare claim, like D’Amato, that since “teenagers and adults” are using pornography fewer children are raped, yet their silence strongly implied that is the case. They all know the truth. U.S. News and World Report (April 24, 2000) said, “Facing political heat to cut crime in the city, investigators in the New York PPD’s Sex Crime Unit sat on (thousands of) reports of rapes and other sexual assaults.” One officer snarled, “The way crime was solved was with an eraser.”

In 2000 even the FBI admitted that one district “failed to report between 13,000 and 37,000 major crimes.” “A 2000 Philadelphia Inquirer report found from 1997-1999, of 300,000 sex crime reports, thousands of rapes got relabeled ‘investigation of persons’ or ‘investigation, protection, and medical examination’ – non-crime codes.” “This puts one in four rapes in a non-crime category.”

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (ret.), a West Point psychology professor, said, “Violent crime … is still about five times greater today, per capita, than it was in 1957.” He adds, “We’d have to let 1.5 million convicted offenders go to get down to a 1970s-level incarceration rate. We are lying about the data.”

The National Institute of Justice Managing Adult Sex Offenders (1997) reported: “The number of adults convicted annually of rape, child molestation, or other forms of sexual assault and sentenced to state prisons more than doubled between 1980 (8,000) and 1992 (19,100). In 1994, state prisons held 88,100 sex offenders compared to 20,500 in 1980.”

Adds Grossman, “Crimestat” had cops bring down crime. “When the NYPD police union went over the data the crime rates doubled in New York City.” Other than murder (reduced via medical technology), “police artificially ‘bring crime down,’ we cook the books.”

“The American Police Beat,” May 2005 quotes Denver Police Lt. James D. Ponzi, a Regis University professor: “Compstat turned into ‘Compscam’ as departments cooked the books to lower crime rates,” never making it into the “National Incident Based Reporting System [NIBRS].” Adds Ponzi, “These ‘lower’ rape statistics don’t reflect what is truly happening in sex related crimes.” For example, “LAPD reported a 28 percent drop in violent crime in 2005, the same year the department reclassified domestic assaults in which the victim suffered minor injuries or had no injuries.”

“In Atlanta, 22,000 crimes were left out of the crime reports. In New York, the crime rates doubled in a precinct when the proper classification was applied by the police union. The list goes on.” Bureaucrats are happy, but “the citizens … get nothing but a false sense of security about the safety of their cities.”

Although pornography is absolutely causal in child sexual abuse, other critical falsehoods were given to the attendees.

Again ignoring the massive increase in child sex abuse that coincides with “school sex ed,” Finklehor wants more of the same to lower child sex abuse rates. He claims boys who are “gay” should be supported in their decisions, without any reference to any sex abuse that these boys probably experienced. Hence we lower rates of child sex abuse by labeling children “gay” and saying they liked it.

All speakers ignored the fact that younger victims are more likely to have developed traumatic amnesia; they ignore the increasingly violent nature of child sex abuse, pedophile rings, pedophile proponents, child sex trafficking, institutions harming large numbers of children, child protective services workers refusing to protect and instead reunifying children inappropriately, courts ordering children to live with reported offenders and coordinated disbelief of children when they report sex abuse. Attorneys and advocates in divorce situations advise their clients not to report child sex abuse, since the children are almost always placed with the abusers (Neustein & Goetting 1999 and Steubner, 2011).

Finkelhor also claims “low” recidivism for sex offenders. Ludicrous. Numerous studies show a steady increase in recidivism over time. One attendee stated, “Dr. Kaufman’s talk was disturbingly offender-friendly.”

Statistics are commonly used to falsify reality. I’ve written extensively on that in my books on the statistical and criminal frauds of Alfred Kinsey. Interesting, that one of the speakers defined statutory rapists as children’s “partners,” the word coined by Kinsey for child rapists.

The speakers claims that a rapist is a child’s “partner,” that children are “engaged in prostitution” and that “children with a crush” can lie to have sex speaks to adopting a predator worldview.

The objection to sex offender registration as “draconian measures” is more predator-protector language, as is, “Children may like the attention,” and “not all victims experience problems.” These claims are disingenuous since problems develop throughout the life cycle and there is no way to assess that truth. “Kids having problems prior to the abuse put them at risk of being abused” again lays the blame on the children. All this while hiding the role of mainlining pornography as the primary culprit in child-on-child and adult-on-child sex abuse.

A very serious complaint came from one survivor who said, “The family courts are really criminal enterprises. Even the Center for Missing and Exploited Children is part of the problem. I collected fliers over five years and found that NCMEC sent four times more fliers looking for women abductors than for men, although men abduct more often. I was appalled. I confronted the president and shortly NCMEC stopped sending fliers and moved to the Internet.”

As violent sex crimes increase, including all sodomy and use of objects, and photos, etc., many professionals, themselves users and/or abusers, must minimize the horror of the growing child sex abuse pandemic. To many hearing these speakers, this appears to have been the subtext of the first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on WorldNetDaily on November 3, 2012. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.

From Greatest Generation to Porn Generation

/0 Comments/in , /by
I This is our legacy to our children? A “porn generation”? I was talking with a sweet young 14-year-old girl the other day. She was depressed. “All the boys I’ve been friends with at school, really friends with, they’re now acting so inappropriately.”

No, she wasn’t hurt by anyone. But, she says, “I have to slap them and it’s really upsetting. I know they’re watching pornography,” she adds. “That’s where they get all that stuff from. And it hurts, also because they are ruining their own lives.” She chokes back the tears.

Don’t expect Dr. Phil or any other television maven to reveal pornography for what it is—a major erototoxic virus infecting most exposed. The virus was released into society December 1953 when Hugh Hefner used it to emasculate Joe College. Rendered impotent without fantasy sex, millions of men over time—crossing every political, racial, religious, educational and socioeconomic boundaries—lost the virility and virtue needed to protect their wives and children from the current porn deluge. And when men are emasculated, popping Viagra while lusting after tragic centerfold paper and celluloid and computer dollies, women turn away from home and embrace “work” that may be empty but is reliable.

Benjamin Shapiro, a strapping young 21-year-old author, columnist, survivor of UCLA and current Harvard Law sSchool warrior, has written the book for parents and youths—Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (published by Regnery, a Human Events sister company). Shapiro’s Judeo-Christian advocacy is sane, compassionate, documented and easy to take, although he has drawn the wrath of many suffering the pains of amorality.

Shapiro tells “the baby boomers and liberals who make up the current leadership in this country”that they need to take esponsibility for “what they’ve done to American society.”

Shapiro observes that if children infected with venereal disease from oral sodomy “at age 12” are not seen as “a broken nation,” we “aren’t looking hard enough.” The baby boomers and “grownup flower children” became the mass media and education authorities who have corrupted society, writes Shapiro.

Of course, I find this young man especially wise in his awareness of the role of Alfred Kinsey in normalizing the porn generation. Describing Kinsey’s impact he says, “Kinsey claimed that Americans were secret perverts and sex maniacs.” By lying about our parents and grandparents, Kinsey invalidated morality as a “social ideal.” Then, using the old bait and switch trick, says Shapiro, Kinsey pulls out the tattered “hypocrisy” charge.

“The only way to alleviate guilt became abdication of moral sexual standards,” he says. “And when the chief goal is erasing guilt, even for immoral actions, all that remains is narcissism.”

Shapiro argues, with strong support, that discarding traditional morality gave our children over to social liberals, who control our culture through music, film, television and other mass media so that the normal is now considered deviant. He says the effects upon his generation are“disastrous.”

I do not think Shapiro exaggerates. “Like it or not, the porn generation is the future of this country,” says Shapiro. Think of that and consider what decisions will be made by future judges, juries, legislators, prosecutors and Presidents who are pornography addicts.

It is not a good era for parents to rear their young. They try to restrict the erotically laced videos, rap, adverts and Internet porn. Now they are faced with Rainbow Party, a Simon Pulse book (a division of Simon & Schuster) by Paul Ruditis that has little girls pick out different lipstick colors to practice for some boy-girl oral sex orgies. The “me generation” led to “Gen X” that logically has produced the X-Rated Porn Generation.

Shapiro’s writing is crisp and right on target. And take a deep breath folks, because the young man is pointing his finger at most of adult society, for children now are paying with their lives for the adult selfishness and abandonment of strong moral standards.

Most parents are not nearly “in the know” enough about the problems their children face in trying to survive their toxic porn environment. Shapiro’s is a critical wake-up call for parents and it is a book that can give them the knowledge necessary to begin to turn around the amorality that is destroying their children.

“I am a member of a lost generation,” Shapiro writes. “Never in our country’s history has a generation been so empowered, so wealthy, so privileged-and yet so empty.”

Shapiro is a great spokesman for youth and for this nation. Pornography will grow in violence and degradation. Its causal role in child sexual abuse, incest and rape is real and all too well documented. It is increasingly taking the littlest ones, the most innocent.

Pornography will not go away unless we treat it like an environmental toxin. Pornography was never about sex. It was always about emasculating men and neuro-chemically linking sexual lust with shame, fear, violence and degradation.

6Dr. Judith Reisman is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Study of Social Trends, Human Rights, and Media Forensics.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published on National Review on June 27, 2005. You can buy Dr. Reisman’s book Sexual Sabotage on her website.