Certain people might consider applying some journalistic or scientific objectivity to the question of where in Africa the condom use relentlessly promoted by Western NGOs and compliant governments has ever arrested, never mind reversed, the rate of HIV infection. There is nowhere.
However, such a reversal is under way in Uganda, where the government's message is the same as the Catholic Church's: "Change Your Behaviour". Huge numbers of condoms have been distributed in Botswana, and the result has been for President Festus Mogae to declare, "Abstain or die". Who, exactly, is incapable of fidelity within a monogomous marriage and abstinence outside such a marriage? Women? Black people? Poor people? Developing-world people? Or just poor black women in the developing world?
And after those questions, certain people might examine the very high reliability of Natural Family Planning, as admitted even by the World Health Organisation (hardly a Vatican puppet, to say the very least). Who is incapable of the requisite discipline? See above? Or is it just that all women must poison themselves in order to be available constantly for the sexual gratification of men, much as people in emerging holiday resorts must carry condoms in order to be so available to Western sex tourists and, in point of fact, their diseases?
Why is it only ever the people who hardly consume anything who are told that there are too many of them, be they the people of the developing world abroad, or the working classes and the altogether excluded at home? And what are the implications of believing that the unborn child is both a part of a woman's body (of her very reproductive system, in fact), and at the same time insentient? They seem terrifying even here, never mind where female genital mutilation is endemic.
If anyone really wants to expose scientific fraud on an enormous and world-changing scale, then you should write something about Alfred C Kinsey. Sexual psychopaths, among whom Kinsey was pre-eminent, avowedly set up the sexology industry in order to supplant the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic. They fabricated research, and relied heavily on current and former prostitutes, and on convicts.
Thence the oft-quoted figure of ten per cent as the number of men who have had a homosexual experience, usually exaggerated further into the notion that one tenth of the population is homosexual. On the same figures, one man in twelve has committed bestiality. Is one twelfth of the population zoosexual, or zoophile, or whatever the word is? And even if they are, then so what?
Kinsey held that children in the earliest stages of infancy could experience orgasm. How, exactly, was such "research" conducted? He taught child sexual abuse techniques to the Gestapo. He filmed himself raping his wife and the wives of his staff. He circumcised himself without anaesthesia, and hung himself by the testicles from a pole. He was a devotee of the Satanist Aleister Crowley, acting out Crowley's teaching that pederasty was a laudable form of human sacrifice. Kinsey and his followers were largely funded by the pornography racket and other organised vice.
In the early 1970s, the extensive network of pederasts' bars and nightclubs in the cities of coastal America produced the homosexualist political movement, known as "gay" and later as "lesbian", which has set itself up as the only acceptable expression of homosexual identity. That was several years after, for example, this country's decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private; but one would never guess this, to listen to the homosexualists.
Kinsey and his followers had created an intellectual climate conducive to the likes of those who frequented The Stonewall Inn and who founded the North American Man/Boy Lovers' Association (NAMBLA). Just as the entirety of sexology goes back to Kinsey, so the entirety of homosexualism goes back to the buggery of boys as young as eight, if not younger.
Thus, here in Britain, homosexualism has organised around demands for apparently endless reductions in the age of consent, as well as around equally Kinseyian calls for the legal, social and cultural legitimisation of sadomasochism, "transgender" activities, substance abuse, every degree of promiscuity consistent with physical possibility, hardcore pornography, and sex in public places.
Particularly in North America, but therefore with considerable consequences elsewhere, the Catholic Church of the late 1960s and early 1970s lost confidence. This resulted from the misappropriation of Vatican II's name by pre-existing secularising tendencies in the Western world, rather than from anything in the Conciliar documents themselves, the definitive interpreters and implementers of which are in fact the late and current Popes.
This loss of confidence made the American Catholic Church, which might have held the line against Kinsey and then against Stonewall and NAMBLA, susceptible to those twin forces of evil. So the views and methods of Kinsey and his disciples were incorporated into the training of priests and into the selection of candidates. At the time, the advocates of sex between adult men and adolescent boys were the most vocal of the lobbies looking to Kinsey, and so they had the most influence over that training and selection.
We all now what happened next, although it is worth pointing out that the acts which have brought such shame on the Church have hardly ever involved pre-pubescent children, or indeed girls of any age. Rather, they are acts between men and teenage boys, which anti-Catholic media, academic and political types have been seeking for decades to make legally, socially and culturally acceptable, applying no social disapproval to those (such as Jonthan King) who engage in them, any more than, for example, to those who use cocaine. Such types' hypocrisy over the scandals in the Catholic Church has been, and remains, sickening.
Nor may one overlook the fact that these scandals have been presented in a manner agreeable to calls for the large-scale ordination of married men, for the "ordination" of women, and for the purported incorporation of homosexual genital activity into sacramental marriage.
But married men sometimes abuse children. So do women, probably in vast numbers given their far easier access to children even in the nude; like, for example, domestic violence against men, those who control this field ideologically refuse to conduct the necessary research, because it does not fit their presupposed agenda of excluding (heterosexual) men from the socialisation of children. And the priests who had sex with teenage boys were not "repressed", but the very reverse.
Especially in America, the Priesthood has been packed with such unrepressed, so that their inevitable exposure could be used, in due season, to demand "reforms" which would not improve the situation at all. And such has now come to pass. It is inconceivable that the priestesses lobby, in particular, was not fully complicit in this, since for decades it has effectively controlled access to ordination in many American dioceses, while its influence is also still growing in Britain and elsewhere.
So there you are. Practically the only views any longer permitted to be expressed about sex are based on fraudulent research and extreme criminality carried out by a clique of sexual psychopaths. Unsurprisingly, adherence to a model designed by and for sexual psychopaths has resulted in a massive increase in sexual psychopathology. Yet that is the only model for the training of anyone who needs a certain number of credits in "sex education" in order to qualify as anything.
Given this enormous amount of medical malpractice, consumer fraud and other offences, class actions need to be filed against the Keepers of the Kinsey Flame: Johns Hopkins University, the Kinsey Institute at the University of Indiana, the San Francisco-based Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, AASECT (American Association of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists), SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) the SSS (Society for the Scientific Study of Sex), Planned Parenthood, the ever-generous Rockefeller Foundation, and numerous subordinates around the world. Just for starters. Those interested should contact Dr Judith Reisman (who describes her own perspective as "non-religious"): firstname.lastname@example.org
And please can we do something about the idea of women "controlling their fertility"? Neither women nor men are fertile without each other; so neither, in themselves, has any fertility to control: fertility is a joint enterprise, and its fruits are a joint responsibility, as both men and women need to re-learn.
Saturday, 8 April 2006
John Paul the Great v Alfred C Kinsey
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment