Sodomy Decision Based on Fraudulent Science

 

Judith Reisman

In his distinguished book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn, the late MIT philosopher of science, noted that scientists were not always disinterested, "objective" scholars.

Too often, bogus research findings become "fashionable" as scientists and society embrace a revolutionary new paradigm based on deceptive "scientific findings." Consider the "science" of "phrenology," so popular a century ago, which specifically linked intelligence and character traits to skull shape and cranial size.

Lawrence v. Texas is a flagrant, indeed chilling, example of just such a bogus "scientific" revolution, one in which the U.S. Supreme Court is driving the junk science bandwagon, marching America and the world into snake-infested swamps.

For many reasons, any revisionist investigation of history brings to mind Thomas Jefferson, who warned, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Rick Perlstein noted this ignorance in his ecstatic essay for the Washington Post, "What Gay Studies Taught the Court." Perlstein observed, "commentators may have skipped their homework in reporting on the historical foundations of the majority's decision," for, although Lawrence was a "momentous" shift in America's moral economy, "[w]hat hasn't been explained is the basis for Kennedy's landmark ruling."

He was correct up to there. The Court based its disastrous sodomy ruling on fraudulent scholarship that deceived six justices. Their ignorance of junk "sex science" and junk history led directly to a grotesque decision that will further promote sex acts that sicken and kill countless people.

Perlstein offered an insider's awareness that conservative lawyers or pundits seldom grasp. The justices, too, "skipped their homework" in considering "the foundations of the majority's decision." Inconceivably, the Court brazenly cited only secondary "scientific" authorities for their sodomy ruling.

In fact, tracing Kennedy's opinion back to its origin reveals that the majority relied on only one sex "science" resource as the Court's primary authority on sex and sodomy—namely, the bi/homosexual, sadomasochistic, proven fraud, Prof. Alfred C. Kinsey.

The evidence shows that Justice Kennedy genuflected to "facts" about sodomy as documented by the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) of 1955. Yet the primary source for the sodomy "data" codified as "fact" by the Court in the ALIMPC was Kinsey alone.

Actually, not only did the majority rely on Kinsey as its primary sex science authority, but the "gay studies" historical revisionists the majority cited also relied on Kinsey as their primary sex science resource. But let's go back to the ALIMPC. Kennedy opined:

"In 1955 the American Law Institute promulgated the Model Penal Code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for 'criminal penalties for consensual sexual relations conducted in private.' It justified its decision on three grounds: (1) The prohibitions undermined respect for the law by penalizing conduct many people engaged in; (2) the statutes regulated private conduct not harmful to others; and (3) the laws were arbitrarily enforced and thus invited the danger of blackmail." [Emphasis added.]

In his Lawrence v. Texas Amicus Curiae brief to the Court, Kentucky lawyer Ronald E. Ray reported:

'Regarding homosexuality, [ALI Reporter] Schwartz cited the Kinsey Reports as evidence of the frequency of homosexual activity and the senselessness of trying to control it.' Indeed, upon the Kinsey 'research,' many state sodomy laws have been changed or overturned."

Experts? Hardly. Meticulous scholarly study reveals that all of ALIMPC's assertions about the "right" to sodomy came from one alleged "expert"—Kinsey—in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

Chapter 8 of my book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000, 2003) fully documents Kinsey's total domination of the "Sex Offenses" section of the 1955 ALIMPC.

But on June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court enshrined Kinsey's fraudulent data as the revolutionary moral law of our land, even though it derived from crimes of sexual torture inflicted on at least 317 and as many as 2,035 infants and children, who "convulsed," "fainted" and tried to escape their abusers. The "expert" Prof. Kinsey, who himself was a barbaric sadomasochist, reported that the little victims "enjoyed" being sexually tortured (Male, see esp. pp. 160-161 and p. 180).

Although Kinsey was cited throughout the "Sex Offenses" section of the 1955 ALIMPC six times in 12 pages, the eight pages on "Sodomy and Related Offenses" quoted extensively from Kinsey's Male volume, with 19 of the 21 quotations in "Frequency of Sexual Deviation" taken from Kinsey. His sex science data on sodomy are the only ones cited.

The ALIMPC writers quoted Kinsey's junk science in order to overthrow the Judeo-Christian sexual morality of The Greatest Generation and replace it with Kinsey's ideology of sexual anarchy. Kinsey falsely stated in his 1948 book (quoted in the ALIMPC) that 72% of males practice oral sex, 40-50% of farm boys have sex with animals, and that "37% of the total male population has at least some overt homosexual experience to the point of orgasm between adolescence and old age. This accounts for nearly 2 males out of every 5 that one may meet."

And where did Kinsey get these "data" that the illustrious Model Penal Code authors and six U.S. Supreme Court justices so willingly took at face value? It turns out that Kinsey, famed for his sexual "statistics," knew nothing about statistics, simply making up what he needed, while passing his young boyfriend off as his "statistician."

In fact, roughly 86% of Kinsey's total male subjects were sexually, criminally or mentally aberrant. For example, Wardell Pomeroy, co-author (with Kinsey) of the Male volume, stated:

"By the end of 1940 [Kinsey] had recorded more than 450 homosexual histories . . . . His Chicago and St. Louis contacts began to spread . . .like the branches of a tree. With 700 histories recorded at this point, his tabulations, curves and correlation charts began to be impressive . . . . In autumn of 1940 he describes his prison work: 'I have 110 histories from inmates there and can get as many hundreds more as I want.'"

Moreover, the Court's reliance on foreign laws to justify its demolishing our own laws had roots in the 1955 ALIMPC's citation of "Foreign Countries" (p. 162). Among many other ALIMPC references to experts who relied on Kinsey we find an emergent plea to replace the penitentiary with psychotherapy.

Kennedy also stated, for the Court:

"In 1961 Illinois changed its laws to conform to the Model Penal Code. Other States soon followed . . . .The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report . . . .Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later." [Emphasis added.]

Kinsey made a hush-hush trip to England to serve as sex science advisor for the Wolfenden Report (even though he is absent from the Wolfenden "Witnesses" list), which extolled The Kinsey Reports on its book jacket and quoted his false homosexual data throughout. The ALIMPC and Wolfenden were the key sex/sodomy authorities that Kennedy cited for the Court.

Justice Scalia noted the importance of the ALIMPC: "In relying, for evidence of an 'emerging recognition,' upon the American Law Institute's 1955 recommendation not to criminalize 'consensual sexual relations conducted in private,' ante, at 11, the Court ignores the fact that this recommendation was 'a point of resistance in most of the states that considered adopting the Model Penal Code.'"

The Court needs to revisit this decision in the light of new facts displacing our ignorance: the knowledge that a duplicitous sexual deviant was the primary source used by the United States Supreme Court as their "sex science" authority in Lawrence v. Texas.

Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, one of Kinsey's recent hagiographers, writes in Sex, The Measure of All Things (1998) that "The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code of 1955 is virtually a Kinsey document!"

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy based his pro-sodomy majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas on legal sources that relied on the proven fraud, Prof. Alfred C. Kinsey. Kennedy has company. Citing Kinsey's phony "data" is standard procedure in the legal profession—and in the academic "scholarship" that jurists use to support their rulings.

Part one in this series exposed the Court's "scientific understanding" in Lawrence as turning on the 1955 American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALIMPC) and the 1957 (British) Wolfenden Report. Both relied on Kinsey's bogus "findings" in his Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

In part two, we'll scrutinize more Kinsey-worshiping—the sort of "scientific subject matter" that persuaded six Supreme Court justices in Lawrence that outlawing "homosexual sodomy furthers no legitimate state interest."

In his powerful dissent from Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned, "[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity . . . [are all] called into question by today's decision."

In addition, he chided the academic "law-profession culture" for relying on everything but the Constitution.

Academia's Sexual Ideology

Justice Scalia is right; the "law-profession culture" is on record as subscribing to Kinsey's sexual ideology. Consider that over a 16-year period, from 1982 to 1998, at least 1,000 major law school journal articles quoted Kinsey as their sex science authority. And the critically important American Association of Law Schools commands total submission to its homosexual "equity" ethic.

But it's not just the law schools. One survey (American Enterprise, 2002) confirms the anecdotal observation that almost 100% of those teaching history, women's and "gay studies" in our major universities are self-identified as leftists. This means academia is blacklisting traditionalist scholars. That is bad science—and, as seen in Lawrence, it produces bad law.

Kinsey disciples also dominate the social sciences. The Science Citation & Social Science Citation Indices from 1948 to 1997 yielded 5,796 academic publications that quoted Kinsey, far more than the next "sexuality" contender, Masters & Johnson, at 3,716.

Instead of objectively searching for truth, scholars are accepting Kinseyan sexuality uncritically because they like his fake "findings."

As University of Michigan English Professor David Halperin wrote in 1996, "lesbian and gay studies . . . expresses an uncompromising political militancy . . . [triggering] a far-reaching intellectual transformation in the disciplines of the humanities, arts and social sciences as well as in the social life of American universities and in the professional culture of American academe."

In "What Gay Studies Taught the Court," Rick Perlstein, a Washington Post reporter, notes that "gay studies . . . history professors" have helped demolish America's anti-sodomy laws by legitimizing what were formerly viewed as "political correctness" and "special interest studies." He says the Supreme Court has made "gay studies . . . scholarship . . . bedrock . . . for settling the law of the land."

In Lawrence, the Court endorsed the sexual research by name of "gay studies" figures, along with Richard Posner, Chief Justice of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ALIMPC, as well as all of the Court's academic experts that follow, trace their "pioneering" origin to Kinsey. Yet none condemns—or even admits—his sexual psychopathic and sadistic "orientation" and his employment of pedophiles to sodomize infants and children. The "orgasm" tests (see Table 34), timed by stopwatch, are reproduced from Kinsey's 1948 volume.

First, consider the Court's cite to Posner's Overcoming Law. Here Posner says, "Kinsey's scale . . . from zero to six . . . represent[s] the range of homosexual preferences," invoking Kinsey's made-up homosexual index as if it reflected reality. Posner repeats Kinsey's fraudulent "findings" on pure faith and praises his supposed sexual wisdom, but conveniently ignores Kinsey collaborators' wicked "orgasm" torture "experiments" on children—even on babies less than a year old. The psychopathic Kinsey is Posner's sex authority . . . and Posner is the Court's sex authority.

Next, the Court names Intimate Matters, by Estelle Freedman and John D'Emilio, well-funded professors of History, Women's and Gay Studies. They devote a full 20 of their text's 428 pages to quoting Kinsey's claims. Kinsey made, they say, "the strongest assault on sexual reticence in the public realm" and helped sway Supreme Court decisions on "obscenity."

The "new history" typically uses Kinsey's fraud to sabotage marital fidelity and chastity. Freedman and D'Emilio hide the truth that so few normal women would talk to Kinsey that he had to define a wife as someone who merely lived "at least a year" with a man. By casting prostitutes and other aberrant women as spouses, Kinsey created high rates of female premarital promiscuity, adultery and abortion that these "historians" told the Court were true.

The authors point out that "Kinsey's estimates dwarfed all previous calculations" of homosexuality, but they cover up data which disprove Kinsey's ideology-driven claims that homosexuality is "benign." Kinsey is Freedman and D'Emilio's sex authority and they are the court's sex authority.

Lastly, the court quotes from "gay studies historian" Jonathan Katz's book, The Invention of Heterosexuality, which promotes Kinsey's frauds. Katz argues elsewhere that ever since "Kinsey's scale," the notion of "an erotic continuum has become a popular mainstay of a liberal sexual pluralism," adding that "serious" writing about sex has been designed . . . to give a bastard subject legitimacy."

In its citations of Kinsey-worshipping academics, the U.S. Supreme Court left out a few awkward facts about Kinsey as sexual "authority." For instance, Kinsey hid his own bisexual, homosexual, pornographic, sadomasochistic and pedophile "interests."

Even friendly biographer James Jones documented Kinsey's sexual harassment of males, his masturbation compulsion and the violent sex rituals that led to his untimely death. Jones confirmed that Kinsey disguised himself as a staid, middle-American family man and scholar in order to promote his legal and socio-sexual agenda.

Kinsey is at once the most powerful, and the weakest, link in the liberals' chain as they incessantly subvert American health and welfare.

In the first two parts of this series, we uncovered how Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court's recent unconstitutional pro-sodomy ruling, cited academic and legal sources that rely on false data—the debunked 1948 and 1953 "findings" of sex deviate Prof. Alfred C. Kinsey.

This twisted, unsupportable Lawrence decision was bad enough. But worse, Kinsey's many disciples are going to keep on using his bogus sexual "findings" to pervert U.S. law, education, culture and society. That is, unless Congress finally takes notice and does something about it.

One of the worst facets of the Kinseyization of American life is the direct harm it does to our children and youth. The Kinseyites' central lies—that "everybody's doing it," "children are sexual from birth," "school kids need K-12 sex immersion," and "children can make their own decisions"—have made it open season on our kids for an ever-growing cesspool of victimizers.

The truth is: Alfred Kinsey's cold, dead hands are clamped tightly around America's children, and the fault lies largely with his apologists in academia, who include even enablers of pedophilia. This is unacceptable. It has to change. And Congress can change it.

How? First, here's a refresher in recent history. Kinsey is the "father of the sexual revolution," thanks to his widely ballyhooed works on sexual behavior in men (1948) and women (1953). They formed the basis for the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (1955), which misled state and federal authorities into reducing and even killing penalties for many sex crimes.

Yet Kinsey's influence didn't stop there. His books remain entrenched in academic mythology— even though this author and her colleagues "demolished the foundation of the two [Kinsey] reports," as an article in the British medical journal The Lancet attested back in 1990.

Kinsey managed to undermine America's Biblical/classical sexual morality by creating a phony new academic field, the study of "sexuality," now complete with all the scholarly touches of professors, textbooks, research papers, journals, conferences, curricula—and government grants.

This new "scientific" community unscientifically blacklists everyone who would present the facts that expose Kinsey as a fraud and sexual psychopath. That conveniently leaves the Kinseyites free to continue inflicting their baseless and injurious pro-deviance message on American society.

These scholars' blind resistance to facts is not atypical, as late MIT philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn pointed out in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He found that scholars "whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards . . . predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like." Scientists, Kuhn said, "defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost" and often "suppress fundamental [data] . . . subversive of its basic commitments."

So if the Kinseyite dinosaurs, largely taxpayer-funded, refuse to change, they need to be made extinct. An excellent way for Congress to do just that is to revive a House bill from 1995, the Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.

In its initial stage, that explosive bill mandated a congressional investigation "to determine if Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and/or Sexual Behavior in the Human Female are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing." If the answer was yes, all past or present tax dollars for propagandistic Kinseyite sex education and similar programs could be eliminated and all Kinseyite professors, textbooks and so on would be evaluated based on the "tainted nature of the Kinsey reports."

This is powerful stuff. At the mere thought of such congressional scrutiny, Indiana University nearly padlocked its campus guest, the Kinsey Institute, for so-called budgetary reasons. Unfortunately, though, the money-laden, powerful Ford and Rockefeller foundations weighed in and the Child Protection legislation ended up on a back burner.

Nevertheless, the proposed congressional investigation received worldwide publicity, and that prompted the making of a major British documentary, "Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles." That Yorkshire television film, produced by award-winning director Tim Tate, was screened throughout England on Aug. 10, 1998, to widespread acclaim and BBC kudos.

The film documented that Kinsey was aided by scores of brutal pedophiles as well as a German Nazi, Dr. Friz von Balluseck later arrested in 1955 for a child sex murder—with Balluseck egged on by Kinsey at Indiana University. In 1998, John Bancroft, then the Kinsey Institute director, told Kinseyites in San Francisco that he "pray[ed]" Americans would never get to see the film.

The Kinsey Institute has done more than "pray." Despite the critical acclaim for Tate's documentary, no American station has ever broadcast it.

The institute is open to comrades only, but it receives major federal and state funds for "science" such as pro-pedophile lecturers and measurements of peoples' sexual arousal. In 1998, Indiana University republished Kinsey's fraudulent "research" but hid the truth about his false data and his child sex abuse "methodology." It even launched a year-long mass media campaign to bury Kinsey's history as the pioneer of Nazi-style "scientific" sexual atrocities against children.

That was the barbaric "orgasm" experimentation by Kinsey and/or Kinsey-trained rapists on infants as young as two months, using stopwatches while the little victims convulsed, fainted, screamed, wept and pleaded to be released, only to be "tested" and sometimes filmed again.

Somehow it comes as no surprise that Hollywood is making Kinsey, a biopic that will glorify this monster and omit the sordid reality that he was a self-abusing, bisexual sadomasochist pornography addict—and probably a pedophile.

Nor is the movie likely to admit that Kinsey solicited child sex abuse "data" from von Balluseck and from the pioneers of the North American Man-Boy Love Association. By the way, NAMBLA's website calls Kinsey its hero "in the struggle we fight today."

The Kinseyites are riding high, but we can stop them. Tell your congressman and senators they must revive and pass the Child Protection and Ethics Act of 1995 so the Kinsey Institute and its pro-pedophilia minions throughout academia can be investigated, exposed and defunded.

The safety and the souls of America's children are at stake, and we cannot fail to act.

 

 

Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1565

 

 

Copyright     |  Contact us     |     Top     |     Next