Alfred Kinsey, Child Sexuality, and Rabbitism

Posted on December 23, 2015 by Anonymous Conservative

 

 An article on Kinsey here:

Dr. Alfred Kinsey was an American zoologist and later sexologist who founded The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. His research on human sexuality sparked controversy in the ’40s and ’50s…
As the debate over sex education was heating up in Croatia, a country where 86% of the population identifies as Catholic, Mrs. Kristo found herself watching The Kinsey Syndrome and Kinsey’s Pedophiles, documentaries exposing the horrors of Kinsey’s research. These horrors include Kinsey paying pedophiles to rape children and time it with a stopwatch. “As I watched the production, I felt sick and disgusted. I felt awful. I thought: people don’t know what has happened. They need to know!…”
According to Kinsey’s books, his published research, and the statements of his assistants in various interviews, not only was Kinsey’s research flawed, but it was also criminal. Child sexuality research data was collected from the personal logs of several pedophiles – one in particular kept detailed diaries of over 800 sexual encounters with children, and even with babies as young as two months old. Kinsey also collected data and financially compensated fathers who were sexually abusing their own children. He even collaborated with infamous Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who diarized his sexual abuse of hundreds of pre-adolescent girls and boys. At the trial of von Balluseck, the judge criticized Kinsey for not having reported these crimes to police…
As a result of his questionable “research,” Kinsey made unbelievable statistical claims, including the following: 10-36% of men are homosexual; homosexuality, incest, rape, pedophilia, and even bestiality are normal, and 95% of men engage in these behaviors; 40% of married women are having affairs; 25% of married women are having abortions. This abortion statistic is said to have been the catalyst in convincing lawmakers to legalize abortion.
In the film Kinsey’s Pedophiles, Dr. Paul Gebhard, Kinsey co-author, states on camera that the Kinsey team solicited child abusers and obtained child “sexuality” data from pedophiles as well as a pedophile organization. Off camera, as part of the court reporter’s transcription, Paul Gebhard states that this organization was the predecessor to NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association)…
In her book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequence, Dr. Reisman explains how since the ’60s The Kinsey Institute was determined to incorporate Kinsey’s philosophy into sex education material for children. They partnered with Planned Parenthood to achieve this objective. Dr. Reisman exposes how it was Kinsey’s research that claimed that children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth and are unharmed by incest and adult-child sex and often benefit from such activity.

Kids having sex is normal, mating with anything up to and including animals is normal, as is women having affairs behind their husbands’ backs, if you have an r-selected reproductive strategy. So to them, none of this is wrong, nor should you question any research which proves it right. Rabbits never even think about it.
I increasingly find myself wondering if conscious logical thought is something a select few are trained to do when they find themselves confronting a world which they (and their reproductive strategy/psychology) are not designed for.
Libertarians end up very thoughtful because after umpteen times confronting the fact that they can’t just enjoy life and be left alone, they begin to knuckle down and look closely at how they are living, and whether something they are doing is right or wrong. I imagine if every libertarian lived in the wilderness of Alaska, treated those they happened across politely right up until they had to kill them, and then they continued on, making their way as they prepared for the winter, few libertarians would think critically about life. They’d go day by day, each emotion perfectly guiding them to optimal behavior, be it surviving and enjoying calm moments, or occasionally burying the bodies of those whose unctuousness brought it upon themselves. They would die without ever understanding liberalism, conservatism, or questioning what is right or wrong. They would just know how to live.
Conservatives, confronted with rabbit insanity everywhere they look in a degraded society, end up having to sit down and say, what the hell is wrong with all this? But did they worry about it in highly K-ified times, or did they just ignore it, and enjoy working as part of a cohesive group to make cool stuff, ejecting non-conformists and degenerates, winning battles, and enjoying time with family on the weekends?
Today, rabbits might not be thinking, because in these times of r, rabbitism works. I’m guessing that with a few hundred million, and tons of porn stars, Charlie Sheen isn’t exactly a modern day Socrates. I imagine when the apocalypse hits, and running from the harshness only means you’ll die tired, we can expect rabbits to begin to be more thoughtful, and hopefully realize that rabbitism is the epitome of evil.
Either that, or they will all get killed. Either way will work for me at this point.
Apocalypse cometh™

"The benefits of foreign labor are a lie" - Vox Day

The benefits of foreign labor are a lie 

Vox Day @ Vox Popoli

In Cuckservative, John Red Eagle and I conclusively demonstrated, using official government statistics, that immigrant labor is a net negative to Americans and American workers. Others who are looking into the subject are reliably finding that the importation of foreign labor is harmful:

Last year, thousands of American companies won permission to bring a total of more than 150,000 people into the country as legal guest workers for unskilled jobs, under a federal program that grants them temporary work permits known as H-2 visas. Officially, the guest workers were invited here to fill positions no Americans want: The program is not supposed to deprive any American of a job, and before a company wins approval for a single H-2 visa, it must attest that it has already made every effort to hire domestically. Many companies abide by the law and make good-faith efforts to employ Americans.

Yet a BuzzFeed News investigation, based on Labor Department records, court filings, more than 100 interviews, inspector general reports, and analyses of state and federal data, has found that many businesses go to extraordinary lengths to skirt the law, deliberately denying jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead....

At the same time, companies across the country in a variety of industries have made it all but impossible for U.S. workers to learn about job openings that they are supposed to be given first crack at. When workers do find out, they are discouraged from applying. And if, against all odds, Americans actually get hired, they often are treated worse and paid less than foreign workers doing the same job, in order to drive the Americans to quit.

What’s more, companies often do this with the complicity of government officials, records show. State and federal authorities have allowed companies to violate the spirit — and often the letter — of the law with bogus recruitment efforts that are clearly designed to keep Americans off the payroll. And when regulators are alerted to potential problems, the response is often ineffectual.

I know it's painful for the devotees of free trade, who love nothing better than to compare 21st century analyses to 18th century dogma, to admit, but the increasingly undeniable empirical reality is that free trade, and the free movement of labor, are about as Marxist, globalist, socially destructive, and economically harmful as Communism.

I've read every single defense of free trade that I can find. None of them, not a single one of them, holds up. And as for those who babble childishly about a protectionist government picking winners, as if that suffices to make a rational case, what on Earth do they think is happening in the USA and in the EU now?

All that free trade accomplishes is that it allows governments to pick winners from around the world rather than from inside their own borders. And the winners are those who are willing to pay the most for the privilege, which is why the dominant figures in the U.S. media are a) an Australian and b) a Lebanese based in Mexico.

Update 1 - dc. sunsets comments on the original post:

 I used to be a free trader. I now see that virtually any "good" will be inverted if not embedded in a larger cohesive social milieu.

Shared identity (culture, heritage, etc.) is a powerful system of disciplining naked self-interest. Cultural Marxism's and Blank Slate's first effect is to destroy shared identity, freeing people to undertake individually profitable actions that utterly destroy the commons on which their lives depend.

Multi-culturalism and totalitarian anti-racism/anti-sexism produce, in fact, a monstrous Tragedy of the Commons, where a common culture, common heritage, even common belief systems and common values are the essential connective tissue of a peaceful and prosperous society.

 Maybe it makes me an aspie, but the inescapable conclusion from this logic train is that what "we" need more than anything is separatism.

My family and I will thrive best if we live our lives embedded in a homogeneous society, one where we share the same core values. Given the axioms of HBD, this means we would best live in a society of straight, culturally conservative (at least nominally Christian) people primarily of Northern European descent, and where all others would be encouraged to Go. Somewhere. Else. Such a cohesive community would embed powerful checks and balances on members' individual actions, most of them subtle and private rather than public and legalistic. Borders would be semi-permeable to goods, virtually impermeable to people.

As Hans Hermann Hoppe has noted, Job #1 would be ejecting anyone who tried to infect the Body Politic with the poisons with which it is saturated today.

 @17 Leo, sadly I'm compelled to see that while permeability to people is THE most disastrous of free trade, there must certainly be instances where The Commons of a cohesive society is threatened by certain goods as well.

My lingering libertarian quickly asks, "Who is to decide what is socially good and what is not?" but when caught in the vise between "Authority Decides" and "Naked Self-Interest Rules," I'm now forced to side with Authority.

Until humans self-segregate and geographically separate into relatively homogeneous societies there will be too little social cohesion to subtly apply moral opprobrium in enough quantity to offset naked self-interest. A relatively free society cannot emerge from or even survive amidst heterogeneity, this should now be blatantly obvious.

Until then, the path ahead that does not lead into the Valley of Lord of the Flies must pass through a totalitarian autocracy. Since we're already living in a totalitarian democratic despotism, it's possible an autocracy will actually be an improvement for most of us.

"Cuckservative" - Review by Keoni Galt / Hawaiian Libertarian

Playing the Red Card to Trump the Cucks 

by Keoni Galt 

"And what of the original Americans, the natives who lived on this continent before the first Europeans arrived? What did this melting mean for them? Unfortunately, that is something that the native-born, culturally American, European-descended population is in the process of finding out as it declines in the face of ever-growing numbers of immigrants from vastly different cultures possessing rival traditions, ideologies, and agendas of their own."

There are generally two kinds of cultural change agents that work to progress society towards the utopian dystopian ideals of our Brave New World Order. The first type are those who self-identify as the liberal, progressive leftist, who openly and proudly promotes the overthrow of classic American cultural heritage aka the so-called hegemony of white-Christian-patriarchal-privilege. As detestable as they are, at least they are somewhat honest when they state their goals and objectives in attempting to change the face of the nation.

The other kind of change agent is far more insidious and has caused far more damage to the fabric of Western Civilization, and they have done so while supposedly bearing the standard of opposition against the liberal-progressive leftists. These are they who claim to be a part of the opposition of the progressive leftists and cultural marxists working to overthrow traditional American society, but their actions do not match up with their words. They are the controlled opposition that have co-opted the original conservative movement.

They have previously been called many different names, from RINOs to NeoCons, yet none of these terms have ever really had much of an effect on those who bore the mantle of "conservative" in bad faith. But the latest term they have been branded with, Cuckservative, has been the most effective rhetorical weapon to date ever devised to strike them with. In the past year, the meme wars on teh Interewebz based on the newly coined term has hit them right between the eyes.

Who are the cuckservatives? Ye shall know them by their shrieks when they are confronted with teh tweets.

Seizing upon the opportunity of the proliferation of such a popular and effective meme, John Red Eagle and Vox Day, two Indians (feathers, not dots) have just released a new book, Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

As stated in my review of Vox's previous release, SJWs Always Lie: 

"I bought this book because I wanted to indulge in schadenfraude! I wanted to help the Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil punch back twice as hard at the snivelling hordes of brainwashed lickspittles and useful idiots that march under the banner of the SJW. No War but Culture War! This book is a badly needed, long overdue counterattack against the long march. For that, I consider it money and time well spent."  

For much the same reasoning, I bought Cuckservative on it's official release date this past Monday from Amazon, and finished reading it by Wednesday. I enjoyed it and I did learn a few things that I never knew before, such as the origins of the term "melting pot." But more importantly, our Injun authors give us a historical perspective on nations, cultures and heritage, and the effects mass immigration had on them in many different times and places in world history.  From antiquity to the present day, they make a strong case that mass immigration should be defined as nothing less than an act of war and conquest.

Of particular interest, was their identification of the source of American culture and heritage that is severely endangered from the continued influx of foreigners unsuited and non-amenable to America's nation-founding ideals:

As much as it has changed over the years, American culture still has very specific historical roots in English culture and history. Observe that we say "English," not British, as the latter is more of a multicultural political construct from an amalgamation of four nations than a true national culture of its own. "American" is arguably well on its way to becoming something more akin to "British" rather than "English." Those who value American culture, and who would prefer to avoid seeing that come to pass, would do well to develop an understanding of how America's ancestral English culture came to be.

While going through a brief rundown of the history of English culture, our Redskin co-authors identify two primary characteristics of this "English" culture that served as the foundation for American culture: self-reliant independence of the citizenry and the limitation of the powers of a society's rulers.

As they point out, these cultural values are primarily upheld through cultural transmission of a largely heterogeneous populace from one generation to the next, and that subsequent hordes of migrants with different values and beliefs will inevitably change them.

There was no magic dirt. There was no shining city on a hill. All that was required for irrevocable change was the arrival of sufficient numbers of people with a separate culture of their own who were both willing and able to hold onto it in the face of native opposition.

I came away with one very important idea from this work: the litmus test for determining who is and who is not a cuckservative. While they offer a twenty-two point bullet list as a field guide for identifying a cuckservative in chapter 4, all one need do is to simply look at any so-called "right" wing politician or pundit and review their statements on the issue of mass migration (both legal and illegal; documented and undocumented) from the third world to the Anglo-sphere: the US, UK, Europe, Canada and Australia.

Then compare and contrast with their stance on Israel's strict, race-based immigration policy (for which I support Israel's right to do so, 100%!) and that is all the info you need to identify a cuckservative.

The Cuckservative are the ones promoting the myths of the melting pot and magic dirt to support the continued migrations of non-white, non-Christians into all of these formerly white Christian majority countries. The reasons usually given by such cuckservatives is based mostly upon the appeal that conservatives must avoid being labelled racist by the left.

In addition to a stated fear of being labelled as racist, many cuckservatives who attribute the need for supporting mass migrations, base it on an argument of falsified doctrine of Christian charity, particularly the parable of the Good Samaritan. John and Vox use both statistics, logic and scriptural citations to totally destroy churchian-styled arguments based on the twisting of scripture.

While the book is filled with facts, statistics, charts and other evidence to make their case against "conservatives", their strongest rhetoric (at least for me personally, as I can certainly relate) comes from playing the red card:

Import people, and you import their culture. Import them on a small scale, as with the Normans, and they may assimilate, but in doing so, they will still influence yours. Import them on a larger scale, and they'll keep their own culture, which will conflict with yours. Import them on a large enough scale, as with the Saxons, and your culture will be the one assimilated. And if that happens, you find yourselves at the mercy of whatever the newcomers decide to do with you.

Trust us. We know. Both of our Native American cultures have been all but eliminated. Our tribes were forcibly expelled from their lands and forced onto reservation, where they still live today. Neither of us knows more than a few words of the languages our forefathers used to speak before the arrival of Spanish and English immigrants.

The Magic Dirt won't save you.

I've got my own brown card to play, and I'll throw it in with John Red Eagle's and Vox Day's red cards into the middle of the table. As the descendent of a marginalized, occupied, dispossessed and miscegenated-unto-near-extinction indigenous native people, I too echo the warning to those who still value the founding American ideals of self reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror, and their desired objectives would be far worse for us all, than the life we managed to make under the regime of the American pale face and it's original foundation of self-reliance and limited Government.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I understand their overriding goal is to bring all of the world's populations down to a lowest common denominator of miscegenated homogeneity with no discernible cultural heritage or identity that may one day serve as a rallying point to resist their emerging tyranny of global governance.

I see the new breed of conqueror and I believe it is the defining fight of our lives to resist their agenda of mass enfeeblement, arrested development and over-reliance and dependence on a centralized, global and tyrannical regime to govern every aspect of our micro-managed lives. Make no mistake about it, this is ultimately the end goal of those that the cuckservatives are working for. To get their Brave New World Order, America as it was originally founded must first be destroyed, and the cucking of conservatism is one of the primary means for THEY to accomplish it.

As John and Vox put it:

The uncomfortable truth is that cuckservatism not only betrays America's posterity, it also betrays the intent of the other clauses of the Preamble to the Constitution, including, "to form a more perfect Union","establish Justice","insure domestic Tranquility","provide for the common defence", and "promote the General Welfare", five things that adding 60 million immigrants in 50 years have manifestly not done.

One could make a very strong argument that thanks to their cuckservative ideology, America's self-styled conservatives have literally betrayed the entire purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America, and in doing so, they have put the very survival of the nation at risk.

Yes indeed, these two Native American Injuns have in fact done exactly that in writing Cuckservative - How "Conservatives" Betrayed America. 

Best heed their warning, pale face.

by Keoni Galt

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism

Had to post this classic from Steve Sailer:

Sailer's Law of Female Journalism

A cover story on Slate.com today (#4):

Hair Raising:
Can a shocking YouTube video of a girl getting her curls brushed change attitudes about black hair?
By Teresa Wiltz

This is another example of Sailer's Law of Female Journalism: The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.

Technically, it might seem highly possible that somebody named "Teresa Wiltz" has naturally straight hair and is just writing out of a disinterested interest in the topic. But, decades of reading female journalism at its most passionate suggested to me that Ms. Wiltz's own looks would turn out to highly germane.