# Alfred Kinsey



## EyelessMC (Apr 10, 2021)

Pictured below is Alfred Charles Kinsey, the man known today--by those who do know him--as the "Father of the Sexual Revolution", the man whose work changed the world.



 He even had his own movie made about him starring Liam Neeson: 


However, you might be more familiar with the name from the "Kinsey Scale", a sort of sexual fluidity scale from staunchly heterosexual to overtly homosexual, arguably a sort of precursor to the notion of gender fluidity we have today.



This kind of thing, like much of Kinsey's research, is taught in Gender Studies classes and other realms of academia. Kinsey's work also informs public school Sex Ed and even legal cases, especially cases relating to criminal sexual behavior.

Alfred Kinsey is one of the chief impetuses of much of America's, and the world's thereby, revised understanding of sexuality. A studied sexologist and zoologist, he founded his own institute in the 1940's after noteworthy professorship at the same university where he received his PhD. His interest in studying the intricacies of human sexuality burgeoned, as did his own radical views, views like "abstinence until marriage is psychologically harmful". According to his Wikipedia entry it seems it was around this time that he caught the eye of a certain philanthropic organization which would not only fund new research from Kinsey but would go on to bolster him and his work across the country, even helping it be introduced into the American legal system, as previously mentioned.
Although the Kinsey Institute's history page mentions only the "Committee for Research in Problems of Sex" (CRPS), the true origin source of Kinsey's support came from the Rockefeller Foundation.

You can find more information like this readily on the Kinsey Institute's page dedicated to its founder's history and the aforementioned Wikipedia entry, but what neither (let alone most other articles and sites) are inclined to mention is that among Kinsey's most widely studied and noteworthy books of research--namely "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female"--was something obscenely dark. It was not the spurious or even manufactured data regarding certain sexual proclivities or the false statistical tendencies to homosexuality among men. No, it was an emphasis on child sexual behavior in ages as young as only months old--propositions supported by data collected not just from known pedophiles but even from one of the most prolific child rapists in the history of Berlin, a high ranking literal Nazi named Fritz von Balluseck.


 


New York Times article link. Archive link.

Kinsey would also associate with men like Kenneth Anger who not only participated in and helped film pornographic materials for Kinsey's studies but was an "avant-garde" filmmaker who was known as a Satanist, despite him saying he was not one in this article from the Guardian (Archive, preferred for full article).
Below is a picture of Kenneth Anger:



At one point Kinsey and a younger Anger had gone to Thelema Abbey, a small house in Sicily which had been founded by Alistair Crowley as a Satanic temple, pictured below (viewing art, after Crowley's death):




Alfred Kinsey would go throughout America with speaking engagements to talk about his noteworthy "Kinsey Reports" (the aforementioned "Sexual Behavior" research books) and how they can help people better accept and grow comfortable with their sexuality, starting even from infancy. He would argue that child sexuality was nothing to be ashamed of, that children having orgasms was natural and proved their sexual inclination, and that no psychological damage came from inter-age sexual intercourse. Although, all of this about children remained heavily under-discussed. Instead the talks, interviews and accolades referred mainly to his research in adult men and women. Kinsey's image was, and in many parts still is, as highly regarded as it was highly influential, even influencing Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, whose publication began roughly around 1953, not long after Kinsey's reports were first becoming widespread.





With regards to the data on childhood sexuality in Kinsey's reports, his Wikipedia entry states "Little attention was paid to this part of Kinsey's research at the time, but where Kinsey had gained this information began to be questioned nearly 40 years later." However, this is a flat out falsehood, as there were in fact questions regarding his highly controversial studies and their sources from the beginning. However criticism of Kinsey is best known to become popularized after one of Kinsey's most vocal critics, Dr. Judith Ann Reisman (the presumed "founder of the anti-Kinsey movement" according to her Wikipedia entry) became a noted public figure, appearing on television and major networks to expose Kinsey and his work. She would spend most of her life dedicated to showing how his research was born from and encouraged child sexual abuse, as well as how it was not just changing society but also legislature and educational curriculum.




Reisman began on her crusade against Kinsey and his research after her daughter was molested and, due to trauma, slipped into "deep depression" only to die fifteen years later from brain aneurysm, which she curiously blamed on her daughter's earlier sexual trauma. She held a presentation for the FBI to investigate the rise in sexually violent cases, particularly regarding children, and its potential correlation with rising pornographic magazines like Playboy and Hustler, wherein she discovered that not only did the major pornographic magazines employ repeatedly incestuous, underage or outright violent sexual cartoons regarding children but even had nude photoshoots of actual children (as well as the phenomenon of "barely legal" and women dressed up as young girls).

This, too, she would tie back to Kinsey's research, and when one of the founders of these magazines (Hefner) had taken to the title of being "Kinsey's Pamphleteer", even referring to Kinsey's publication as "the other great book", it may be difficult not to see a correlation. However, due to her religious beliefs and particular view of these things coming from Satanism and its "do what thou wilt" philosophy, she is not always taken seriously.

Below is a succinct video about Kinsey and the presumed effects of his research with clips from a documentary which interviews Dr. Reisman and others.




Your browser is not able to display this video.



The full documentary is nearly 3hrs and pores over with great detail (and conservative and religious leanings, with minor cinematic flare for its budget) much of what was written here and even more, replete with citations. The full documentary is on Youtube and will be linked at the bottom of this post for those interested.

*TL;DR* Public school Sex Ed would not exist without Kinsey. Many of the laws which decrease the penalties of soliciting minors and other pedophilic crimes were influenced by legal citations to Kinsey's studies. Kinsey's research underpins almost every aspect of medical and scientific study today, biological and psychological, when it comes to human sexual behaviors. Without Kinsey there would be no widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and alternative sexual lifestyles, little if any tolerance for pornography, no LGBT movement, no John Money, no Transgenderism and "Gender" notions today and so on.
We likely would not even have OnlyFans.

Ultimately Alfred Kinsey's work--provably fallacious in many aspects and further proven to be informed by actual pedophiles, one of which seemingly being a Nazi officer with whom Kinsey was not only in correspondence but, it's said, was actively encouraging him to catalog his acts in diaries for his research--has helped change not just America but the entire world for generations to come.

Full Documentary: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=aJ0JQGoAz4w or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ0JQGoAz4w



Spoiler: P.S.



Alfred Kinsey, much like Hugh Henfer, was not Jewish.


----------



## KifflomKween (Apr 10, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Without Kinsey there would be no widespread acceptance of extramarital sex


Kinsey if often quoted by the degenerates of adultery communities as a justification for their cheating and sexual addictions.
"According to Kinsey it's normal to have sex x times a week in a marriage, see I'm not a sex addict, clearly there's something wrong with my spouse not me".

About time someone made a thread on this creepy fuck. Good thread OP.

Regarding age of consent laws
Another person who was involved in lowering the age of consent laws of her time was Simone Beauvior and her intellectual friends.

She also lost her teaching license because she'd seduce/procure students for her boyfriend, Sartre.


> In 1943, Beauvoir was suspended from her teaching position when she was accused of seducing her 17-year-old lycée pupil Natalie Sorokine in 1939.[37] Sorokine's parents laid formal charges against Beauvoir for debauching a minor (the age of consent in France at the time was 15[_citation needed_]), and Beauvoir's license to teach in France was revoked, although it was subsequently reinstated.





> In 1977, Beauvoir, Sartre, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and much of the era's intelligentsia signed a petition seeking to abrogate the age of consent in France.


From wikipedia

A personal obscure cow of mine who is a big fan of Kinsey has a friend who loves to write about children's sexuality. From his wikipedia page (source/archive)


----------



## Dom Cruise (Apr 10, 2021)

Kenneth Anger's angle fyi is he thinks Satan and Lucifer are two different entities.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Apr 10, 2021)

Dom Cruise said:


> Kenneth Anger's angle fyi is he thinks Satan and Lucifer are two different entities.



Yeah, Kenneth Anger is not a Satanist, he's a Thelemite. Same goes for Aleister Crowley. Personally, I think Thelema is a bunch of edgy woo but it's not the same as Satanism.




EyelessMC said:


> Pictured below is Alfred Charles Kinsey, the man known today--by those who do know him--as the "Father of the Sexual Revolution", the man whose work changed the world.
> View attachment 2075012 He even had his own movie made about him starring Liam Neeson: View attachment 2075085
> However, you might be more familiar with the name from the "Kinsey Scale", a sort of sexual fluidity scale from staunchly heterosexual to overtly homosexual, arguably a sort of precursor to the notion of gender fluidity we have today.
> View attachment 2075058
> ...



OP is a faggot


----------



## Poxy Fuckwit (Apr 10, 2021)

There's already a historical lolcows thread, it kind of defeats the purpose of making a thread about someone who died long before our grandparents were born. But I can understand where you're coming from OP.

(Edit, just realized this was moved)


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 10, 2021)

KifflomKween said:


> She also lost her teaching license because she'd seduce/procure students for her boyfriend, Sartre.


Oh! As in Jean Paul Sartre, one of--if not the--biggest names in modern philosophy and existentialism. Figures he would be a pervert.



Dom Cruise said:


> Kenneth Anger's angle fyi is he thinks Satan and Lucifer are two different entities.


I'd figure he'd have an odd take like that. Technically not a Satanist but basically the same thing I guess, especially considering his movies.


 





Syaoran Li said:


> Yeah, Kenneth Anger is not a Satanist, he's a Thelemite. Same goes for Aleister Crowley.


OP is always a fag as a general rule but that's besides the point. I don't think this is the thread to debate the variations of demon-loving sex pests (the Witchblr thread is better for that) but Crowley was definitely a Satanist, or it sprang from him, and no matter what newage mumbo jumbo a guy tosses into it, if he's slapping triple sixes on stuff he knows what he's doing.

Regardless, even if that wasn't the case he's still an obvious Crowley fan and the issue is this guy being involved with a broadly respected and influential figure studying natural human sexual behavior. It's said Kinsey was deeply interested in Crowley as well, though obviously from a data-gathering standpoint.
And also maybe because he coomed to his writings. Who knows?



Kafferlord said:


> (Edit, just realized this was moved)


Yeah the mods are lightning. Still, considering how he's at the epicenter of all of this stuff Kinsey definitely deserves his own thread, wherever it's best suited. Maybe now the Farms will have an anchoring point that other sites and even Trad focused posters don't. Too many people just say "Boomers" or "Jews" without knowing the real history of it all and they retard themselves.
Edit: He didn't die before our grandparents, dude. It's not that old. lol Unless I'm that old, then nevermind.


----------



## Syaoran Li (Apr 10, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Oh! As in Jean Paul Sartre, one of--if not the--biggest names in modern philosophy and existentialism. Figures he would be a pervert.
> 
> 
> I'd figure he'd have an odd take like that. Technically not a Satanist but basically the same thing I guess, especially considering his movies.
> ...



Traditionalism is cancer and is not the answer, in fact it is counter-productive


----------



## KifflomKween (Apr 10, 2021)

Syaoran Li said:


> Traditionalism is cancer and is not the answer


Traditionalism is what bred these people and ideologies. Oppress people too much and you get the opposite extreme.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 10, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> *TL;DR* Public school Sex Ed would not exist without Kinsey. Many of the laws which decrease the penalties of soliciting minors and other pedophilic crimes were influenced by legal citations to Kinsey's studies. Kinsey's research underpins almost every aspect of medical and scientific study today, biological and psychological, when it comes to human sexual behaviors. Without Kinsey there would be no widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and alternative sexual lifestyles, little if any tolerance for pornography, no LGBT movement, no John Money, no Transgenderism and "Gender" notions today and so on.
> We likely would not even have OnlyFans.



Let's not forget that the idea of it being very common for girls to get back-alley abortions also originated from his fraudulent research that used a sample of about 40% prostitutes as representative of average women to prove how common abortions were, which was then later used in the Roe v. Wade supreme court case.

Or how the average american still believes his claim of about 20% of people being gay (when the actual percentage is somewhere between 0.5 and 2). To get to that number he used mostly prison population and within that, a self-selecting group willing to participate in a sex study (attracting the more sexually deviant).

There too almost half of the male sample ended up being from those prison volunteers, completely tainting any possibility of the research telling us anything.

And of course he paid parents / grandparents to molest their children (ages 0-7), categorize their orgasm response in such categories as "writhing" "crying" "passive" "fighting back", but all were considered to have gained from the experience because they achieved orgasm.


----------



## KifflomKween (Apr 10, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Let's not forget that the idea of it being very common for girls to get back-alley abortions also originated from his fraudulent research that used a sample of about 40% prostitutes as representative of average women to prove how common abortions were, which was then later used in the Roe v. Wade supreme court case.
> 
> Or how the average american still believes his claim of about 20% of people being gay (when the actual percentage is somewhere between 0.5 and 2). To get to that number he used mostly prison population and within that, a self-selecting group willing to participate in a sex study (attracting the more sexually deviant).
> 
> ...


Why isn't the horrifying rating available?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 10, 2021)

KifflomKween said:


> Why isn't the horrifying rating available?


Welcome to the kiwifarms ghetto.


----------



## scathefire (Apr 10, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Without Kinsey there would be no widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and alternative sexual lifestyles, little if any tolerance for pornography, no LGBT movement, no John Money, no Transgenderism and "Gender" notions today and so on.
> We likely would not even have OnlyFans.


I find it hard to believe that all of those things were solely his fault, large-scale social movements like the sexual revolution literally never have one singular person causing the entire event. Maybe he played a large role in having those ideas normalized, but I hesitate to lay the blame solely on one individual interloper.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 10, 2021)

scathefire said:


> I find it hard to believe that all of those things were solely his fault


He was funded by the Rockefellers and had close peers who worked with him and would continue his work even after his death. True, he wasn't alone in anything he did. The Rockefellers took on the US Courts in their subversion to proliferate the supposed legitimacy of his work and, after an actual government investigative committee discovered they were attempting to basically subvert society via academia they still managed to pull it off, although obviously this was a different matter from the Frankfurt School which was imported from the Weimar Republic sometimes between the 30's and early 50's, where literal Socialists would introduce Critical Theory to academia and so on.

So yes, a lot of factors and agendas were crisscrossing around this time which would, like a steel mesh being super-pressed over a floundering fish, slice apart American society (and thereby be exported internationally over time). Honestly it seems "repression" among the populace (as some posters above have suggested) being the least of any trouble. It's less that people were being repressed regarding sexuality and more that they were being _taught _they were repressed. For twenty years.

Remember, Baby Boomers were born at the earliest around 1945. Kinsey's reports were broadly publicized around 1948 and spreading far and wide by 1953, roughly the time Playboy and similar rags were being released. Imagine being born right at the epoch of porn being argued as "art" and for social acceptance of what only five years ago most people across the world would consider outright sexual deviancy, if not sexual criminality.

Most of us living today and posting on the Farms aren't old enough to remotely recall the world of the 1940's outside of what we read from WWII sources, textbooks, films etc. Baby Boomers don't even have an understanding of that world, for their most formative years they were already entering a world being irrevocably changed, and later they would be the generation to lead the march for that change. For all we know society was never repressed and no one had any real problems (except racism against Blacks I'd assume, but that's for a different thread) until people were taught they were by all these radical teachings crossing over one another.

At least millennials entered a world more knowable. They came in where porn and sexual expression already existed. Sure the Internet porn boom is nothing to ignore, but if that was impactful then imagine the impact of an entire generation being born right when porn as we know it was being invented and distributed. What kind of never before seen effects would/did that have, let alone that these "sexually liberated" ideas were being touted as backed by science?
Not to take all the blame off of Baby Boomers but rather to understand why that blame exists. Unlike retards who just shout "muh gays" and "muh Whites" and "muh Boomers" this subject actually gives us real insight into what happened and who was ultimately to blame. Boomers certainly pushed it all along but they didn't start this--men like Kinsey did, emboldened by groups like the Rockefellers.

*TL;DR *Although there were larger disparate forces at work which likely would have attempted a similar direction even without Kinsey, the specific aspects of Kinsey's teaching and especially his research--most crucially that regarding children even from birth and earlier--is actually all him.
He directly inspired and legitimized what otherwise would have been just sexual deviancy and endorsed the most terrific abuses and sexual extremes by signing off on it with a PhD. Money propelled him and popular mainstream media eventually made him shine. It was arguably the beginning of the end, all because of this guy's ideas (and sexual proclivities) getting shady money and shady help from shady people aiming to change the world.

If you want to think of it in a kind of funny way, Alfred Kinsey was the tool they used to shatter cultures. The force with which he was swung didn't come from him, but the specific contours and shape of the tool are all his own.
Another way is to see him as a mad scientist, but instead of inventing a super death robot or some kind of uber virus he invented a means of promulgating sexual abuse and further under the guise of legitimate academic research.


----------



## Oliveoil (Apr 10, 2021)

Thank you for the VERY informative post. I remember writing about him for A paper. I loved watching the movie, because I adore Liam Neeson. 
One scene particularly stuck with me that Kinsey had to exclude a pedophile because they did not practice consensual behavior, glossing over the whole child thing.
It give a great window into the hole SJW guilty mind- what happened to them in their childhood.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 10, 2021)

Oliveoil said:


> Thank you for the VERY informative post. I remember writing about him for A paper. I loved watching the movie, because I adore Liam Neeson.
> One scene particularly stuck with me that Kinsey had to exclude a pedophile because they did not practice consensual behavior, glossing over the whole child thing.
> It give a great window into the hole SJW guilty mind- what happened to them in their childhood.


Funny how the movie frames him as a lone ranger going up against smallminded establishment when in reality he was funded by the richest family in the US.

Also no mention of his links to Anton Lavey or how he was the one that received Lavey's diary on how to do sex magick after his death.


----------



## Oliveoil (Apr 10, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Funny how the movie frames him as a lone ranger going up against smallminded establishment when in reality he was funded by the richest family in the US.
> 
> Also no mention of his links to Anton Lavey or how he was the one that received Lavey's diary on how to do sex magick after his death.


Yes, it does.
It is still an important movie to watch.
Especially in the face of what abuse does to people when they are children.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 10, 2021)

Oliveoil said:


> Yes, it does.
> It is still an important movie to watch.
> Especially in the face of what abuse does to people when they are children.


These kind of movies always also reframe some of the bad stuff. They know it has to be mentioned, but they can gloss over it.

Like the Gandhi movie having a btief moment where he is angry with his wife for not having the same devotion as him and pushing her outside of his house, and then two minutes later chastised and apologizing for getting angry with her.

A way to gloss over him being a wife beater.

Or a Nelson Mandela play from the Netherlands where there is a brief mention of some industrial sabotage where people got hurt, when in reality they were targetting certain people with their bombs.

Of course some things are ignored completely if it can't be reframed, such as Gandhi sleeping naked with his nieces to "test his resolve".

I'm not 100% on the following, I'd have to rewatch the movie and reread my research, but I'm pretty sure that the movie reframed it only as using the pedophile's research/diary, while in actuality Kinsey also asked him to test certain things and was present for some of them.


----------



## Oliveoil (Apr 10, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> These kind of movies always also reframe some of the bad stuff. They know it has to be mentioned, but they can gloss over it.
> 
> Like the Gandhi movie having a btief moment where he is angry with his wife for not having the same devotion as him and pushing her outside of his house, and then two minutes later chastised and apologizing for getting angry with her.
> 
> ...


Yeah I would not be surprised.
I know Razorfist can be spergy AF but he did make an interesting video of a black slave owner. 
Will be ever get a movie like that no?
I remember I watched a few frames of Triumph of Will and being amazed at her craft. Not the subject matter but how well she propagandized. To the use of angles, next the use of light/ shadow. 
"Fortuitously for the Kinsey team, among their inter- I viewees were a group of men who hali data on hand from what seem to have been identically designed genital stimulation experiments on children-data obtained by 'actual observation' and 'timed with second hand �r stopwatch' (Male Report, chapter 5). By further good fot/tune, some of these men were 'technically trained.' Thus, it is implied by Kinsey, their observations on the results of hbmosexual masturbation of young boys, ranging in age froItt 2 months to 15 years, are a valid and meaningful way t(j) learn about childhood sexuality. "
p. 115: "Some of the pre-adolescent contacts had provided emotional satisfactions which had conditioned the female for the acceptance of later sexual activities."
Just on cursory research. I think talking to pedophiles IS important for two reasons:
1. What conditions are in common?
2. What made them offend?
That being said I do not think of a pedophile as a person. More like a slug. A thing to be observed but also locked up, FOREVER.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 10, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> *TL;DR* Public school Sex Ed would not exist without Kinsey. Many of the laws which decrease the penalties of soliciting minors and other pedophilic crimes were influenced by legal citations to Kinsey's studies. Kinsey's research underpins almost every aspect of medical and scientific study today, biological and psychological, when it comes to human sexual behaviors. Without Kinsey there would be no widespread acceptance of extramarital sex and alternative sexual lifestyles, little if any tolerance for pornography, no LGBT movement, no John Money, no Transgenderism and "Gender" notions today and so on.
> We likely would not even have OnlyFans.
> 
> Ultimately Alfred Kinsey's work--provably fallacious in many aspects and further proven to be informed by actual pedophiles, one of which seemingly being a Nazi officer with whom Kinsey was not only in correspondence but, it's said, was actively encouraging him to catalog his acts in diaries for his research--has helped change not just America but the entire world for generations to come.
> ...




What about Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Hirschfeld? You're acting like Alfred Kinsey was the one that singly handily overturn sexual morality.  The rise of psychology as a political and social institution led to the weakening the church and local communities in enforcing social morality.   Capitalism and Urbanization also helped in weakening local communities and sexual morality.  Was Kinsey responsible for Colette, D.H. Lawrence, EM Forster, and other writers?  No Freud, globalization, industrialization, and capitalism were.  







EyelessMC said:


> He was funded by the Rockefellers and had close peers who worked with him and would continue his work even after his death. True, he wasn't alone in anything he did. The Rockefellers took on the US Courts in their subversion to proliferate the supposed legitimacy of his work and, after an actual government investigative committee discovered they were attempting to basically subvert society via academia they still managed to pull it off, although obviously this was a different matter from the Frankfurt School which was imported from the Weimar Republic sometimes between the 30's and early 50's, where literal Socialists would introduce Critical Theory to academia and so on.
> 
> So yes, a lot of factors and agendas were crisscrossing around this time which would, like a steel mesh being super-pressed over a floundering fish, slice apart American society (and thereby be exported internationally over time). Honestly it seems "repression" among the populace (as some posters above have suggested) being the least of any trouble. It's less that people were being repressed regarding sexuality and more that they were being _taught _they were repressed. For twenty years.
> 
> ...



You make great points. But I don't think that the United States as much as conservatives would like to believe had a wholesome  sexual culture. Maybe the WASP in small town America did, but the sexual culture in cities were complex.  The citites were home to thousands of immigrants from here and abroad that gave rise to different sexual mores. Weren't the western part of the United States known to have brothels. Also what about the race records that were so popular with white middle class that wanted to scandalize their parents? Or the pansy craze that was hot in the 1920s?  I think that it's was more complicated than repression and expression.  It's more that there were a variety of cultures that people could participate in, especially if you were in the city.

It could be that it's more of a culture war between two or more groups.  I don't want to say two, because different groups have different values. People like to say that Blacks and Latinos are culturally conservative, but that type of conservatism is  different from WASP conservatism.






Lemmingwise said:


> Or how the average american still believes his claim of about 20% of people being gay (when the actual percentage is somewhere between 0.5 and 2). To get to that number he used mostly prison population and within that, a self-selecting group willing to participate in a sex study (attracting the more sexually deviant).



I read that it's about 10% of men will or have engaged in homosexual behavior, not that they identify as part of the LGBT. To be honest, that it sorta of believable. Aren't English public schools known for their situational homosexuality? Or sex-segregation in Islamic Countries cause men to engage with young boys or lower status males?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 10, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> I read that it's about 10% of men will or have engaged in homosexual behavior, not that they identify as part of the LGBT. To be honest, that it sorta of believable.



I have not been able to find any non-kinsey institute study that shows this. Kinsey and a number of their studies use prison populations to get there; you can't look at a man that's been raped in prison and say that because he's engaged in homosexual behaviour he is gay or bi.

It feels believable because you see plenty of gays in media and the arts. It isn't that common when you really dive into the data.

Btw, I still operate from the presumption of "born that way" in regards to homosexuality, which means engaging in homosexual behaviour once isn't indicative of homosexuality as much as it is of experimentation. It's only repeated engagement that indicates homosexuality to me.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 10, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I have not been able to find any non-kinsey institute study that shows this. Kinsey and a number of their studies use prison populations to get there; you can't look at a man that's been raped in prison and say that because he's engaged in homosexual behaviour he is gay or bi.
> 
> It feels believable because you see plenty of gays in media and the arts. It isn't that common when you really dive into the data.
> 
> Btw, I still operate from the presumption of "born that way" in regards to homosexuality, which means engaging in homosexual behaviour once isn't indicative of homosexuality as much as it is of experimentation. It's only repeated engagement that indicates homosexuality to me.






I'm talking about behavior, not sexual identity.  I am not saying that if a man engages in homosexuality that he's a homosexual or bi.  I'm taking about how many people engaged in homosexual acts.  I mean people engaged in all types of behavior for a variety of reasons.  For example, gay for pay porn or drug-addicts that engage in homosexuality for the reason of money.

I know and acknowledged that self=identified homosexuals make up about 2% of the population.  It's believable to me because people will do anything to achieve their motives.

ETA: I don't think that sexuality is as fixed people like to believe. There have been studies how sexuality shifts during one's time.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 10, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> What about Freud, Krafft-Ebing, and Hirschfeld? You're acting like Alfred Kinsey was the one that singly handily overturn sexual morality.  The rise of psychology as a political and social institution led to the weakening the church and local communities in enforcing social morality.   Capitalism and Urbanization also helped in weakening local communities and sexual morality.  Was Kinsey responsible for Colette, D.H. Lawrence, EM Forster, and other writers?  No Freud, globalization, industrialization, and capitalism were.


First off you gotta drop the "capitalism" blaming. That's a Socialist tactic taught to us through public education (though expounding on that is for a different thread). Secondly, you make a great point but that's why I made the point of crossover agendas and different major forces at work. However when it comes to sexuality and all that would spring forth culturally and snowball for generations thereafter it really is chiefly his doing.

Everything has a singular starting point, and for the Sexual Revolution with all its myriad consequences cultural, academic, medical and legal--that starting point is Alfred Kinsey (with his cohorts and bank rollers). Otherwise we might as well go further back to the French Revolution and the "Age of Enlightenment". The roots of this stuff travels far, far back but at some point we need a reasonable pivoting point, and that's Kinsey in America.


Spoiler: the rest of my response






> You make great points. But I don't think that the United States as much as conservatives would like to believe had a wholesome  sexual culture.


It didn't have a sexual culture to begin with, it seems. Again we can't really know but from what we can tell it seems they had romance, basic courtship and marriage. There wasn't anything more than these and everything sexual was kept to private and intimate discussion.
Due to an influx of outside members--immigrants carrying their own social mores and norms--the cities were more diverse in this, sure, but let's not forget that the cities like New York is where a lot of the Weimar types fled to and found work among their kind doing what they had done elsewhere. The Frankfurt School was established in New York apparently.

I don't know of much reliable evidence that American society was broadly as sexually complicated prior to these factors. You bring up the 1920's so maybe they were, but the fact that it stemmed from the cities even then rather supports the notion it was from outside-in, not that it was always so across the country. So if there is to be found a great disparity (or diversity) of sexual norms between the major cities and the rest of the country it's to be found in the foreigners bringing in foreign concepts rather than assimilating to the norms of the new country they now belonged to. If nothing else, whatever disparity had once been natural in America was exacerbated to irrevocable degrees at the turn of the 30's to 40's and only spiraled from there.

They were smokers taking up residence in someone's house but still continuing to smoke despite the owner's distaste for it, and eventually the smoke permeated the air and made everything reek of it. It's just that some of the smokers were purposefully blowing smoke directly into the air vents.


> It could be that it's more of a culture war between two or more groups.  I don't want to say two, because different groups have different values. People like to say that Blacks and Latinos are culturally conservative, but that type of conservatism is  different from WASP conservatism.


It seems American Blacks didn't used to be that different in anything other than race if you go back far enough, in that they had nuclear families and went to church regularly, too. The advent of Critical Theory and the Sexual Revolution seems to have utterly destroyed the entire race the hardest via spiraling self-destruction, just disintigrating their homes and neighborhoods even worse than was already being present due to racial impositions, but again that's for a different thread.

Again, that's why I said it's a crisscross or intersection of disparate agendas from different groups. I doubt the Rockefellers were Marxists like the Frankfurt School but both had designs to alter society for generations to come, whether for their own benefit or for their ideological cult's supremacy (Cultural Subversion's chief aim is to destroy and confuse an enemy nation until it can be conquered with welcoming arms).

However, Alfred Kinsey was not simply one of many bricks laying a foundation of things to come. Everything about his success, his connections and particularly his research bears the fingerprints of not merely a tool of greater powers but a man, a person with personal deviant sensibilities who utilized any and all means to spread his own "smoke" as it were.

Fraud was debated and argued. The philosophers had various opposing points, but Kinsey seemed to spring forward and only be held back why those ridiculed as "Puritanical" and "unscientific". The man was not a one-man Illuminati like George Soros but he was truly the cornerstone upon which was built the entirety of academia and legislature relating to sexual behaviors in human beings. He can't simply be tossed into a pot like Freud or Jung or Sarte. He wasn't merely a psychologist or philosopher. The man was an all-out icon of the Sexual Revolution with influence spanning far further than any of the men you or I have mentioned. We literally would not have the society today if not for the "grounded, scientific research" of the man Kinsey.


Spoilering this so we don't have essay long posts, at least not from me. lol


Noir drag freak said:


> Aren't English public schools known for their situational homosexuality?


This notion of "situational homosexuality", as opposed to simple "sexual confusion", stems back to Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale. See? The man's work even influences our vernacular and understanding to this very day. It's permeated every corner of the house.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 11, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> First off you gotta drop the "capitalism" blaming. That's a Socialist tactic taught to us through public education (though expounding on that is for a different thread). Secondly, you make a great point but that's why I made the point of crossover agendas and different major forces at work. However when it comes to sexuality and all that would spring forth culturally and snowball for generations thereafter it really is chiefly his doing.
> 
> Everything has a singular starting point, and for the Sexual Revolution with all its myriad consequences cultural, academic, medical and legal--that starting point is Alfred Kinsey (with his cohorts and bank rollers). Otherwise we might as well go further back to the French Revolution and the "Age of Enlightenment". The roots of this stuff travels far, far back but at some point we need a reasonable pivoting point, and that's Kinsey in America.
> 
> ...




I'm trying to make my arguments from amoral standpoint. So I'm not saying that capitalism is horrible. But capitalism has a liberating effect. It started the Industrial revolution and Second Agricultural revolution which freed people from their families and having to do with household tasks. 

Second of all, I want to argue that most of it was home grown. Though, I will concede that there foreign elements. But those foreign elements were more of a fertilizer, then the seeds itself.  There is a great book on this subject called "Renegade History of the United State". It argued that from the very beginning that there were elements of sexual libertinism in the United States.  Though, it was mostly the underclasses that were sexually loose. 

I am more familiar with gay culture in the early 20th century and to some extent black American history.  For one thing, the oldest known drag queen was William Dorsey Swann, a former black slave.  He used to hold drag balls and was imprisoned for it.   So that tells us that drag balls or proto-gay culture was around in the 1860s at least.  There is also some written records from that period of people who thought of themselves as sodomites or not normal. [2] One such person was John Wing. In addition to records from vice squads and court records that would testify to the fact that major American cities were homes to a growing gay subculture.  That why some LGBT historians argue against the notion of the closet.   Because there were areas like Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC that had a thriving gay culture.   Look up the Pansy Craze or  New York "faeries". And how normal Irish and  thought that it was okay to sleep with them as long as they were active partner.

I will acknowledged that "American Blacks didn't used to be that different in anything other than race if you go back far enough, in that they had nuclear families and went to church regularly, too."  Black America is very much divided by  class and regional culture. However, forms of black American popular culture came from the black working class.  The black American working class is a very different animal. Zora Neale Hurston's ''Dust Track on the Road' and Weldon Johnson's "The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man" talked about how this class of blacks were anti-white, violent, and sexually loose. So I don't blame the Critical Race Theory or the sexual revolution.  Also I think that Critical Race Theory is older than the the 1970s. I think that Du Bois and Alain Locke talked about race that could be similar to Critical Race Theory.  But that could be another thread.




[1] https://www.blackenterprise.com/the...story-making-drag-queen-william-dorsey-swann/
[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B075THDPL4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


			https://www.amazon.com/Gay-New-York-Culture-1890-1940-ebook/dp/B002R81CSC/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=gay+new+york&qid=1618119057&sr=8-1
		



Race Records that talked about sex in frank terms


			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cm5Adn9YCs
		



			https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhOWpdt6xg
		









						Tricks Ain't Walking No More
					

Provided to YouTube by The Orchard EnterprisesTricks Ain't Walking No More · Lucille BoganLucille Bogan (Bessie Jackson) Vol. 2 (1930-1933)℗ 1993 Document Re...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Scarlett Johansson (Apr 11, 2021)

Iirc he groomed his assistant tho they apparently were both into women


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 19, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> I'm trying to make my arguments from amoral standpoint.


There's no such thing as an amoral standpoint even on a purely epistomological level, but I don't want to distract this thread onto philosophy, economics or race so let's refocus. Your citations and some figures you bring up are really interesting, though, and I think you should make a thread on it or at least one of its major figures like Du Bois whose name is everywhere in academia today. Would be helpful to contextualize our modern day. We could use a good Critical Race Theory thread to discern what that even is, let alone its end goal.


Noir drag freak said:


> Second of all, I want to argue that most of it was home grown.


I don't know about "most" but I get your take. Unlike the Frankfurt School, the Rockefellers weren't exactly imported from another country as I recall. Like I said, there was a coalescence of agendas going on from disparate groups. Also my point was that things like Pride Parades or "sex work" would not have been endorsed in a pre-SexRev American society.


Noir drag freak said:


> I am more familiar with gay culture in the early 20th century and to some extent black American history. For one thing, the oldest known drag queen was William Dorsey Swann, a former black slave.  He used to hold drag balls and was imprisoned for it.   So that tells us that drag balls or proto-gay culture was around in the 1860s at least.


I'd believe it considering not just what Weimar ended up looking like but ancient civilizations. Even so, the notion of "gay culture" being accepted, let alone celebrated, was altogether too foreign and repulsive in American society prior to the Sexual Revolution. Gays were broad-brush associated with pedophilia as well back then, which sadly the more prominent leaders and founders of the Gay Rights Movements actually endorsed:




We also have the bizarre yet intrinsic endorsement of pedophilia with "Queer Theory" (yet another aspect of "Critical Theory" which itself originated--at least in American society--from the Frankfurt School







Spoiler: Full Video Archive



"Derrick Jensen on Anarchism & Queer Theory, Pedophilia"




Your browser is not able to display this video.





Everything you bring up here is very interesting and important for broader context, but with regards to this subject of the SexRev and especially Kinsey (first in America and then exported abroad for generations thereafter) I should make it clear:

I am not saying Kinsey or the SexRev invented or brought into existence so many paraphilias or alternative sexual predilections. We can trace back certain aspects of these long before Kinsey & Friends were even born.

However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends. No matter how thriving a gay culture or any sexual alternatives may have been, no matter when or who the earliest drag queen was (very interesting though that is), none of it was ever broadly accepted or celebrated throughout the country until these men and their work's deep influence (as financed by Rockefellers and the like).
The fact that these things keep bounding back to pedophilia is what's so alarming to me, particularly with Kinsey's Reports and their influence on the world.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 19, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> There is a great book on this subject called "Renegade History of the United State". It argued that from the very beginning that there were elements of sexual libertinism in the United States. Though, it was mostly the underclasses that were sexually loose.



Sounds like the "america was always a nation of immigrants" kind of conman bullshitting to give a claim of tradition to something that very much isn't.

There is an undercurrent of all sorts of things in every culture, but by virtue of being an undercurrent they are rare and aberrations.


I looked into the guy a little. What I found:

- he's arguing on Joe Rogan that the category of "man" is meaningless.
- his mormon father met his jewish mother at convention where people idolised leon trotsky
- the book supposedly makes the claim that prior to 1930s jewish stereotype wasn't seen as nerds, but as athletes and musicians. Sounds like a BS claim to me, but maybe I'm wrong?

---

Anyways to get back to the claim; it's the kind of claim you can make about any country in any time, because there are always people engaging in the oldest profession. I don't think people ignoring the cultural mores of their time can be classified as libertine behaviour, as if there is any intellectual underpinning to what they're doing.

There really is a very significant difference to a guy dressing in drag and a guy dressing in drag to challenge gender norms, just as there is a very significant difference between penthouse and playboy; they both had naked women, but the latter came with an ideology/lifestyle.


---


_Ps. __He brings up Kinsey __in that first link (unaware that it oversampled prison populations, when Rogan equally unaware just reflexively asked "in prisons?" because I think Rogan has his finger on the pulse of human behaviour a little better to realize those are prison stats)._


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 20, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> There's no such thing as an amoral standpoint even on a purely epistomological level, but I don't want to distract this thread onto philosophy, economics or race so let's refocus. Your citations and some figures you bring up are really interesting, though, and I think you should make a thread on it or at least one of its major figures like Du Bois whose name is everywhere in academia today. Would be helpful to contextualize our modern day. We could use a good Critical Race Theory thread to discern what that even is, let alone its end goal.





> Yeah, this probably belongs to another thread. I just think that people can't get to the truth because they want to be thought of as moral.






> I don't know about "most" but I get your take. Unlike the Frankfurt School, the Rockefellers weren't exactly imported from another country as I recall. Like I said, there was a coalescence of agendas going on from disparate groups. Also my point was that things like Pride Parades or "sex work" would not have been endorsed in a pre-SexRev American society.
> 
> I'd believe it considering not just what Weimar ended up looking like but ancient civilizations. Even so, the notion of "gay culture" being accepted, let alone celebrated, was altogether too foreign and repulsive in American society prior to the Sexual Revolution. Gays were broad-brush associated with pedophilia as well back then, which sadly the more prominent leaders and founders of the Gay Rights Movements actually endorsed:



I can see your point, but I am of two minds. I think cultural mores are enforced differently across classes and sub cultures. I also get your point that "sex work" and Pride Parades wouldn't have been endorsed in a pre - SexRev American Society.  They would have have been thought of as a social ills that needed enforcement by vice squads. I can agree with those points. However, I'm going to admit bias. Bias on two accounts.  One, I'm a homosexual and I don't like the thought of "oppression".  So I don't want to believe that post 1930s - 50s America is really that "anti-gay". So maybe my sources could be cherry picked. I main the theme of the sources are don't be middle class in a rural or suburban town and you'll be fine.  So I would like to say that I don't think that the cities weren't as intolerant as small towns and villages. 
Though, I think that the 1950s were a blip in American history due the Cold War and the threat of Communism.



> However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends. *No matter how thriving a gay culture or any sexual alternatives may have been, no matter when or who the earliest drag queen was (very interesting though that is), none of it was ever broadly accepted or celebrated throughout the country until these men and their work's deep influence (as financed by Rockefellers and the like)*.
> The fact that these things keep bounding back to pedophilia is what's so alarming to me, particularly with Kinsey's Reports and their influence on the world.




Okay. I can accept the argument.  I'm not arguing to win or convince, but more for my own understanding. So I have some questions. I think that Kinsey was influential when it came to the Sexual Revolutions. But I would like to think that the social landscape wasn't uniform.  Washington DC, New Orleans, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco were home to alternative lifestyles. and subcultures.  New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago were places of education, politics, and culture. So wouldn't it be possible that alternative lifestyles and subcultures would have some influence on the culture products that could lead to normalization?  Also how does this take into account class and different subcultures? For example, Truman Capote was accepted in New York High Society.  Though, he did ruin it for himself with that story.  Also, gay enclaves like Fire Island were forming during the 1950s.  So how to account for that?


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Apr 20, 2021)

It seems to me like the fields of gender and sex studies are mainly developed by degenerates to explain their own immorality, only to "reach the conclusion" that they are the normal ones and society is either hiding its degeneracy or is suffering because it oppresses it. 

It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution. Pretty sure you can use the radius from the middle of the  political ideology graph to correlate with how much a person is a deviant.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 20, 2021)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> It seems to me like the fields of gender and sex studies are mainly developed by degenerates to explain their own immorality, only to "reach the conclusion" that they are the normal ones and society is either hiding its degeneracy or is suffering because it oppresses it.



The fields of gender and sex studies mostly came about because psychology wanted to become a legitimate science. Also since religion was dying people needed a way to explain human behavior in more scientific way. 




> It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution. Pretty sure you can use the radius from the middle of the  political ideology graph to correlate with how much a person is a deviant.



Tell me more. I know that some of the rougher elements of Nazism were into homosexuality or pederasty.  They wanted to restore Germany to an Hellenistic age.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 21, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> However, the mass normalization of these things--the effective changes in legal code, in education, etc. and the increasing snowball effect it has had in reshaping the social and political landscape--is what can be traced back directly to Kinsey & Friends.



I think the sttength of this societal effect is noticable by how some of the poorly supported claims (10% of men is homosexual) are according to gallup polls the way the average american views the incidence of homosexuality, despite being 5/ 10 fold rarer.

Or how you can't read three studies about anything relating to (in particularly homosexuality) without running across more of kinsey or kinsey institute's work.

I think there is a chasm of difference to various subcultures and creating the intellectual and ideological basis (Kinsey was very much about saying it was all very scholarly and meticulous, but still made moral claims between the lines of his books, like the earlier mentioned that kids gain from their parent/grandparent induced orgasm).

The only bright light about that btw is that the sample size of children being made to orgasm was pretty small. About two dozen total IIRC.



Noir drag freak said:


> Also since religion was dying people needed a way to explain human behavior in more



Seems to me more like it was murdered; more an active endeavor than a passive one.

Or perhaps supplanted is a better word.



wtfNeedSignUp said:


> It's also funny (and horrifying) there is a nazi connection to the sexual revolution.


In what way? I only know that the nazis burned down the institute of sexual redearch, the same institute connected to the failed womb transplant to idris elbe. As well as that they burned what they considered "jewish pornography", like Schnitzler's traumnovella that was later turned into a movie (eyes wide shut).



Noir drag freak said:


> That why some LGBT historians argue against the notion of the closet



Why? Even if one proves the existance of some open homosexuality (shouldn't be hard), that doesn't disprove those who hide it, something that happened frequently if we believe homosexuality stats even 40 years ago.


---


Ps this is the best of effortthreads on the farm and I love it very much.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 21, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> Also, gay enclaves like Fire Island were forming during the 1950s.  So how to account for that?


Don't know much about enclaves but 1950's was the start of the Sexual Revolution so it makes sense.


Noir drag freak said:


> However, I'm going to admit bias. Bias on two accounts.  One, I'm a homosexual and I don't like the thought of "oppression".  So I don't want to believe that post 1930s - 50s America is really that "anti-gay".


I'm bias, too, but I never took to certain studies like it seems you did, and those studies often encourage a particular worldview and leaning. Your sources come from what you've learned, like mine. Part of discerning truth, though, is not just testing that we've learned but accepting the results of those tests, even if they prove what we learned was misrepresented or false. It's hard for me, too. For example:




Your browser is not able to display this video.



America really was that anti-gay it seems. I'm glad we don't broad-brush confuse pederasty with homosexuality anymore, but the overlap was always present enough that even those of the 50's believed they were one and the same. This confusion is only emboldened by the leaders of the Gay Rights movement as I posted previously, or Queer Theory etc. It was a confusion that existed and was part of the reason for America being anti-gay, but one which few of the major champions of sexual cultural reform wholeheartedly rejected. From the very start it all seems to have been about getting to the kids, and in more ways than one.



Spoiler: My main point here is



Whatever our bias (yours, mine, anyone's) we have to accept the result of testing what we learned in school and books prior. My Christian friend refused to believe real Bible believing Christians ever did anything evil until he started learning church history (from a proper historian on Sermon Audio or something, not some lady with technicolor hair and a chip on her shoulder). Same goes for us--our preconceived notions, informed by things which either obfuscated or defended the travesty of Kinsey's work and the SexRev as a whole, have to be set aside. We have to accept that what we thought we knew about sexuality and society past, we didn't know (mostly).

This is really uncomfortable, especially if you're gay and looking at all of this. It's uncomfortable even if you're not. I'm not and I certainly find it to be a hard subject. Unsettling, not just because of what it means in the context of the world but even for myself. Our personal view on sex, our personal sexuality and even aspects of our very identity--how much of it is owed to these perverts who led the SexRev and sexual movements thereafter? How much of what my parents believed or what I believed, not just about humanity and psychology but even about myself, was actually just the aftermath and schooled indoctrination of the Kinsey Reports?

Ultimately the Sexual Revolution's impetus, aim and end result was not the advancement of discernment. That much is clear by how much Kinsey willfully falsified data to serve his aims and how his peers who knew better aided him in it, then carrying it on after his death. They were never about discernment, or trying to help people parse between a sexual preference and a sexual predator. What did they really want?

We can often see the intent of someone's actions by observing the results of them. The results of Kinsey's work and the Sexual Revolution was the widespread acceptance (and later the celebration and preference) of sexually aberrant behaviors and, in the end, the irrevocable alteration of society--socially, legally and medically.


We should face this head-on and take the unsettling feeling we have about this as a call to introspection. Why do I do what I do? Why do I like what I like? Why am I inclined to X? Why do I identify as Y? When did I first start to believe I was X? Am I really X? Who am I really? Am I who I think I am, or am I partially the result of what Kinsey & Friends intended all along?

We believed certain things, had certain bias, because we were part of a long chain of people who themselves were taught with studies influenced and guided by Kinsey's work. If we take time to acknowledge the truth of Kinsey and the SexRev as a whole--and if we self-examine in light of it--we break the chain.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 21, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Don't know much about enclaves but 1950's was the start of the Sexual Revolution so it makes sense.



I don't think that the forming of the enclaves had to with the Sexual Revolution. There were gay enclaves in the Pre-WW2 period.  


EyelessMC said:


> I'm bias, too, but I never took to certain studies like it seems you did, and those studies often encourage a particular worldview and leaning. Your sources come from what you've learned, like mine. Part of discerning truth, though, is not just testing that we've learned but accepting the results of those tests, even if they prove what we learned was misrepresented or false. It's hard for me, too.



 I agree that the most studies are bias because they have a particular worldview. Humans are bias.  That's why I am trying to stay objective through the whole discussion.   Though, I would admit that there are experiences and observations of others that make think that Kinsey is right to some degree.  What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians? Or gay guys that marry women? I'm not saying that everyone is going to engage in deviant sex acts. But there has to be scientific method in understanding these things.



> America really was that anti-gay it seems. I'm glad we don't broad-brush confuse pederasty with homosexuality anymore, but the overlap was always present enough that even those of the 50's believed they were one and the same. This confusion is only emboldened by the leaders of the Gay Rights movement as I posted previously, or Queer Theory etc. It was a confusion that existed and was part of the reason for America being anti-gay, but one which few of the major champions of sexual cultural reform wholeheartedly rejected. From the very start it all seems to have been about getting to the kids, and in more ways than one.


 
Yes, America was anti-gay. I am not denying it. But I argue that anti-gay attitudes weren't as life-threatening as people would like to make it seem. How can you explain how Truman Capote,  James Baldwin, and Gore Vidal were popular at the time?  



> This is really uncomfortable, especially if you're gay and looking at all of this. It's uncomfortable even if you're not. I'm not and I certainly find it to be a hard subject. Unsettling, not just because of what it means in the context of the world but even for myself. Our personal view on sex, our personal sexuality and even aspects of our very identity--how much of it is owed to these perverts who led the SexRev and sexual movements thereafter? How much of what my parents believed or what I believed, not just about humanity and psychology but even about myself, was actually just the aftermath and schooled indoctrination of the Kinsey Reports?



It doesn't make me uncomfortable.  I been looking at this stuff since I was 16.  Personally, I think that you're giving to much credit to the Sex Revolution.  The terms for homosexuals and heterosexual predate Sex Revolution.  Also the Oscar Wilde trial and German sexologists had more influence on how upper class men in the Anglo sphere thought of themselves, friendship, and sexuality.  I know you went over this so it's no need to go over again if you want.




> This notion of "situational homosexuality", as opposed to simple "sexual confusion", stems back to Kinsey and the Kinsey Scale. See? The man's work even influences our vernacular and understanding to this very day. It's permeated every corner of the house.



Also what do mean you by sexual confusion?  When I think of sexual confusion, I think of people who aren't aware of what they're going.  With situational homosexuality,  I think that there is some form of agency and awareness among the participants. 


Lemmingwise said:


> Why? Even if one proves the existance of some open homosexuality (shouldn't be hard), that doesn't disprove those who hide it, something that happened frequently if we believe homosexuality stats even 40 years ago.



The closet myth is that the idea that all LGBT were isolated from each other and in hiding.  Yes, there were people who hide their homosexual activities.  But there were others made communities and cultures..


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 21, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> I would admit that there are experiences and observations of others that make think that Kinsey is right to some degree. What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians? Or gay guys that marry women? I'm not saying that everyone is going to engage in deviant sex acts. But there has to be scientific method in understanding these things.


I agree, but one does not achieve such knowledge by falsifying research, oversampling prisoners and prostitutes and depicting them as an average sample.



Noir drag freak said:


> What about people who seem sexually fluid like late in life lesbians


On average, lesbians barely have sex. On some days I wonder if a sexuality such as lesbianism exists. Female sexuality on the whole seems much more fluid. I know we can't study these things for being taboo, but if we did I'm pretty sure that a 40 year study would show that male sexuality is far less mutable compared to female sexuality.




Noir drag freak said:


> But I argue that anti-gay attitudes weren't as life-threatening as people would like to make it seem.


I think this is very much the case. The way that the enlightenment stereotyped the dark ages as far darker than they really were (to look like more of an enlightenment), our current ideas are of women and homosexuals being given a far rougher deal than was the case. Alan Turing is an apt example. The chemical castration of someone who had been so essential to the war effort is a special kind of evil and there is no shortage of books and movies on the subject. Yet his homosexuality wasn't exactly unknown prior; it's just that when he made a police report and officially claimed to be a participating homosexual that his trouble began.

On the other hand, there are people that think british intelligence considered him uniquely vulnerable to communist blackmail. It's hard to know what really happened.

In any case I agree that the anti-gay attitudes did exist, but are certainly exaggerated these days.




Noir drag freak said:


> The closet myth is that the idea that all LGBT were isolated from each other and in hiding. Yes, there were people who hide their homosexual activities. But there were others made communities and cultures..



Uhhh okay. I suppose one can define it as such, as well. But even then those communities were kind of subcultures I presume, which is it's own kind of closet. Though I suppose not by your definition.

I never took "in the closet" to mean as "non-practising" but just "hidden from public view". Something that Turing ended when he made a police report of it, for example.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 24, 2021)

The mention of modern philosophers and psychologists in the thread got me thinking, as did a video regarding the origin of marketing propaganda in America which was posted elsewhere. Considering the impact Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) had on cultural influence and propaganda, I wondered if he was involved in what would later transpire. The answer is yes-and-no, much like his uncle's involvement.

According to an interesting article I found by a Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College at the "Heritage Foundation" ( Archived ), Freud's teachings (which is a can of worms unto itself) were merged with Karl Marx's views on social and especially financial economics (against Capitalism, obviously) into something called "Freudo-Marxism", a kind of ideological grape-nut which merged a psychoanalytic view of cultural norms and morals with an antagonistic view of Capitalism, partly proposing "sexual repression" as an extension of Capitalism and, thereby, a tool of oppression.

It would further seem that one of the noted champions of a similar notion was a man by the name of *Wilhelm Reich*







Spoiler: Some choice excerpts from the Heritage Foundation article






There's also something about "Orgonomy" which was founded by Reich I think, like some kind of cult or new ageism but I didn't look into it because I don't think it is relevant to the thread.


Looking at how elements of different philosophies and theories steadily clumped together, each joining only to grow and incorporate newer ideas before growing further... Almost feels like looking at the beginnings of a Katamari Damacy ball.



This doesn't mean the Sexual Revolution truly started in the late 20's, though, despite what the article states. It can't be taken just at face value, especially not when it curiously leaves out the one name which, unlike the incarcerated and tarnished Reich, has yet to be uprooted from so many fundamental aspects of our society--Alfred Kinsey.
Certain modern philosophers (like those mentioned on the first page of this thread) and noted psychoanalysts were instrumental in getting this ball rolling but their notions were relegated to certain circles, spheres of society.

Point is, the definitive Sexual Revolution would come later on through Kinsey & Co, and when we look back further toward men like Freud and Reich we can feel the rumbling of its coming.

One article by a heavily Reich sympathetic writer reviewing a book by a similar man vehemently points out differences between Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Kinsey (Archived)


Spoiler: Relevant Excerpt








More interestingly is this article by the Guardian (Archived *WARNING*: _First image in the article is NSFW_). Here we have more sympathetic musings on Reich's influence but without the stark contrast between Kinsey and Reich. Instead they are juxtaposed in the same breath, with Socialism's inevitable mention. Whereas Reich was political and philosophical Kinsey's "research" was different. Also for clarity, Wilhelm Reich is said to be one of Sigmund Freud's pupils.


Spoiler: Excerpts








It should also be noted that Kinsey was less of a politician and philosopher and more of a scientist, at least supposedly. He focused far more heavily on biology than simply psychoanalysis. He also seems to have been far less concerned with socioeconomics and more focused on sexuality in society (and pedophilia).


Spoiler: As an aside, Frankfurt School and Reich



It's curious to see this kind of proto Cultural Marxism so early on, long before the infamous Frankfurt School would be established and pioneer Critical Theory and all of its subsets (Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, etc.) While giving a cursory look to see if Wilhelm Reich was involved with the School I found no evidence, but there was a curious reddit post by yet another Reich sympathetic writer going on a rant about how the Frankfurt School essentially stole and retooled Reich's theories and studies into Cultural Marxism (Archived). But that's for a different thread.



*TL;DR* Like @Noir drag freak keeps bringing up, there were certainly smaller aspects of American society and even the civilized world at large which bore elements of what was to come. A coalescence of ideas and disparate agendas helped lay groundwork. It didn't just spring from Kinsey alone. However, as I said in return, although we can keep looking back to find elements to foreshadow what was to come there needs to be an axis point and identifiable figures at the shift of that axis.
Our axis here is the fully realized Sexual Revolution of the 50's and the figures are Kinsey & Friends (with Rockefeller funding).

There is nothing to suggest we would have had a fully realized Sexual Revolution even with Reich's propositions and Freud & Friends' theories in the air. Nothing says these disparate ideas were definitely going to be accepted regardless of the Rockefellers' and Kinsey's efforts.

No one cites Wilhelm Reich during legal proceedings for a pedophile case and neither Reich nor Freud were instrumental in establishing Sex Ed as we know it. Hugh Hefner wasn't chiefly inspired by Reich nor was so much media, law and medicine. The roots of it all bear one name (among many) which stand out repeatedly, the one which is still highly regarded in all of this--Alfred Kinsey.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 24, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> The mention of modern philosophers and psychologists in the thread got me thinking, as did a video regarding the origin of marketing propaganda in America which was posted elsewhere. Considering the impact Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) had on cultural influence and propaganda, I wondered if he was involved in what would later transpire. The answer is yes-and-no, much like his uncle's involvement.
> 
> According to an interesting article I found by a Professor of Politics at Hillsdale College at the "Heritage Foundation" ( Archived ), Freud's teachings (which is a can of worms unto itself) were merged with Karl Marx's views on social and especially financial economics (against Capitalism, obviously) into something called "Freudo-Marxism", a kind of ideological grape-nut which merged a psychoanalytic view of cultural norms and morals with an antagonistic view of Capitalism, partly proposing "sexual repression" as an extension of Capitalism and, thereby, a tool of oppression.
> 
> ...



I like this post because it points to  Kinsey and his research as a potpourri of earlier movements that took a life of its own.  I can accept that conclusion because the old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene.  All he did was hasten it to a conclusion.

About Proto Cultural Marxism, this is just me guessing.  One of the causes of proto Cutlural Marxism was British Imperialism and class.  For one thing,  Oxford University used to train elite scions of the countries that they ruled.  You should look up the Oxford Cosmopolitan Club.  Alain Locke, the father of the Harlem Literary Movement, was apart of that club during his stay at Oxford University.  It was around that time he developed the idea of cultural pluralism. It was  around that time, the non-whites in Oxford argued for a kind of cosmopolitan nationalism for their own countries.   Also around this time was the Bloomsbury Set that was linked to Cambridge. Bloomsbury Set was one of the core of British art scene.



Spoiler: Source from Book






			https://ibb.co/KrNpCpw
		









						source2
					

Image source2 hosted in ImgBB




					ibb.co
				











						source3
					

Image source3 hosted in ImgBB




					ibb.co
				





			https://ibb.co/Vqw9gnZ
		



			https://ibb.co/FgFGz19


----------



## drtoboggan (Apr 24, 2021)

Kinsey could only be portrayed by the incomparable Liam Neesons.


----------



## Homer J. Fong (Apr 25, 2021)

I remember having to watch the Kinsey movie in High School. During the scene where Kinsey goes to the gay bar I jokingly asked "Where are all the women?" I then got scolded by the gay teacher for being immature.

I still think I was funny and regret nothing.


----------



## Drain Todger (Apr 26, 2021)

KifflomKween said:


> Why isn't the horrifying rating available?


Kinsey’s research always freaked me the hell out, because it’s very obvious that many of his findings literally came from studies of diddled kids.



			https://inavukic.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/evidence-regarding-kinsey.pdf
		


A lot of LGBT people basically worship him and even use the Kinsey Scale in casual conversation. I always wondered how the hell him and his cohorts were never prosecuted for this shit.


----------



## Homer J. Fong (Apr 26, 2021)

Drain Todger said:


> Kinsey’s research always freaked me the hell out, because it’s very obvious that many of his findings literally came from studies of diddled kids.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the same reason John Money wasn't thrown in prison for what he did to David Remar. If it's in the name of academic progress the police get their arms tied.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 26, 2021)

Syaoran Li said:


> Traditionalism is cancer and is not the answer, in fact it is counter-productive





KifflomKween said:


> Traditionalism is what bred these people and ideologies. Oppress people too much and you get the opposite extreme.


>Traditionalism
>Oppress
None of these fags were oppressed though, and the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional.  Not oppressing them was what got these ideologies to the point at which they are.  You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them.  The JewSA and other liberal republics' grand experiments in secular individualism were what allowed for things like this to grow in prevalence and in extreme because there was never some figure in authority present to say "enough is enough," and then to take the necessary actions to stop this sort of thing from snowballing out of control.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> [...] Also around this time was the Bloomsbury Set that was linked to Cambridge. Bloomsbury Set was one of the core of British art scene.


Very interesting stuff and yeah, the art scene was also growing more Post Modernist from what I recall. I like the way you put it:
"The old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene. All he did was hasten it to a conclusion."
Couldn't have said it better myself.



Cardenio said:


> For the same reason John Money wasn't thrown in prison for what he did to David Remar. If it's in the name of academic progress the police get their arms tied.


David Reimer was the first "transgender" and the first transgender suicide. Whenever people try to say the 41% 50% is just because of an unhelpful and intolerant society, remind them of the first. Remind them of _why  _he was the first.






(Archive)


mr.moon1488 said:


> the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional.





Spoiler: Explaining how wrong this is



That's factually inaccurate, though. You can still find real PSAs shown to school children and the public on social mores and "rules" of behavior. They range from politeness at home to how to behave when on a date and what age to get married.
Society recoiled at the beginnings of the leather-jacket "rebel" types seen on the silver screen because it was believed (arguably rightfully so) that it was inspiring that rough behavior among teenager boys (the Greaser counterculture etc.)



Then there was the gathering of Catholics to propose what would later be instituted laws regarding the film industry after the rape and murder of Virginia Rap. Then the outrage about Rock and Roll, the Elvis Pelvis outrage, the reaction to an episode of Lassie which had the dog giving birth (apparently people wrote in angry letters to the TV station about how angry they were about such "pornography" on their family show), outrage about the growing irreverence and profanity of stand-up and televised comedy which continued well into the 80's and we even had reactions in the 90's to Halloween becoming a potentially demonic or evil holiday, openly anti-Christian bands like Nine Inch Nails and death metal music, etc.

Of course you know about the "Jesus Freak" movement (a nasty name for a funny little pro-Christian reaction to the growing counterculture of the decade where figures like Billy Graham were even invited to the White House) and you already know about the "Satanic Panic" of the 90's (which evidently wasn't as much of an unwarranted panic as the media still wants us to believe).

TL;DR We have ample evidence that American culture was very traditional at one point and routinely reacted at every new shift being introduced. Watch the video embedded into the OP of this thread. It shows that the US government actually did hold an official investigation into what groups like the Rockefellers, Guggenheim, etc. were doing. That was all the way back in the 50's when the SexRev was revving up. However, despite all that, it seems big money influence won in the end.


TL;DR for the TL;DR Just wanted to explain that you're parroting a false image of America past.


mr.moon1488 said:


> You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them.


You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate. That's for a different thread, though.


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 26, 2021)

To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists, that it's a tad hard to take anything else in it seriously.

To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself, but if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

Bum Driller said:


> To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists, that it's a tad hard to take anything else in it seriously.
> 
> To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself, but if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.


You've said before that you know a good number of satanists and that they're just normal people tm.

Should it really be surprising that you believe this occultist should be worshipped?

If you think there are obvious errors and lies, why not point them out?


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

Bum Driller said:


> To be honest, OP had so many errors and outright lies regarding several occultists


I only mentioned the one, though, unless you count the passing mention of Crowley.


Bum Driller said:


> To add, it's a tad hyperbolic to say that Kinsey would've caused the sexual revolution single-handedly by himself


Never said it was by himself


Bum Driller said:


> if he did he should be fucking worshipped. Best thing to happen to the humanity in a looong time.


Your account name makes sense


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> David Reimer was the first "transgender" and the first transgender


No he was not. The term transexual was coined in 1919 by Hirschfeld in Germany. He ended up planning 4 operations for a danish man who went by the name of Elbe and who died during the operation where they tried to do a womb transplant.



EyelessMC said:


> You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate. That's for a different thread, though.



Seems like you do.


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> You've said before that you know a good number of satanists and that they're just normal people tm.
> 
> Should it really be surprising that you believe this occultist should be worshipped?
> 
> If you think there are obvious errors and lies, why not point them out?



Yes, I've. You should too get to know some of them, perhaps you might notice that they are not the same as thelemites. It doesn't change the fact that neither Crowley, nor Kenneth Anger were satanists. Claiming such gives off serious religious right, in other words, "I'm ignorant and retarded" -vibes.

And I don't personally believe Kinsey had anything to do with occultism as a practice, beyond perhaps knowing some of those people. The fact simply is that the sexual revolution has been one of the big cultural evolutionary leaps our society has made, and while it's extremely simplistic to think that Kinsey alone would've been the one who kicked it off, his contributions to it should be honored.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Very interesting stuff and yeah, the art scene was also growing more Post Modernist from what I recall. I like the way you put it:
> "The old world was slowly crumbling by the time Kinsey hit the scene. All he did was hasten it to a conclusion."
> Couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> ...


>You need to learn about the Weimar Republic, mate.
Who established the Weimar Republic?  It seems to me Germany was under a Kaiser before secular republics like the JewSA forcibly altered their system of governance, and then when they tried to go back to a Kaiser, they got into another world war with liberal republics.  Likewise, a few retarded modernist Christians realizing way too late that their libertarian offshoot of Christianity was doomed to lose control and then firing off wildly into the moral crowd so to speak does not equal there having been a "traditional" society.  The US had a chance to actually embrace traditional western Christian culture by not tolerating heresy like the Anglican church, and they didn't do it because they wanted culture and religion to be based on popular opinion and that's what they got.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

Bum Driller said:


> Claiming such gives off serious religious right, in other words, "I'm ignorant and retarded" -vibes


If I have a couple of nice and wise religious right neighbours, should that be enough of a defense? That's all the support you have offered to satanism so far.



Bum Driller said:


> The fact simply is that the sexual revolution has been one of the big cultural evolutionary leaps our society has made, and while it's extremely simplistic to think that Kinsey alone would've been the one who kicked it off, his contributions to it should be honored.



There has been sourced evidence in this thread for engaging in and protecting pedofilia, as well as falsified research. And you still think he should be honored.

Juxtapose that with loving satanists and trying to claim they're good people too. Can you see why you will not make many converts to your point of view? Unless they already are completely corrupt?



Bum Driller said:


> It doesn't change the fact that neither Crowley, nor Kenneth Anger were satanists.


Crowley called himself "the beast 666" for a good portion of his life. Why is it then such a stretch to conflate thelemites with satanists, the way, say lollardism is conflated with christianity?

Or apparently any point of view you don't like with "religious right"?

_Edit: I never really known much about Kenneth Anger, so this is just the result of a percuntory google search. But he made a movie "lucifer rising" about egyptians summoning satan to usher in a new occult age. And somehow I am to believe calling this man a satanist is some sort of grand travesty?

Oh no he's just a filmmaker! He isn't a satanist!

You mean the guy who has "Lucifer" tattood across his chest isn't a satanis_t?


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> If I have a couple of nice and wise religious right neighbours, should that be enough of a defense? That's all the support you have offered to satanism so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lets' break this in to pieces:

a) Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan, although Crowley probably was thrilled to scare idiots with the double-meaning. Thelema, which I don't personally like any more I like satanists, has nothing to do with satanism. But at least they aren't conservatives, if something good can be said about them. 

b) I think that you've previously misunderstood my point about satanists. Like I've said, they are quite normal people, mostly. In my opinion they are almost as dull and stupid conservatives as the christian religious right, and I certainly hold no love for them as such. Sometimes, they are even more conservative than christians these days.

c) I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.

d) On general principles, yeah, you guessed it right; I absolutely fucking hate conservative mindsets of all stripes: christians, nazis, satanists and what have you, because I think that their mindset is travesty and a crime against all that is holy. All of that shit is based on fear and self-loathing, and neither of those are qualities that lead to truth. But then again, I don't really hate these people, I'm rather quite sad about them.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> No he was not. The term transexual was coined in 1919 by Hirschfeld in Germany. He ended up planning 4 operations for a danish man who went by the name of Elbe and who died during the operation where they tried to do a womb transplant.





Spoiler: What's with the semantics?



I wasn't speaking about the term "transexual" but transgenderism itself as we know it today, as conceived largely by John Money. If you want to keep looking further and further back in history for similar notions we can see Roman Emperor Nero castrating a boy to "marry" him. Want to go back there and say _that  _was the beginning of transgenderism/transexuality?

Look, I appreciate the info. I don't mean to sound like a jackass. These bits of historical information are always very useful for adding further context to our understanding of the world, however I'm getting a little annoyed by people coming up with obscure names and events to try and undercut the basic origin points of certain ideological movements which hold so much influence in American and global culture today.

For example, the contemporary "And Then There Were None" style murder mystery comes from Agatha Christie's novel. But someone might argue that similar concepts are found in some lesser known Akkadian playwright's unfinished script thousands of years ago, ergo it technically didn't start with Christie. Except it obviously did, regardless of that historical trivia. It's Christie's novel that brought it out, a story she imagined and wrote which ended up popularizing it. Same goes with DOOM the game inspiring its own shooter genre, but someone says technically the Atari 1488 had shooting physics in some Disney side-scroller whatever. We all know where it started despite elements of the premise being found in earlier works.

Hirschfeld isn't the name that's most broadly recognized as the starting point for transgenderism as it is today, especially not in the USA and as it relates to being one of the many aftershocks of the Sexual Revolution. It's specifically John Money and his experiment with David Reimer.


More information is always good but let's not confuse ourselves and pretend there aren't specific axis points we can identify as having truly effective and lasting ramifications in the world (medical, educational and legal).


Lemmingwise said:


> Seems like you do.


Dude he said " _You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. _"
I mentioned the Weimar Republic only as evidence that we did see it elsewhere. Regardless of whatever American involvement was in its establishment, it certainly was not indicative of American culture or broader society back then. That was my point. America today was not America of yesteryear and pretending it was or that all of this originated from the USA is incorrect.



mr.moon1488 said:


> Likewise, a few retarded modernist Christians realizing way too late that their libertarian offshoot of Christianity was[...]


I went to great lengths to explain how your preconceived notion of America and its past culture being like this from the start and never doing anything to counteract it was wrong, yet you continue to ramble blindly without giving it a glance. I already mentioned more than enough points in my spoilered explanation that you can research on your own. If you want to keep being retarded be my guest. I'm not ruining the thread for this.



Bum Driller said:


> Lets' break this in to pieces:





Spoiler: Response






Bum Driller said:


> a) Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan


Firstly it's "Babylon". Secondly last I checked that's inspired directly from a Biblical eschatological figure which, in lore, is explicitly an agent of the literal Devil. Lastly she's never referred to as a goddess. All you're saying here is that you're uppity people didn't parse out Crowley's fan fiction.


Bum Driller said:


> But at least they aren't conservatives, if something good can be said about them.


Well at least now I know what stance you're arguing from. You've really got a drill up your bum about christians and conservatives. Still, more in-depth discussion on Satanism, its origins and the different subsets of Crowley's inspirations belongs in a different or original thread. This is Kinsey and Sexual Revolution, and occultists and occultism as it relates to the subject of the thread is what's important.


Stuff about Kinsey or his associates with Crowley, aspects of Crowley's teachings and behaviors which would have peaked Kinsey's interest, concepts and ideas from the occult and satanism which may have found influence in the Sexual Revolution, etc. Things like that are thread relevant I think. Otherwise it's for a different thread.


Bum Driller said:


> c) I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.


Why even bother posting then, let alone claim the OP misrepresents anything or imply I've been lying? Take it elsewhere instead of ignoring the entire point of the thread just to derail onto bitching about religion and Crowley and occultism. The OP didn't misrepresent a thing.


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

I have no doubt Kinsey was a nightmarishly awful person with a degenerate worldview, who undoubtedly did damage to countless generations with his "Findings". But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid. This is why you can't win a battle to save your life.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid. This is why you can't win a battle to save your life.


This thread isn't about Satanism or Satanic Ritual Abuse or whatever. I was listing basic facts and even posted a picture you can reverse image search for yourself. Nothing stupid about it. It's real.


Spoiler: However



I will say that the refusal to recognize connections, both written and even photographed right in front of our face, is an intellectual disability. People have been psychologically conditioned to view any connection of anything to Satanism with scoffing. It can be literally anything else, anything at all, any other kind of religion or cult--but the minute it's specifically Satanism people get sudden flashes of Hollywood horror films. Derisive remarks from stand-up comedians echo in their ears. Like Pavlov's bell bringing hounds to drool, we hear "Satan" anything and start mocking and ignoring everything.

People do the exact same thing with global/international pedophile conspiracies (not conspiracy theories, I mean _conspiracies_, as in "two or more scheming/plotting in secret, conspiring"). Even after Peter Scully and Jeffery Epstein, people still see "pedophile conspiracy" and immediately think of the term "Pedogate" only to start shaking their head with a chuckle.

Recognizing reality requires breaking that conditioning raaa


----------



## Syaoran Li (Apr 26, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> >Traditionalism
> >Oppress
> None of these fags were oppressed though, and the JewSA at any point in its history was far from anything traditional.  Not oppressing them was what got these ideologies to the point at which they are.  You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them.  The JewSA and other liberal republics' grand experiments in secular individualism were what allowed for things like this to grow in prevalence and in extreme because there was never some figure in authority present to say "enough is enough," and then to take the necessary actions to stop this sort of thing from snowballing out of control.



Now, that's what I call edgy!


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Recognizing reality requires breaking that conditioning raaa


I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.

Rich people are too egotistical and self-centered to ever properly serve another entity in the first place. The fundamental structure of their minds denies even accepting the idea that there are superior beings to them. That's why I'm convinced its just a LARP to distract people.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> What's with the semantics?


It's not really a point of semantics. Let me be clear: I support and believe the thesis that Kinsey was an instrumental part in building the intellectual foundation for the sexual revolution. Roe v. Wade used his research, for example.

You're not likely to find a much more sympathetic poster than me, I think, so my advice would be: don't sweat the small disagreements.
If the topic is important, we should be above getting frustrated by whether we're right on every point.

--

I think it's likely that this revolution would have come from Germany instead; but they destroyed the entire archive of the institute of sexual research.

I thi k what you're saying is important, so I want you to be accurate. There wasn't anything fundamentally different from transexual or transgender. Both were also attempt to not just humor someone's delusion, but to also medically try to redesign their body. Both were also abject failures in their experiments to support their thesis of either transgenderism or transexuality.

It's also a specific continuation: John Money was involved in restarting where Hirschfeld left off, including rhe governing body of the *DGSS*, an institute witht the specific goal to continue where the destroyed hirschfeld institute had left off.

It went so far as to later award John Money the "Magnus Hirschfeld medal". 
I think it's important history and connected, not just some random faffing ancient history.



EyelessMC said:


> Dude he said " _You didn't see this kind of thing in other eras of western history because the respective host cultures didn't tolerate them. _"
> I mentioned the Weimar Republic only as evidence that we did see it elsewhere



Yes and it led to the people so outraged by it that they ended up exiling hirschfeld and organised book burnings of his materials. Doesn't that support the idea that this wasn't tolerated by the host culture?




Bum Driller said:


> I've not had time to read all stuff posted about Kinsey on this thread, nor will I probably ever have. On general principle I don't believe any sources posted on this den of faggotry.



I was responding because knowledge never is complete and I was wondering if despite our different outlook you might have something to add anyways. But you are unwilling to take 5 minutes to read and another 5 to verify sources?

Kinsey, an object of worship then, but nevermind the pedofilia and falsified research?

It's funny that you use den of faggotry as a pejorative; shouldn't that be a term of high praise coming from you?

See how every endeavor becomes self-defeating when built on inverted principles?



Bum Driller said:


> Crowley called himself "To Mega Therion", or "The Great Beast", the beast in this sense being the great beast upon which Babalon, the wicked whore-goddess of all existence rides. This has nothing to do with any christian retardations about Satan



Nothing? It has nothing to do with it?

He also called himself "the beast 666" and for a longer part of his life. He imagined himself as the beast from the book of revelations; that is by his words, not mine. The beast in the book of relevations is a servant of satan. So he places himself exactly in the christian tradition with that.



Bum Driller said:


> I think that you've previously misunderstood my point about satanists. Like I've said, they are quite normal people, mostly. In my opinion they are almost as dull and stupid conservatives as the christian religious right, and I certainly hold no love for them as such. Sometimes, they are even more conservative than christians these days



What is the relevance of how conservative people are to this conversation? I think it's because conservative is to your worldview something approximating what a christian would call evil?

Any ideology is going to have rank and file dullards in it; my point then and now is that you're not making any defense of its ideology.

Also that just because you greet people in the street, you don't necessarily know the content of their character and whether they are engaged with for example criminal activity or not.

As such both your defense of the ideology as even the specific satanists is quite meaningless; not because itcomes from you, but because your basis for defense is both flimsy and your statements are constantly self-contradictory.

You absolutely hate satanists; yet you defend satanists yet again. It's hard to believe.

You speak on terms of all that is "holy" which seems to be truth and self love, judging by your words. Yet not even willing to take 5 minutes to develop your knowledge on Kinsey. Is that really treating truth as something holy? Or more as a punch line?

I dunno, I was open to the idea that I might be missing something pertinent, but you aren't really offering any reason to believe you, while refusing to read sources that disprove you. What even is the point of that?

Yeah Kenneth Anger is on record saying "I am not a satanist, I am a pagan". The guy with "Lucifer" tattood across the chest and voice recordings in which he says he himself is lucifer.

How do people ever come up with the idea that he might be a satanist anyways? It's hard to imagine. Maybe one day we'll figure it out.



L50LasPak said:


> I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.
> 
> Rich people are too egotistical and self-centered to ever properly serve another entity in the first place. The fundamental structure of their minds denies even accepting the idea that there are superior beings to them. That's why I'm convinced its just a LARP to distract people



Why wouldn't you use tools of cultism and religion to control people just because you have money?



L50LasPak said:


> But I also think the attempts to link this to Satanism just makes you people look incredibly stupid.


That depends on perspective. When Bumdriller mentioned that Kenneth Anger wasn't a satanist (something poorly supported, see my wall of text), even in my superficial search I couldn't stop stumbling over his connections to Kinsey.

I don't think this is a tenuous link at all.

Of course I recognise that the term "satanist" has a very different emotional impact to people; christians will probably consider it among the center of evil the way bumdriller thinks of conservatism as a center of evil. And non-christians will hear "satanist" and might like me, think of occultist ambitions or they might think of satanic panic and assume it's all nonsense.

That's the response you seem to be describing.

Yet why would someone's religious beliefs, thoughts, ideas, connections be unimportant? If humor the idea, Tom Cruise's ideas were hugely influential, could we divorce him from scientology when examining them or must the connection also be considered?

People also look stupid for critizing transgender ideas on twitter. There is a culture of censoring critics. My point is "look stupid" is a product of kneejerk responses, different from "is stupid".

Should we try to "look smart" by engaging in willful ignorance?


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Why wouldn't you use tools of cultism and religion to control people just because you have money?


They do that already. Its not called Satanism though, its called Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Satanism is just what the people in charge do for fun on the weekends.



Lemmingwise said:


> Should we try to "look smart" by engaging in willful ignorance?


You should try to look sharp by not falling into obvious feints anyone can detect with even a cursory glance.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> They do that already. Its not called Satanism though, its called Christanity, Judaism and Islam. Satanism is just what the people in charge do for fun on the weekends.


So which is it? Do they do it for fun or is it just a feint?

You already describe a situation where multiple religions/cults are used to control people. Why not one more for more elite circles?

Am I to believe that this one is unique and purely recreational to everyone involved?


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Spoiler: What's with the semantics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's Babalon(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon), you fucking philistine. It tells something of your ability to think at all, if it's this hard for you to grasp written facts. 

Regarding more on-topic stuff, for example Kinsey's research: 

Yes, he did some truly questionable stuff like interviewing pedophile(s), which I don't support at all. He also did some other stupid shit in the name of his agenda in regards to exaggerating certain research results. However, while none of this is good or recommendable, he is hardly the only scientific pioneer to have done so. In my opinion  his worth was to get the ball rolling in regards to research in to human sexuality, and this is what we should honor him for. He also was important to the sexual revolution, which was one of the few good things last century brought us.


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> So which is it? Do they do it for fun or is it just a feint?


Both. They probably get off on how much fear and anxiety it causes regular people for how little effort they put into it.



Lemmingwise said:


> You already describe a situation where multiple religions/cults are used to control people. Why not one more for more elite circles?


Because they fundamentally cannot hold a religious belief in a higher power. Their egos contradict that. You cannot have a powerful rich person without their ego, as it is the asset that allows them to ignore morality and do terrible things with no remorse. Their egos hold that nothing in the universe is greater or more powerful than them, so they are at an extremely fundamental level incapable of accepting a genuine belief in religion, organized or Satanic.



Lemmingwise said:


> Am I to believe that this one is unique and purely recreational to everyone involved?


Yes, you are. Satanism has no defining practices or doctrines. Its purely freeform autistic nonsense and guttural human instincts coming to the surface. That's what makes it so repulsive, and that's the draw of it for these people. The events allow them to drop the sophisticated faces they put on regularly and engage in all forms of debauchery for personal gratification.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's not really a point of semantics. Let me be clear: I support and believe the thesis that Kinsey was an instrumental part in building the intellectual foundation for the sexual revolution. Roe v. Wade used his research, for example.
> 
> You're not likely to find a much more sympathetic poster than me, I think, so my advice would be: don't sweat the small disagreements.
> If the topic is important, we should be above getting frustrated by whether we're right on every point.


Agreed. I just didn't like people mocking the entire thing as "hurr Jewmerica", hand-waving the entire OP because of the mention of Satanism and saying the OP misrepresented or lied about things. As for my reply to you, I didn't mean to be snippy. It was with regard to the origin of transgenderism as we know it. Bringing up Hirschfeld can be incredibly beneficial, like when I brought up Wilhelm Reich, but you did so as if to contradict what I posted about Reimer and the importance of speaking about him and what happened to him. He's a sad but powerful counterpoint to the trans-movement which is at the root of its origin (again, as we know it in America and abroad today) and the otherwise positively regarded John Money.

_"Many researchers have pointed to [Reimer's] case as evidence that gender is at least partially biologically determined, and intersex activists have used the case to point to the damage that genital surgery can cause to children. The dramatic interventions into Reimer's life have been heavily criticized on all sides of the political spectrum." - https://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/john-money.html_



Lemmingwise said:


> I think it's likely that this revolution would have come from Germany instead; but they destroyed the entire archive of the institute of sexual research.
> 
> I thi k what you're saying is important, so I want you to be accurate. There wasn't anything fundamentally different from transexual or transgender. Both were also attempt to not just humor someone's delusion, but to also medically try to redesign their body. Both were also abject failures in their experiments to support their thesis of either transgenderism or transexuality.
> 
> ...


OH! Well dammit dude mention all that then! lol All you did was tell me the origin of the term "transexual". This is far more important than just that.

Taken from the DGSS's wikipedia: "The Magnus Hirschfeld Medal is awarded by the German Society for Social-Scientific Sexuality Research (DGSS) for outstanding service to sexual science, granted in the categories "Sexual Research" and "Sexual Reform".It is named in honour of German sexology pioneer Magnus Hirschfeld."

Yet another psychoanalyst, just like Sigmund Freud's apparent pupil Wilhelm Reich, yet perhaps even more influential. I find it interesting we keep running into psychoanalysts like this.
What more do you know about Hirschfeld, mate? Can you put it into a separate post for easy reference?


Lemmingwise said:


> Yes and it led to the people so outraged by it that they ended up exiling hirschfeld and organised book burnings of his materials. Doesn't that support the idea that this wasn't tolerated by the host culture?


It certainly does, but you had brought it up in reply to my post you quoted regarding transgenderism and Reimer being the first. Two different subjects, mine being transgenderism's origin and the other guy's being the idea America never reacted against these kinds of things in its culture. As for book burning, I'm yet again getting flashbacks to what we read about Reich. Unlike Reich, though, it seems Hirschfeld's name didn't remain tarnished and forgotten. Guy had a medal named after him.


----------



## Bum Driller (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> What is the relevance of how conservative people are to this conversation? I think it's because conservative is to your worldview something approximating what a christian would call evil?
> 
> Any ideology is going to have rank and file dullards in it; my point then and now is that you're not making any defense of its ideology.
> 
> ...




It seems that you've some hard time to grasp my patterns of thought. I don't think in terms of "good" or "evil", in general. I think more along lines of "useful" and "harmful" in relation to life and spiritual development. 

Now, because of this, I don't think that conservatism is "evil", I merely think that it's mostly harmful to developing as a human being. It builds upon fear, prejudice and self-loathing, and produces broken, insecure and limited beings. 

Sexual revolution, as a culture-wide phenomenon, allowed humans to step over the boundaries of behaviour that had been held upon them for millenia, limiting their understanding of themselves. That is what I call useful, and that's why I can't do else but support it as a phenomenon. 

On the other hand, how can you not conceive that I can at the same time hate something, but not hate it's adherents? Well, then again you can't conceive either that Grant wasn't a satanist, despite himself saying so, which tells something.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Unlike Reich, though, it seems Hirschfeld's name didn't remain tarnished and forgotten. Guy had a medal named after him


The medal was awarded by the institute where Money served on the board for years. It's self-conglatory, nothing too important.

I said it more to say "Germany didn't tolerate it, until they were conquered by the USA".



EyelessMC said:


> I just didn't like people mocking the entire thing as "hurr Jewmerica", hand-waving the entire OP


I don't think he was handwaving the OP as much as he was giving reasons why the US was the fertile ground where this could grow, where it had failed to grow in other places.

I don't know how accurate it is, btw, I am in the end a spectator of americana, not a a participant.



EyelessMC said:


> you did so as if to contradict what I posted about Reimer


Reimer is important to talk about. I just didn't have anything to add besides correcting that it isn't really where transgenderism began, even in modern history.

There is right now an undercurrent of popularizing John Money because it gives easy ammunition to damage the current transgender narrative (a worthy cause).

But I also see a lot of people making (unintentional) false claims, like that he invented the term gender. (He instead coined the term "gender role").

False claims can work as counterammunition so I'm trying to steelman it by pointing out the flaws when I see them.



EyelessMC said:


> What more do you know about Hirschfeld, mate?


Not enough to be worth a post. I was more interested in Kinsey. A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.

In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
2. They performed early transgender surgery. Elbe was killed in a womb transplant to a male for a example.
3. National socialist youth did book burnings and that included their archives.
4. The supposedly first full transgender surgery including vaginoplasty Dora Richter died around that time.
5. There are vague claims that Dora was killed by the youths, but I think it is more likely medical complication like Lili Elbe. Nobody knows, really.
6. Hirschfeld lived out his life in France after that and died before the second world war.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Apr 26, 2021)

Syaoran Li said:


> Now, that's what I call edgy!


>t. dude who sometimes larps as a pagan


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

Spoiler: Lemmingwise






Lemmingwise said:


> The medal was awarded by the institute where Money served on the board for years. It's self-conglatory, nothing too important.





Lemmingwise said:


> the institute where Money served on the board for years.


That's pretty important, I'd say, but fair enough.  And I mentioned the "handwaving the OP" regarding @L50LasPak 's concern that mentioning the occult connection undermines the information. He wasn't handwaving it but he voiced disappointment that it could be because of that.
As for what that JewSA idiot kep typing, no it's not remotely true and you can check my reply to him for proof. The US was not fertile ground. It simply had disparate forces like the Rockefellers & Friends pouring enough money and resources into their aims that they could make a weed grow in cement.

America was never the degenerate cesspit nor the weak push-over for these things. Never. It took a lot to change the country from what it once was, if only briefly.


Lemmingwise said:


> But I also see a lot of people making (unintentional) false claims, like that he invented the term gender. (He instead coined the term "gender role").


Thanks for the correction, though I think what they mean when they say that is how he's credited as coming up with the idea that gender is a singularly mental and social construct.


*MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD



*


Lemmingwise said:


> A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.
> 
> In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
> 1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
> ...


Even just these bullet points and that he was an inspiration to John Money is more than enough. Great info reference for the thread.



Spoiler: L50LasPak






L50LasPak said:


> I'm of the opinion that the Satanism and occult connections of the elites are deliberate feint to make the people who criticize them look stupid, and that its unimportant overall to the larger narrative. It doesn't matter what a person worships, their guilt is found in their crimes.


I get your point but of course it matters. A renown and deeply influential scientist and psychologist was hanging out with/getting help from an occultist and posing for a picture in Alistair Crowley's shack. It matters for many obvious reasons.
Second, whether or not it's a deliberate feint (at least here it's not, since if it was then it would be more widely known for gaslighting purposes) it's still a factual aspect of those involved in the "research" which underpins so much of the Sexual Revolution and everything it's impacted since.
As an aside, it really does matter what a person worships if that worship is couched in teachings which directly inform not just their worldview but their sense of anthropology, particularly their presumptions about "Human Sexual Behavior" as Kinsey studied.

Now I'm not saying Kinsey was a devout Crowley follower. I don't even think Kinsey worshiped anything at all, Satan or otherwise. I don't really have evidence he did and it's not my main focus anyway. All I know are the facts I posted and that he was desperate for "data" of sexually aberrant behavior, heedless of where that data came from or how legitimate it was.

*TL;DR* Whatever it may be, if it's factually verifiable then it must be mentioned. It matters, if only because it is fact. The aversion people have to mentioning things like this comes from a fear of not wanting to be overlooked or mocked, which itself stems from that conditioning I mentioned. This stuff is real and there's no reason to keep it under a rug because others might emptily chuckle while thinking of Rosmary's Baby.





Spoiler: Bum Driller






Bum Driller said:


> It's Babalon(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babalon), you fucking philistine. It tells something of your ability to think at all, if it's this hard for you to grasp written facts.


_"Babalon /ˈbæbælən/ (also known as the Scarlet Woman, Great Mother or Mother of Abominations) is a goddess found in the occult system of Thelema, which was established in 1904 with the writing of The Book of the Law by English author and occultist Aleister Crowley. The spelling of the name as 'Babalon' was revealed to Crowley in The Vision and the Voice."_
So like I said, it's Crowley's fan fiction, but he decided to Donut Steel his occult sanic recolor by misspelling the name.



Bum Driller said:


> Yes, he did some truly questionable stuff like interviewing pedophile(s), which I don't support at all. He also did some other stupid shit in the name of his agenda in regards to exaggerating certain research results. However, while none of this is good or recommendable, he is hardly the only scientific pioneer to have done so.


So because others did similar things--albeit not to this great success--he should get a pass?


Bum Driller said:


> In my opinion  his worth was to get the ball rolling in regards to research in to human sexuality, and this is what we should honor him for. He also was important to the sexual revolution, which was one of the few good things last century brought us.


That's intellectually deranged to say with any sincerity. Also, I wonder if you feel we should honor the Nazis for getting the ball rolling on the advancement of medicine and the dangers of tobacco, x-rays and DDT.

What meager good came from the Sexual Revolution cannot compare to the horrific ramifications it has had on the world, most especially regarding children, and honoring a man who enabled pedophiles and encouraged child rape is a grotequery of the mind.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

Bum Driller said:


> It seems that you've some hard time to grasp my patterns of thought. I don't think in terms of "good" or "evil", in general. I think more along lines of "useful" and "harmful" in relation to life and spiritual development.


I don't see the value of the distinction between the different words.

What would be useful for life and spiritual development, yet not be "good"? What could be harmful to life and spiritual development, yet not "evil"?

My first instinct would be that it introduces wiggle room to put corrupt practices under the positive category. 

To make examples, not opposing evil can be useful and even save your life. Taking bribes can be useful. But they certainly aren't good.



Bum Driller said:


> Well, then again you can't conceive either that Grant wasn't a satanist, despite himself saying so, which tells something


I'm talking about Kenneth Anger, not Kenneth Grant. Different thelemite.

And yes, if a guy would tattoo lucifer on his chest and say that's his own name, is cofounder to church of satan, has only made movies with satanic themes, half of them with satan in the name.... and you're telling me I should believe him when he tells me he isn't a satanist?

I poked a couple of questions at you to see if there's more there. But you can't be serious with this shit. Can you see how your position looks from the outside?

How can I possibly interpret your "thought patterns" differently?


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> I get your point but of course it matters. A renown and deeply influential scientist and psychologist was hanging out with/getting help from an occultist and posing for a picture in Alistair Crowley's shack. It matters for many obvious reasons.


Its here it occurs to me that you clearly don't have unimaginably low opinion of academics that I do. This sort of behavior is what I've come to expect from their kind to the point where I feel its flat out pedestrian. I've learned to never trust the character of an intellectual, especially an academic. 



EyelessMC said:


> Second, whether or not it's a deliberate feint (at least here it's not, since if it was then it would be more widely known for gaslighting purposes) it's still a factual aspect of those involved in the "research" which underpins so much of the Sexual Revolution and everything it's impacted since.


I feel acknowledging it at all is still playing into their hands.



EyelessMC said:


> As an aside, it really does matter what a person worships if that worship is couched in teachings which directly inform not just their worldview but their sense of anthropology, particularly their presumptions about "Human Sexual Behavior" as Kinsey studied.


These people are not capable of worship as I have established. It contradicts the underpinnings of their personality. Therefore any religion they partake in is something they clearly do not believe in.



EyelessMC said:


> The aversion people have to mentioning things like this comes from a fear of not wanting to be overlooked or mocked, which itself stems from that conditioning I mentioned. This stuff is real and there's no reason to keep it under a rug because others might emptily chuckle while thinking of Rosmary's Baby.


Your commitment to telling the whole truth is another reason these people consistently outmaneuver people like you. Doing so causes you to get bogged down in side arguements precisely like this one, and shifts focus away from the more important main point.

Kinsey's nightmarish doctrine can be dismantled completely without ever needing to even mention his Satanism. Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place. The fact that he was a weirdo and a repulsive person in general can come after you've conivnced people that he's wrong, if it really is that important to you.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 26, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> Its here it occurs to me that you clearly don't have unimaginably low opinion of academics that I do.


I'm sure I do, lol But not everyone else does, hence why the connection is extra disturbing.


L50LasPak said:


> Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place.


I understand where you're coming from better now. Part of the reason for the inclusion wasn't just a dogged commitment to giving the whole truth and nothing but; the Farms has a rule that OP should be written like a mini biography, or something like that. No comedy routines, only pertinent and interesting information regarding the subject, written "like a historian".

I knew it was both relevant and interesting to add that into the OP's summary of Kinsey. I stand by it still, but I can't deny your point. Still interesting for the thread, though.


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> I understand where you're coming from better now. Part of the reason for the inclusion wasn't just a dogged commitment to giving the whole truth and nothing but; the Farms has a rule that OP should be written like a mini biography, or something like that. No comedy routines, only pertinent and interesting information regarding the subject, written "like a historian".
> 
> I knew it was both relevant and interesting to add that into the OP's summary of Kinsey. I stand by it still, but I can't deny your point. Still interesting for the thread, though.


This makes much more sense in retrospect. Though I would offer the advice that if you wanted the OP to more resemble a lolcow thread (which I would agree Kinsey qualifies for) you might want to parse things out a bit more to prevent similar confusion in the future.

A separate thread on Satanists/Occultists in general would be fitting of something like Community Watch too, now that I think of it.


----------



## Mnutu (Apr 26, 2021)

How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?


----------



## Bonesjones (Apr 26, 2021)

Mnutu said:


> How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?


Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

Mnutu said:


> How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?





Bonesjones said:


> Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.


The more you learn about Kinsey, the harder it is to avoid his occult connections. The fact that he wasn't just an isolated basketcase is as important for him as it is for Andrew Epstein.

 (not saying Epstein is a satanist; just that the nature of his connections is of value to discuss)

Besides, scope sniping is also a technique of discussion disruption.



L50LasPak said:


> Kinsey's nightmarish doctrine can be dismantled completely without ever needing to even mention his Satanism. Mentioning his Satanism also provides zero tangible benefit to the discussion, it only serves as a distraction, which is what it was always meant to do in the first place.



I am not convinced. Even if it is just a smokescreen (which I don't think), there would be value in mentioning the smoke screen.

I recognize that a decent amount of people percentage go into brain freeze  mode when the topic is mentioned, but that too needs to be dismantled in the persuit for truth.

Think of it like a crime scene; if a pentagram has been drawn on the wall in blood it is worth examining and discussing, even if you believe that it was made to hide a crime of passion.

And then if that person is connected to not just one but multiple high profile occultists where that is part of their tradition, well that is worth exploring too.

I'm also writing a longer post in regards to what you said but I want to mull over what you wrote a little more. I just wanted to get my say in, in regards to people complaining about the discussion of satanism at all in relation to Kinsey.


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

Mnutu said:


> How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?





Bonesjones said:


> Topic dilution is an old technique to disrupt discussion.


I believe I've demonstrated my point quite well by exploiting the exact vulnerability I originally pointed out.



Lemmingwise said:


> I first look at the material aspect. I see it more as a church: there are different roles. Regardless of belief at either the top level or lower level, it is a structure that sets out ideals, demands certain behaviour that some more than others fulfill.


This is a horrendously generous interpretation of the level of organization that Satanists are even capable of, to be honest.



Lemmingwise said:


> And then if that person is connected to not just one but multiple high profile occultists where that is part of their tradition, well that is worth exploring too.


Everyone is already fully aware that these people collaborate with each other though, in general most people assume all of the rich and powerful of society are familar with each other.



Lemmingwise said:


> Then I look at the ideological aspect. It defines itself as anti-christian and seems to act like it too. Eschewing the idea of a higher power is anti-christian too. But it also is hard to know what to believe, much like when talking to muslims. Muslims have a doctrine of lying to further islam, with a number of times muhammed did it too to further support the practise. And satan is the prince of lies, ideologically. So if a person were to believe in satan and if a person were to serve satan, why wouldn't they lie/obfuscate at every turn?


If all one needs to do to serve Satan is lie regularly then every religious and finanical institution on this planet is firmly controlled by The Devil. Then again, given my bleak outlook, I could easily believe this.



Lemmingwise said:


> I do think there is a difference between people that ideologically value truth and those who prefer to succumb to a swamp of unknowing.


This is a way of thinking that can be used against you though; I think one should plan their attack accordingly. Then again I've already been informed that I was to some extent mistaken about the point of the thread, this point may not be relevant anymore.



Lemmingwise said:


> I'm also writing a longer post in regards to what you said but I want to mull over what you wrote a little more. I just wanted to get my say in, in regards to people complaining about the discussion of satanism at all in relation to Kinsey.


Fair enough.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 26, 2021)

This thread is taking a left turn. 




Lemmingwise said:


> Not enough to be worth a post. I was more interested in Kinsey. A while back I was trying to prove or falsify the thesis that Kinsey was the originator of a list of certain ideas and that brought me to Hirschfeld. I don't know much about wilhelm reich yet, either.
> 
> In regards to Hirschfeld and his institute, just a couple of bullet points.
> 1. he ran the institute of sexual science in Germany (institut fur sexualwissenschaft )
> ...



According to my own readings,  Hirschfeld's insitute was burned down for multiple reasons.   For starters, the Nazis were composed of multiple factions that had various ideals.  Some people suggested that Hirschfeld treated some Nazi for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia. And there were homosexual and cross dressing nazis particularly among the SS.   That was one key motivated. Another reason was that the traditionalist Nazi faction thought that he polluting Germany's morals.





Bum Driller said:


> *Sexual revolution, as a culture-wide phenomenon, allowed humans to step over the boundaries of behaviour that had been held upon them for millenia, limiting their understanding of themselves. That is what I call useful, and that's why I can't do else but support it as a phenomenon.*



The Sexual Revolution didn't really break boundaries of behavior.  Before the Sexual Revolution, there was the Grand Epoch, Victorian, and Edwardian England.  In my opinion, all the Sexual Revolution did was free the middle class from respectability.  The weathy and poor were always allowed to break convention behavior as long they  kept quiet about it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 26, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> Fair enough


You ended up responding to the half-written, most intended for deletion post. The unfinished part was accidently copy pasted in and quickly removed, but you must have loaded the page in the 2-3 minutes it was up.

It's okay, just a little more error prone and shallow thought. It's worth rereading my post as it was intended.



L50LasPak said:


> If all one needs to do to serve Satan is lie regularly then every religious and finanical institution on this planet is firmly controlled by The Devil. Then again, given my bleak outlook, I could easily believe this.


I feel ya. It's not exactly what I was saying. I meant that I don't necessarily believe church of satan claims that they don't believe in satan. I am not saying that I know them to believe in satan, just that it's already hard to know what anyone believes. Doubly so for occultists; who are by their nature attracted to the esoteric, That Which Is Hidden. Triply so for occultists who name their congregation after the prince of lies.

But said short: they're not satanist worshippers because they're liars. They probably are liars because they are satanists.



L50LasPak said:


> Everyone is already fully aware that these people collaborate with each other though, in general most people assume all of the rich and powerful of society are familar with each other.



Plenty of people don't know much about Kinsey, nor his connections.

This despite the fact they probably have 3-4 beliefs about the world that came about due to his falsified research.



Noir drag freak said:


> According to my own readings, Hirschfeld's insitute was burned down for multiple reasons. For starters, the Nazis were composed of multiple factions that had various ideals. Some people suggested that Hirschfeld treated some Nazi for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia. And there were homosexual and cross dressing nazis particularly among the SS. That was one key motivated. Another reason was that the traditionalist Nazi faction thought that he polluting Germany's morals


Just clarifying that my disagree is on the other part of your post, not this quoted part.

What do you understand "Hirschfeld treated some for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia" to mean?

And why would the existance of crossdressing in SS lead to the burning of the institute? Seems odd cause and effect.


----------



## L50LasPak (Apr 26, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I meant that I don't necessarily believe church of satan claims that they don't believe in satan. I am not saying that I know them to believe in satan, just that it's already hard to know what anyone believes. Doubly so for occultists; who are by their nature attracted to the esoteric, That Which Is Hidden. Triply so for occultists who name their congregation after the prince of lies.


I'm pretty sure if you asked a Satanist or anyone into some kind of new-agey religion, they would be happy to tell you that they believed in Satan, assuming they trusted you enough to speak candidly about it. But its in much the same way that someone from the Deathfats part of the forum claims they're going on a diet; just the trappings of a religion or a system of beliefs, sometimes merely a suggestion of that, and nothing more. It pretty quickly becomes apparent that Satanism is just a bunch of gibberish and random pagan rites that are excuses to engage in all kinds of debauchery.

Part of this arguement does come down to how willing you are to characterize a certain set of beliefs as a religion. For me the idea that satanism is a single force or even a movement on its own is silly because its arbitrary, carries no real fundamentals, and it seems like every Satanic leader has had their own drastically different interpretation of what it entails. I also firmly refuse to believe that the people partaking it actually believe it is a serious set of beliefs, though I'll concede that maybe when they're tripping balls on designer drugs during their get-togethers it might feel more real for them at the moment.



Lemmingwise said:


> But said short: they're not satanist worshippers because they're liars. They probably are liars because they are satanists.


It is pretty difficult to tell when someone with such a fundamentally distorted view of reality like an occultist is actually lying or not. For me though that's more evidence to not trust that their "faith" is real.



Lemmingwise said:


> Plenty of people don't know much about Kinsey, nor his connections.
> 
> This despite the fact they probably have 3-4 beliefs about the world that came about due to his falsified research.


Its possible I may be taking my own perspective for granted on this one, but I've conversed with even super woke people who will openly acknowledge that the influential people of society interconnect with each other in all of their weird rich people clubs. It seems to be the only common ground I can find with some people honestly. So I meant that as more of a general point.

Regarding Kinsey specifically I agree that the man and his findings do not get the attention or scrutiny that they have coming to them. That said, he's being talked about a lot more in academia in the last few years than he has been when I was still in school learning about this stuff. I think the left has miscalculated on this one though, because bringing his name up more and more is going to cause more people to look into him.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 27, 2021)

Mnutu said:


> How the fuck do you manage to make a topic about a crazy pedophile and manage to have everyone in the thread go full retard over satanism?


Why are you pretending that two or three people repeating their grievances about it =/= "the entire thread"
Look at the posts. We've had plenty of interesting information and discussion aside from that.



L50LasPak said:


> Regarding Kinsey specifically [...] he's being talked about a lot more in academia in the last few years [...] because bringing his name up more and more is going to cause more people to look into him.


Which is good and the reason we need threads like this across the net. However, I think modernity (social media, etc.) has trained people to have the memory of mayflies and the tribal politics of Congo child soldiers. This is what keeps me from being too hopeful about them overplaying their hand, that people will look up Kinsey, start discovering uncomfortable truths and immediately stop to pretend they never saw anything.

Or worse, that they will actively overlook his evils and defend him and his fraudulent work just because he and those like him are  "on right side of history" so to speak, or because he's made great strides for their particular worldview. ITT we already had someone saying Kinsey, despite the obvious pedophilia and further, should be honored anyway.
It's like when I bring up to a family member that letting their teenager delve into transgenderism is only going to end in irreversible damage--even showing them the book by the same name which chronicles scientific and anecdotal data to support it--they start shrugging and reacting like they're getting a rash. Some people just need to see their kid lop off their own breasts before they realize what they're complicit in just because it's endorsed by some doctors or (supposedly) the new cultural norm.

Here's hoping more insight leads to greater reaction against the ongoing aftershock of the Sexual Revolution rather than greater attempts at self-deception. If nothing else it's great to see people gain something from threads like this, and even give in return.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 27, 2021)

L50LasPak said:


> I'm pretty sure if you asked a Satanist or anyone into some kind of new-agey religion, they would be happy to tell you that they believed in Satan, assuming they trusted you enough to speak candidly about it.


This just isn't true. There are numerous cults, including scientology, that work hard to guard their secrets. The scientology stuff only comes out after a member manages to flee, an endeavor that often took months of planning. Then they have to battle the lawsuits, the gangstalking and harassment.

L Ron Hubbard, the founder of scientology was also involves with a number of Thelemites, including being written about by a journalist when he tried to summon Babalon in a ritual with John Parsons.

They say they don't believe in satan and that they are purely secular; and then there is shit like that.

----

For everyone:

Here are a couple of questions in regards to Kinsey. Would love for anyone to take a shot at all of the questions. Or even just one. You don't have to know much to participate; would be interesting tothings get anyone's take on this:

1. Which legislations have used his research to support their position?

2. Which flawed beliefs have comeabout due to his books that persist to this day?

3. What are the goals of the Kinsey institute?

4. How influential is the Kinsey institute?

5. Why has Kinsey never faced legal action for either being present for child abuse or encouraging it?


----------



## dorxter¼ (Apr 27, 2021)

A long time ago I was digging around researching how different cultures raise children, especially around modesty, and stumbled into a book title "The Sexual Lives of Children". I'd never heard of the author, but I think researching him, lead me to Kinsey. I'm sure it's all related. I read most of that book, and although it has some rough parts in it, I found myself laughing at some of the other parts of people giving "testimonies" of their screwed up sexual experiences as adolescents. Made me think of all the screwed up things that happened around me when I was a young kid that I never thought as sexual. Like when I was 8 I think, I used to go hiking with this group of brothers and their neighbors, we were all the same age mostly. I'd always climb this tree right at the start of the hiking trail and take a dump while all the boys "watched the poop" come out. I never thought anything of it, just always had to take a dump right before hiking or something and that tree had a perfect toilet seat made out of a horizontal forked branch about 10 ft from the ground.
I moved and was 11 I think and at least once a week, my neighbor who was 1 year older than I, we would go over to this girl's house (who was 9 I think) down the street and ask her if she wanted "walk around". And like clockwork each time, we'd cut across this old field with a run down abandoned house in it. He'd always herd us into the detached falling apart garage and act like there would be "cool" stuff we might find in there. But it was always the same, after digging through trash and junk he'd point out an old 5 gallon bucket and ask if the girl needed to pee or anything and that we would be fine "watching" (as if watching would be some kind of convenience). She'd always decline, but he would always ask and she would always still come "walking" with us anyway. I never really thought anything of it. My mom is "friends" with him and his parents on facebook, but I can't make myself friend the guy  plus I quit facebook anyway.


----------



## Pokemonquistador2 (Apr 28, 2021)

dorxter¼ said:


> A long time ago I was digging around researching how different cultures raise children, especially around modesty, and stumbled into a book title "The Sexual Lives of Children". I'd never heard of the author, but I think researching him, lead me to Kinsey. I'm sure it's all related. I read most of that book, and although it has some rough parts in it, I found myself laughing at some of the other parts of people giving "testimonies" of their screwed up sexual experiences as adolescents. Made me think of all the screwed up things that happened around me when I was a young kid that I never thought as sexual. Like when I was 8 I think, I used to go hiking with this group of brothers and their neighbors, we were all the same age mostly. I'd always climb this tree right at the start of the hiking trail and take a dump while all the boys "watched the poop" come out. I never thought anything of it, just always had to take a dump right before hiking or something and that tree had a perfect toilet seat made out of a horizontal forked branch about 10 ft from the ground.
> I moved and was 11 I think and at least once a week, my neighbor who was 1 year older than I, we would go over to this girl's house (who was 9 I think) down the street and ask her if she wanted "walk around". And like clockwork each time, we'd cut across this old field with a run down abandoned house in it. He'd always herd us into the detached falling apart garage and act like there would be "cool" stuff we might find in there. But it was always the same, after digging through trash and junk he'd point out an old 5 gallon bucket and ask if the girl needed to pee or anything and that we would be fine "watching" (as if watching would be some kind of convenience). She'd always decline, but he would always ask and she would always still come "walking" with us anyway. I never really thought anything of it. My mom is "friends" with him and his parents on facebook, but I can't make myself friend the guy  plus I quit facebook anyway.


I guarantee you neighbor boy is diddling some kids now.


----------



## Real Gay Autist (Apr 28, 2021)

dorxter¼ said:


> book title  "The Sexual Lives of Children".



For others' information that link points to the website of 'Ipce' a.k.a. International Pedophile and Child Emancipation, a pedophile and pederast advocacy organization.


----------



## EyelessMC (Apr 28, 2021)

Real Gay Autist said:


> For others' information that link points to the website of 'Ipce' a.k.a. International Pedophile and Child Emancipation, a pedophile and pederast advocacy organization.


What is the hell? Makes sense considering the book title. Even saw it on Amazon. Still... What in the hell is this IPCE? Is it some kind of international NAMBLA?


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 29, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> And why would the existance of crossdressing in SS lead to the burning of the institute? Seems odd cause and effect.



According to this book I'm currently reading, the nazi party wanted to promote an image of masculinity and traditional morality.  Having rumors about cross dressing would undermine that imag


Lemmingwise said:


> What do you understand "Hirschfeld treated some for their homosexual, intersexuality, and other paraphernalia" to mean?



Maybe "treating" is the wrong word.  More like researching homosexuality, transexuality, and other stuff.  According to Christopher Isherwood, Hirschfeld would  create reports of the patients sex life and measure body parts.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 29, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> According to this book I'm currently reading, the nazi party wanted to promote an image of masculinity and traditional morality. Having rumors about cross dressing would undermine that imag


What book is that?


----------



## Jewthulhu (Apr 29, 2021)

Was Kinsey the one who raped his male assistants or is that another "sexologist?" As well as assisted/covered up the crimes of child rapists?
IMO all "sexologists" should be shot and their work burned.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 29, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> What book is that?


Stormtrooper Families: Homosexuality and Community in the Early Nazi Movement​I'm also in the middle of reading "Queer Identities and Politics in Germany: A History, 18801945"


----------



## Lemmingwise (Apr 29, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> Stormtrooper Families: Homosexuality and Community in the Early Nazi Movement​I'm also in the middle of reading "Queer Identities and Politics in Germany: A History, 18801945"


Thanks.

Your posts about the book seem to imply that it claims german leadership attacked the institute without attacking the homosexuality/crossdressing in its own ranks. Is there any evidence of that?

And if it did attack it in its own ranks, wouldn't it do more than promote an *image *of traditional morality? Wouldn't it just be a way of promoting traditional morality?


----------



## Noir drag freak (Apr 29, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Your posts about the book seem to imply that it claims german leadership attacked the institute without attacking the homosexuality/crossdressing in its own ranks. Is there any evidence of that?
> 
> And if it did attack it in its own ranks, wouldn't it do more than promote an image of traditional morality? Wouldn't it just be a way of promoting traditional morality?



It did try to weed out homosexuals and crossdressers. At  the same time, the Nazi party wasn't a cohesive yet so homosexuals were able to join as long as they weren't discreet and masculine. There were tons of infighting in the SS because of lack of direction and opposing ideals. Another thing, the homosexuals that joined the Nazi party wanted to remake German society into an Hellenistic one. I'm still reading in middle of reading it.

Party of the draw to Nazism was that the people wanted order, tradition, and masculine virtues. At the same time, there arguments about how to bring that about.


----------



## EyelessMC (May 1, 2021)

Jewthulhu said:


> Was Kinsey the one who raped his male assistants or is that another "sexologist?" As well as assisted/covered up the crimes of child rapists?
> IMO all "sexologists" should be shot and their work burned.


Not the former from what I've gathered and read but definitely the latter. It's amazing how much sexology is intrinsically tied to normalizing outlier sexual predilections and especially always linked in some deep way to pedophilia. Psychologists studying every aspect of the human psyche and behavior is one thing but it seems so much of "sexology", in particular is founders and most influential figures for what's so prominent today--men like those listed in this thread and most certainly Kinsey--is just a realm of perverts, and often violent perverts at that.



Noir drag freak said:


> It did try to weed out homosexuals and crossdressers. At  the same time, the Nazi party wasn't a cohesive yet so homosexuals were able to join as long as they weren't discreet and masculine. There were tons of infighting in the SS because of lack of direction and opposing ideals. Another thing, the homosexuals that joined the Nazi party wanted to remake German society into an Hellenistic one. I'm still reading in middle of reading it.


It's kind of funny when you consider the Internet rightwing has had the same problem.


----------



## Bonesjones (May 1, 2021)

It goes back to the old joke that psychologists go into psychology to learn why they are so fucked up. Sexology is much the same way. 

Normal people use sex for intimacy and an orgasm and they might develop a kink or two, it hardly matters in the scheme of things. Since it's a means to an end and not something that overwhelms their thoughts.


----------



## Return of the Freaker (May 1, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> It's kind of funny when you consider the Internet rightwing has had the same problem.


Was just going to bring this up. Last summer there was a post in the Atomwaffen thread quoting some faggot who was waxing poetic about pederasty and how a dick in the ass causes beneficial "alchemical changes" in Aryan boys. It included the immortal line "Will you take it upon yourself to defy the anti-evolutionary trends of society and history and ride, better yet sodomize the tiger"


----------



## Noir drag freak (May 1, 2021)

Return of the Freaker said:


> Was just going to bring this up. Last summer there was a post in the Atomwaffen thread quoting some faggot who was waxing poetic about pederasty and how a dick in the ass causes beneficial "alchemical changes" in Aryan boys. It included the immortal line "Will you take it upon yourself to defy the anti-evolutionary trends of society and history and ride, better yet sodomize the tiger"



It's a warrior culture thing.  Chesterton made a statement of how the worship of masculinity could lead to effeminacy.


----------



## Return of the Freaker (May 1, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> It's a warrior culture thing.  Chesterton made a statement of how the worship of masculinity could lead to effeminacy.


So basically horseshoe theory was right again


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 2, 2021)

I was going through an old video and E Micheal Jones makes a couple of claims about Kinsey that I wonder if they're accurate. Curious to hear anyone's thoughts on them:



			https://www.bitchute.com/video/LIFaxPelm1s/
		


Claims:
1. "Report" is not a German word (german word is Bericht), but the widespread circulation of the Kinsey report also resulted in pornographic films like "the schuldmadchen report" in the 70s
2. The Kinsey report was popularized in Germany first, in the fifties and later popularized in the US in the sixties.

The short video also goes into 2nd world war, Magnus Hirschfeld and Wilhelm Rheich.

---

Thoughts:

I don't think #2 is true; Hefner was famously inspired by Kinsey, who started playboy in 1955. Of course something doesn't have to be popular to be inspired by it, but it causes me to doubt the timeline.



Noir drag freak said:


> Another thing, the homosexuals that joined the Nazi party wanted to remake German society into an Hellenistic one.



I think there's a good chance that the Greeks being all pederasts is a modern re-imagination of the past. I've ran into the argument, but I've never really looked into it, so I don't know one way or to other, to be honest. I'll not parrot someone elses thought and just share an unsourced image that seems somewhat credible to me (and my biases I suppose).

If anyone is more knowledgable on the subject, maybe you @Noir drag freak, please tell me more.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 2, 2021)

Also, have a free book.

As well as some other materials Judith Reisman sent me after I e-mailed her.

Save it. Read it. Verify it. Learn.


----------



## EyelessMC (May 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I was going through an old video and E Micheal Jones makes a couple of claims about Kinsey that I wonder if they're accurate.


E Michael Jones is a bit of a meme scholar so it's good to take what he relays from his research with a grain of salt.


> Claims:
> 1. "Report" is not a German word (german word is Bericht), but the widespread circulation of the Kinsey report also resulted in pornographic films like "the schuldmadchen report" in the 70s


Any number of things, pornographic or otherwise, could have been inspired by Kinsey so I suppose it's possible.


> 2. The Kinsey report was popularized in Germany first, in the fifties and later popularized in the US in the sixties.


Kinsey's reports were first published in 1948 in America as I recall so I doubt that. As you say, Hefner referenced it as a great inspiration in the 50's as well, and the Reports were already being pushed to influence legal code before the 60's I think. It's mentioned in the short vid in the OP.


> The short video also goes into 2nd world war, Magnus Hirschfeld and Wilhelm Rheich.


Hey, that's kinda neat! This thread has already touched on these pre-Kinsey figures and others, and now we have EMJ talking about it. Goes to show the thread is a step ahead at research and discussion.


Spoiler: My 2 Cents on Rome






> I think there's a good chance that the Greeks being all pederasts is a modern re-imagination of the past. I've ran into the argument, but I've never really looked into it, so I don't know one way or to other, to be honest.


Caligula and especially Nero prove the depravity of the Roman elite by far, or at least their tendency to it. Artwork and further suggest pederasty was also endemic to certain spheres of the broader culture and slaves both male and female had no human rights, from what I remember reading. Rome wasn't a constant porn set or a pedophile dream from what I know but rather an empire that was in a constant struggle over its moral fiber and power.





Lemmingwise said:


> Also, have a free book.
> 
> As well as some other materials Judith Reisman sent me after I e-mailed her.
> 
> Save it. Read it. Verify it. Learn.


Top tier! I didn't know the old lady was still alive. Nice going, man. This will be really interesting stuff


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 3, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Top tier! I didn't know the old lady was still alive. Nice going, man. This will be really interesting stuff


It's surprising that there are all these interesting people alive with email addresses advertised openly online.



EyelessMC said:


> Caligula and especially Nero prove the depravity of the Roman elite by far, or at least their tendency to it. Artwork and further suggest pederasty was also endemic to certain spheres of the broader culture and slaves both male and female had no human rights, from what I remember reading. Rome wasn't a constant porn set or a pedophile dream from what I know but rather an empire that was in a constant struggle over its moral fiber and power.



Sure but Roman elite =/= greeks. Caligula came around right after the hellenestic era.

Slaves had some legal rights depending on the period.


----------



## Noir drag freak (May 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> I think there's a good chance that the Greeks being all pederasts is a modern re-imagination of the past. I've ran into the argument, but I've never really looked into it, so I don't know one way or to other, to be honest. I'll not parrot someone elses thought and just share an unsourced image that seems somewhat credible to me (and my biases I suppose).
> 
> If anyone is more knowledgable on the subject, maybe you @Noir drag freak, please tell me more.
> 
> View attachment 2137704



I haven't study Classical Greek history. But I think that maybe it's more a myth than anything. For one thing, Christians and others would like to portray the pagans as sexual degenerates to  boast their  moral  authority.  I would bet  the classical world probably  had diverse  opinions  about sexual  behavior.      Ironically, Christians  claim that all the Classical world  were nothing but pederast would be bite them in the behind.   In mid 1850s ,  proto homosexuals would  use the claim that  the Greeks were homosexual to boost their pre-homosexual image.



Lemmingwise said:


> Also, have a free book.
> 
> As well as some other materials Judith Reisman sent me after I e-mailed her.
> 
> Save it. Read it. Verify it. Learn.



I currently reading the first book , chapter 3 and I find that the author has a Christian bent.  


> AMERICAN MEN: ELIMINATING FATHERS 93bootleggers, con men, dope peddlers, gamblers, hold-up men, pimps, prostitutes, etc.”28  For Kinsey, the only sex crimes which qualified as “underworld” were those that involved economic gain, such as prostitution and pandering. Consistent  with  his  eugenic  training  and  beliefs,  which typically disregarded marital status and parent-hood while focusing on occupational and economic status, Kinsey conjured up ten human resource categories,290.  Dependent1.  Underworld2.  Day Labor 3.  Semi-Skilled Labor4.  Skilled Labor5.  Lower White-Collar Group6.  Upper White-Collar Group7.  Professional Group8.  Business-Executive Group9.  Extremely Wealthy GroupHe  claimed  to  have  interviewed  at  least  300  persons from each. However, only the “Underworld” population would likely have provided the degree of sexual deviance he typically sought.  If we accept that he did indeed interview at least 300 members of the “Underworld,” it is a safe assumption that he included them in his Male volume data.  But since few sex predators perpetrate their crimes for economic profit, they would have been  excluded  from  the  “Underworld,”  and  would  instead  have  resurfaced  in  other  categories.    This statistical sleight-of-hand had the advantage of increasing the number of males in apparently normal  occupations,  while  decreasing  their  numbers  in  deviant/sex  offender  populations.    For Kinsey, homosexuals, as a special (or “coded”) category, did not exist.



It's funny that she mentioned Brave New World, Aldous Huxley was a eugenicist.   I have more to say


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 3, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> I currently reading the first book , chapter 3 and I find that the author has a Christian bent.


Yeah, she has some odd takes; like that all pornography is homosexuality (and therefor immoral). I could elaborate on why it's a somewhat well supported idea even if it sounds retarded the first time one hears it. But it's worth reading her stuff not so much for her takes/opinion but rather for the research.

There's some interesting things in the past, like the time she was on Dutch tv and said that playboy was involved with production of child pornography. They sued her for this; and then she proved in court that they had published child pornography in their magazine.

Now the thing is; she had said they had published "thousands of such images, photos and cartoons of children" (not direct quote). And then she proved it in court by producing thousands of such images from playboy magazines. Pretty stunning stuff, to be honest.

In any case; I don't worry when Michael Jones says if Poland was filled with african catholics it would do just as well as now with white catholics, nor do I worry about reading Reisman's research for some of her opinions, despite her being ethnically jewish or religiously christian. I want to know what connections they found and if those connections are accurate.


----------



## Noir drag freak (May 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Yeah, she has some odd takes; like that all pornography is homosexuality (and therefor immoral). I could elaborate on why it's a somewhat well supported idea even if it sounds retarded the first time one hears it. But it's worth reading her stuff not so much for her takes/opinion but rather for the research.
> 
> There's some interesting things in the past, like the time she was on Dutch tv and said that playboy was involved with production of child pornography. They sued her for this; and then she proved in court that they had published child pornography in their magazine.
> 
> ...



How is pornography homosexuality?


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 3, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> How is pornography homosexuality?


It's a bit of a derrail, so I'll pm the argument to you when I have time to fully lay it out, or we can start a new thread. if you really want me to.

Probably somewhere later this week or beginning of the next. It's a controversial position and I don't believe it's true, but I want to do it justice and lay out the argument as well as I can.

-----


edit: This thread revived some of my interest and I saw this tonight, where Reisman says Chinese professors contacted her in 2007 after a book about Kinsey was translated to Chinese and they saw considerable change in sexual behaviour in young Chinese people.


----------



## Noir drag freak (May 3, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> It's a bit of a derrail, so I'll pm the argument to you when I have time to fully lay it out, or we can start a new thread. if you really want me to.
> 
> Probably somewhere later this week or beginning of the next. It's a controversial position and I don't believe it's true, but I want to do it justice and lay out the argument as well as I can.
> 
> ...




Make a thread.




> 2 .,16(<&5,0(6 &216(48(1&(6&+$37(5Helen Keller In  1910,  Dr.  Winfried  Scott  Hall,  Professor  of  Physiology  at  the  Northwestern  University  Medical  School,  catalogued  some  of  the  deleterious  results  of  public  toleration  of  adultery  and  prostitution:Statistics show that of the operations on women in the hospitals of New York City... for the removal of one or both ovaries, sixty-five per cent of those operations were brought about and  necessitated  because  of  gonorrheal  infection  [largely  contracted  by  wives  infected  by  their] lawfully wedded husbands.2Commenting on the growing influence of organized vice and crime in the merchandising of sex, the police chief of Des Moines, Iowa, reported that neighborhood “segregation” of brothel “cribs” cre-ated such a sex market that “Landladies... by reason of competition [put] red lights over the doors... displaying the charms of [girls] in the windows.”3In 1908, Edward Bok, editor of The Ladies Home Journal, implored parents to speak frankly to their children about sex, and to stress that “There can be but one standard: that of moral equity,”  which  requires  that  “the  young  man”  be  “physically  clean”  before  being  granted  the  privilege of matrimony.The famed Helen Keller, blind and deaf after a bout with scarlet fever in infancy, warned in the same magazine of the perils of “free love.”  Her article, “I Must Speak,” candidly addressed marriage and family life issues:The  most  common  cause  of  blindness  is  ophthalmia  of  the  newborn.    One  pupil  in  every  three  at  the  institution  for  the  blind in New York City was blinded by this disease.  What is the cause[?]...  [Her husband]... has contracted the infection in licentious relations before or since marriage.  “The cruelest link in the chain of consequences,” says Dr. Prince Morrow,” is the mother’s innocent agency.  She is made a passive, unconscious medium of instilling into the eyes of her newborn babe a virulent poison which extinguishes its sight.”  ...It is part of the bitter harvest of the wild oats he has sown.4Miss Keller noted that blindness was by no means the most terrible result of this “pestilent sin.”5Diseased  children  reared  in  poorhouses,  and  scores  of  young,  once-healthy  women,  died  in  great  pain and misery as a direct result of their husbands’ sexual irresponsibility.  Discussions of the effects of venereal disease were sorely needed, since “some surgeons attribute three-fourths of the surgical operations on women to this disease: one-fourth is a very conservative reckoning.”6Motivated by the Purity Movement, all states eventually required would-be brides and grooms to be “clean” of venereal diseases before marrying.  Prior to publication of Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male volume, (hereafter Male) in 1948, and Sexual Behavior in the Human Femalevolume, (hereafter Female) in 1953, America witnessed a successful “Women’s War” against alcohol-ism and vice, as thousands of “women marched from church meetings to saloons where, with prayer and song, they demanded an end [to alcohol sales].”  (During Prohibition, the per capita annual consumption  of  hard  liquor  plummeted  from  2.6  to  0.97  gallons.7)    While  traffic  in  sex  slaves,  drugs, alcohol, obscenity, and child labor escalated in Europe, there were significant inroads against
> KINSEY’S YOUTH TO FAMILY MAN 3Fighting the Traffic in Young Girlsurged restoration of social virtue and purity after an era of incivility. such vices in the U.S.  Not until mid-century, with Kinsey’s help, would they flourish once again. Kinsey  blamed  “sexual  re-pression” for everything from the “high” rate of divorce to rape and homosexuality.  Yet he was in his own mid-20s at the start of the “Roaring 20s,” which was hardly a  decade  of  sexual  repression.    Rather, it was a time when girls bobbed their hair, donned shorts, shortened their skirts, and rolled up their stockings, sometimes to attend risqué collegiate alcohol, drug, and sex parties.  By 1930, at age 36, Kinsey would have been aware of the considerable success of ordinary citizens in overcoming state-sanctioned (or state-ignored) “commercial vice"




This whole block text undermines her thesis. So what she's saying is that Kinsey's research undid the Purity movement or that he just amplified the social current of "vice"?


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 4, 2021)

Noir drag freak said:


> This whole block text undermines her thesis. So what she's saying is that Kinsey's research undid the Purity movement or that he just amplified the social current of "vice"?


I don't think it undermines her thesis of the twenties being a kind of peak sexual looseness, which was inhibited by among other things prohibition and women's war, which would later rise again after Kinsey's reports.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 25, 2021)

You know I think this thread warrants revival. I've seen a number of examples now on messageboards where discussion of this topic got derailed by a kind of dishonest "gay nazi" discussion.

I think it is dishonest in nature because discussion with these people, I do not seem to encounter the same kind of curiosity or studiousness to the subject. It seems rather to be a kind of demoralization attempt. That doesn't mean that everyone that engages in it is dishonest, but I do think the impetus, the articles published about it are of the "hitler only had one ball, hitler hated animals" kind of nature.

A couple of crossdressing pictures of nazi's do not prove a kind of rampant homosexuality.

It also makes me think of Nick Fuentes for a bit and his interest in cat girls. For all of the funny side to it, particularly for someone grandstanding against tranny's, there's something dishonest about attacking him over it (as some do), when it's behaviour they would cheer on for someone else. And also because even if all allegation in both instances are accurate, then I still don't think organisations which denounce an activity and try to diminish it is really comparable to one that encourages it.

And in both cases they would have grown up in a culture that all but deifies degeneracy.

Anyways, those are some of my thoughts. I intend to renew my study of Kinsey and share the results.

This was also spurred by the recent new yorker article about "the german experiment", where basicly kids were molested to prevent another holocaust:









						The German Experiment That Placed Foster Children with Pedophiles
					

With the approval of the government, a renowned sexologist ran a dangerous program. How could this happen?




					www.newyorker.com
				



https://archive.md/pEOWS
This has been known for some time (I think I first read about it 3 years or so ago), but it's worth to see some topical expansion on it.

Some saillant quotes:




> Kentler’s goal was to develop a child-rearing philosophy for a new kind of German man. Sexual liberation, he wrote, was the best way to “prevent another Auschwitz.”





> Marco was Henkel’s eighth foster son in sixteen years. When Henkel began fostering children, in 1973, a teacher noticed that he was “always looking for contact with boys.” Six years later, a caseworker observed that Henkel appeared to be in a “homosexual relationship” with one of his foster sons. When a public prosecutor launched an investigation, Helmut Kentler, who called himself Henkel’s “permanent adviser,” intervened on Henkel’s behalf—a pattern that repeats throughout more than eight hundred pages of case files about Henkel’s home. Kentler was a well-known scholar, the author of several books on sex education and parenting, and he was often quoted in Germany’s leading newspapers and on its TV programs.





> n 1976, the magazine _Das Blatt_ argued that forbidden sexual desire, such as that for children, was the “revolutionary event that turns our everyday life on its head, that lets feelings break out and that shatters the basis of our thinking.” A few years later, Germany’s newly established Green Party, which brought together antiwar protesters, environmental activists, and veterans of the student movement, tried to address the “oppression of children’s sexuality.” Members of the Party advocated abolishing the age of consent for sex between children and adults.



And finally here are a couple of rumors from various sources that I want to see if I can confirm their accuracy:



> In 1994, Kentler wrote: “Children are capable of orgasm; Boys up to puberty are even capable of multiple orgasms, like girls and women of repeated orgasms without a break. The idea that children are non-sexual, pure and innocent angels is an invention of the 17th and 18th centuries. ”With this, Kentler repeated the allegedly scientific statements by Kinsey about“ normal ”child sex that Kinsey had adopted from habitual child molesters.





> But exposing the network behind Kentler is just one of the tasks to be done: Kentler’s influence goes far beyond his crimes during the “experiment”. For decades he was considered a star of sex education and the “chief evaluator of the nation in matters of sex education” (ZEIT). He saw himself as a liberator of “sexual energy of life” in the tradition of Freudo-Marxism, Wilhelm Reich and Alfred Charles Kinsey.
> 
> Kentler claimed that even a small child would need stimulation and sexual satisfaction in order to grow into a healthy personality. Based on these assumptions, he developed the “emancipatory sexual education”, which was very well received during the sexual revolution between the 1960s and 1980s.





> *lfred C. Kinsey und das "sexuelle Kind"*
> Die Veröffentlichung des sog. Kinsey-Reports von *Alfred C. Kinsey*
> (1894–1956) sorgte weltweit für großes Aufsehen. In vielen
> Publikationen und Ausarbeitungen zur Sexualerziehung tauchte er
> ...


----------



## EyelessMC (Jul 25, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Anyways, those are some of my thoughts. I intend to renew my study of Kinsey and share the results.


I've been meaning to get to the materials you posted, the books you got via email with Dr. Reissman, but I've been busy with other things. Whatever else you can find is always appreciated. Your posts are golden.


Lemmingwise said:


> This was also spurred by the recent new yorker article about "the german experiment", where basicly kids were molested to prevent another holocaust:
> [...]
> https://archive.md/pEOWS


Genuinely horrifying and utterly depraved. Evil. Yet another "sexologist" and yet more pedophilia, this time on a massive scale, and with the chief excuse being "muh holocaust". The idea was to create a generation of raped boys to make them "sexually liberated" so as to prevent fascism? So much power in the hands of a repugnant monster.

Once again we come across the phrase Freudo-Marxism and among sexologists. That he was something of a contemporary of Kinsey and Reich is also telling.
Nice work with all this! Wonder if the "gay nazi" meme stems from this on some level.


----------



## DetectiveDuBois (Jul 26, 2021)

Incredible thread


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> I've been meaning to get to the materials you posted, the books you got via email with Dr. Reissman, but I've been busy with other things. Whatever else you can find is always appreciated. Your posts are golden.


It's one of the subjects I just find endlessly fascinating and horrifying.

I am now reading a biography of writer Glenway Wescott.

I had never heard of him, no idea how famous he is in US. But he was among other things, one of Kinsey's gay lovers.

In his youth supposedly he frequently sucked off each of the boys in his class. And as I'm reading that I think: How does one know this is true? How does one know it isn't exaggeration?

Later in the book it's mentioned that he collected what was in his journals and gave long exhaustive accounts of his sexual exploits. Like a file of around 250 pages. I wonder about the value of such "qualitive" accounts for scientific research.

That's about all it yielded so far. Not terribly interesting, but thought I'd share each find.


----------



## Drain Todger (Jul 26, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> He was funded by the Rockefellers and had close peers who worked with him and would continue his work even after his death. True, he wasn't alone in anything he did. The Rockefellers took on the US Courts in their subversion to proliferate the supposed legitimacy of his work and, after an actual government investigative committee discovered they were attempting to basically subvert society via academia they still managed to pull it off, although obviously this was a different matter from the Frankfurt School which was imported from the Weimar Republic sometimes between the 30's and early 50's, where literal Socialists would introduce Critical Theory to academia and so on.
> 
> So yes, a lot of factors and agendas were crisscrossing around this time which would, like a steel mesh being super-pressed over a floundering fish, slice apart American society (and thereby be exported internationally over time). Honestly it seems "repression" among the populace (as some posters above have suggested) being the least of any trouble. It's less that people were being repressed regarding sexuality and more that they were being _taught _they were repressed. For twenty years.
> 
> ...



The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice. 
Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.

People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it. 

This planet is a free range human ranch.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 31, 2021)

The westcott book yielded little of value in regards to Kinsey. Anyone have any recommendations or books they think might be interesting in regards to this subject? I'll probably do some new search on monday.


----------



## Noir drag freak (Aug 5, 2021)

Drain Todger said:


> The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice.
> Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.
> 
> People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it.
> ...




Poor women have always worked, especially during the industrial revolution. I think that what you're talking about is the reduction of standards of living for the 1950s white middle class.






Drain Todger said:


> The whole point of “sexual liberation” is to attack the nuclear family and to commoditize people’s bodies. We are told, over and over again, that the nuclear family is bad, that women are oppressed by the division of labor and differing responsibilities in a traditional family, and that eliminating the family as an institution is a matter of social justice.
> Except the people responsible for these policies that are dividing families are not interested in social justice at all. Not even in the slightest. See, our society is run like a pyramid scheme. The nuclear family shifts power away from governmental and supranational institutions and towards the population. Families are like governments-within-governments, more able to petition for their own needs than atomized individuals. Families restrict access to their children and decide the content of their education. Families also build dynastic wealth. That is, they eventually accumulate enough assets that they don’t pay in to the pyramid scheme anymore. The Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the like would very much prefer it if we were broken up into individual consumer-units. That way, we’re all individually paying taxes, paying rent, securing loans, and purchasing subscription services. Introducing women to the workforce had nothing to do with liberating women and everything to do with enabling the other half of the adult population to pay into the pyramid scheme. Securing access to children by making them wards of the state makes it easier to brainwash them and to obtain underage fuckmeat for Elite orgies.
> 
> People really need to understand; the ones who rule over us literally view us as livestock. What do farmers do to cattle? They impregnate them as they wish. They take their calves away and raise them. They slaughter them at their leisure. They study their animals’ behavior intensely so they can figure out how to direct and limit it.
> ...



According to the biographies, Carl Van Vechten and Samuel Stewards also collected writings and recordings of their sexual exploits.  Carl Van Vechten sent his box of sexual recordings to Yale or something. And Samuel Stewards donated his work to the Kinsey Institutes.


----------



## DetectiveDuBois (Aug 5, 2021)

I like the tag line of this book 





						The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution: Amazon.co.uk: Dabhoiwala, Faramerz: 9780241955963: Books
					

Buy The Origins of Sex: A History of the First Sexual Revolution by Dabhoiwala, Faramerz (ISBN: 9780241955963) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.



					www.amazon.co.uk
				




‘For most of western history, all sex outside marriage was illegal, with the church and state punishing any dissent.’

How difficult it is to even imagine this. Imagine the goal being marriage and how it would alter everyone’s daily goals and drives.


----------



## EyelessMC (Oct 14, 2021)

CheetoDust said:


> ‘For most of western history, all sex outside marriage was illegal, with the church and state punishing any dissent.’


The level of historical revisionism in this statement alone is so mind-bending I can't imagine anyone other than a space alien believing this.


CheetoDust said:


> How difficult it is to even imagine this. Imagine the goal being marriage and how it would alter everyone’s daily goals and drives.


Children born in wedlock? People disregarding coom in favor of personal principals, the measure by which we can test if another is capable of lifelong loyalty and trust? MADNESS!


----------



## Lemmingwise (Oct 14, 2021)

It is with great sadness that Judith Reisman, who's books I receievd after emailing with her, who has possibly done more to expose Kinsey's lies and obfuscations than anyone else... has passed away recently.


----------



## EyelessMC (Oct 14, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> It is with great sadness that Judith Reisman, who's books I receievd after emailing with her, who has possibly done more to expose Kinsey's lies and obfuscations.... has passed away recently.


No way! She was certainly of an age, but still that's sad to hear. She was even willing to share her books with us like that, too.
Godspeed, Reisman. You lived a full life despite your grief and accomplished a great deal, more than most.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Oct 14, 2021)

KifflomKween said:


> Oppress people too much and you get the opposite extreme.


And then the opposite extreme leads to traditionalism?

Hey @Syaoran Li, is that the cause of the "pendulum effect" America is stuck in?


----------



## Ser Prize (Oct 14, 2021)

EyelessMC said:


> Unlike the Frankfurt School, the Rockefellers weren't exactly imported from another country as I recall.


They were. The Rockefellers were a specific family that spread across the various nations of their days establishing (((banking networks))).

They also may have had a hand in sabotauging the titantic so their opponents to establishing the federal reserve would die


----------



## SSj_Ness (Oct 14, 2021)

KifflomKween said:


> Traditionalism is what bred these people and ideologies. Oppress people too much and you get the opposite extreme.


Yes, it's oppressive to not support degenerate behavior. Clearly normal people are at fault for degenerates becoming more degenerate.


----------



## Homer J. Fong (Oct 15, 2021)

Kinsey in a nutshell.


----------



## Terrorist (Oct 15, 2021)

TL;DR It all comes back to fucking kids


----------



## Nickolas Gurr (Oct 28, 2021)

Terrorist said:


> TL;DR It all comes back to fucking kids


The entire scientific disciplines of psychology and sexology are just about making up excuses to fuck children. No other used for them.


----------



## Bonesjones (Oct 28, 2021)

Nickolas Gurr said:


> The entire scientific disciplines of psychology and sexology are just about making up excuses to fuck children. No other used for them.


I mean there's plenty of use for psychology but it's all been weaponized against the public. There's a reason we found out about MK Ultra after the fact. Even Facebook has been caught doing algorithm manipulation in psychological experiments. It's all glowniggers up and down.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 7, 2022)

Just now came across this video of judith reisman, which is related to the kinsey we talked about earlier.


----------



## EyelessMC (Jun 10, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> Just now came across this video of judith reisman, which is related to the kinsey we talked about earlier.


Archive:





Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## BBJ_4_Ever (Jun 12, 2022)

I didn't see this posted anywhere else. It's a sad and maddening read.


			https://www.parentsrightsined.org/uploads/1/1/8/8/118879585/ture_stories_the_casualties_of_kinsey.pdf


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 13, 2022)

BBJ_4_Ever said:


> I didn't see this posted anywhere else. It's a sad and maddening read.
> 
> 
> https://www.parentsrightsined.org/uploads/1/1/8/8/118879585/ture_stories_the_casualties_of_kinsey.pdf


Well that was a chilling read.

The first story in particular corresponds with other people's stories, including the one lady who was on infowars about 7 years ago, but this may have been someone who read this, so it's hard to use for verification.

In any case here is a local archive, as links can get broken over the years.


----------



## Wormy (Jun 13, 2022)

Knew about him long ago. Mental Health studies professor didn't mince words about what a degenerate the guy was and how questionable his notions were.


----------

