FEBRUARY 5, 1999
Dirty money turns out dirty scienceBy Eunice Van Winkle Ray
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Law cases can turn almost entirely on an understanding of the underlying technical or scientific subject matter. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (Science magazine, April 24, 1998)
Paraphrasing the honorable Justice Breyer, if science can "almost entirely" shape law and public policy then laws based on fraudulent "science" wreak havoc with societal welfare by subverting law and justice - bad data produce bad law. On point, Science recently noted that George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association was "booted" by the AMA brass for his "blatant attempt to influence events in Washington." How so? By publishing a partisan "scientific" study entitled; "Would You Say You 'Had Sex' If ... ?" AMA Executive Vice President Dr. E. Ratcliffe Anderson fired his editor for undermining JAMA's "integrity," involving JAMA in a political debate "that has nothing to do with science or medicine ... in a blatant attempt to influence events in Washington."
Lundberg had popped Reinisch's oral sex "data" out from under the table and onto the head of the JAMA queue for the Jan. 20 issue. Knowing mainstream media regularly cited JAMA for its weekly health reports, like World Controller, Mustapha Mond in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," Lundberg could use Kinsey Institute "science" to "turn" congressional "understanding" of oral sex into a modern form of oral communication. For, based on Reinisch's "study," Clinton might be unzipped but truthful.
According to press reports, Lundberg's lawyer "hinted that litigation might be in the works," while Reinisch as the Kinsey Institute sex guru, gasped, "shocked" at charges that her 1991 "study" was a partisan effort to "turn" congressional understanding. Perish the thought! Instead, the way Reinisch looked at it, firing Lundberg was an AMA conspiracy to violate the "academic freedom" of serious scientists like herself. Yes indeedy.
As the AMA offered no opinion regarding the quality of Reinisch's 1991
Kinsey Institute technical or scientific "study," her alleged data could support Clinton's claim that he never had sex with his young intern. For, of 599 allegedly largely "moderate" or "conservative" college students, Reinisch claims 59% said "no" when asked, "Would you say you 'had sex' with someone if the most intimate behavior you engaged in" was oral-genital
contact. Then, there is a September ABC News poll which found 81% of their sample said "sexual relations" included oral sex. The two survey discrepancies have been put down to differences in the samples or to the ABC poll reflecting post-scandal public savvy. But, to believe the Kinsey Institute might produce clean data one needs to believe both Reinisch and the Kinsey Institute.
Reinisch carefully conceals, however, the Kinsey Institute's underlying business interests in creating phony sex science. Reinisch knows the Kinsey Institute was built by a collection of sexual psychopaths, meticulously detailed in Dr. Judith Reisman's latest book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, (1998) and confirmed by the recent British Yorkshire documentary, "Kinsey's Paedophiles." In fact, Playboy helped fund the Kinsey Institute,
pioneering pornography as a sexual health tonic. No surprise that Reinisch cites Playboy's "convenience sample of college students" in JAMA as confirming her study.
William Jefferson Clinton rates a "10" for support of both sexology and the sex industry, with his own sex habits friendly to Washington's sex industry lobbyists. On the empirical and statistical evidence, legal and illegal pornography has flourished under Clinton. The National Obscenity Law Center reports that the Clinton administration rejected referrals for obscenity violations by other investigative agencies at the rate of 68% in 1993, 95% in 1994, 100% in 1995 and 70% in 1996, launching six pathetic obscenity prosecutions in 1997. The sex industry, formal and informal, would logically seek to maintain a president so sympathetic to their business.
Briefly then, let us look at Reinisch's mentor, the alleged family man and pure scientist who built her "Kinsey Institute." Alfred C. Kinsey authored "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" in 1948, and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" in 1953. In 1997 Kinsey was finally outed by insider-biographer James Jones as a closeted and violent sado-masochistic, adulterous, bi-homosexual, pornography producer/addict and a bully. As a national authority who habitually seduced his young, comely male students, the first Kinsey Institute director also solicited and collaborated with a World War II Nazi child molester, just identified as Dr. Fritz von Balluscheck in Yorkshire's "Kinsey's Paedophiles." "Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences" documents Kinsey, a likely pedophile, procuring child molesters to sexually experiment on up to 2,035 screaming, fainting, collapsing, gasping children, as young as two months of age, 24 hours around the clock, to "prove" children's alleged sexual capacity. On the evidence, Reinisch, claiming the privilege of "objective" science, covered-up Kinsey's dishonorably savage sex survey frauds, his sexual psychopathology and his appeal for men to sexually and incestuously victimize children.
The BBC said Kinsey's adult and child sex "data" launched the sexual revolution, forging legal changes in Western sex laws based almost entirely on lawmakers believing the claims made by "sexologists" regarding the underlying scientific subject matter. Kinsey claimed to document the sexual life of average Americans, "I discovered [the facts] about human sexual behaviour" just as Reinisch claimed to report on "how Americans as a population define [sexual] terms." In fact, 50 years later we find Kinsey lied. His male "data," reflecting a roughly 86% aberrant population of
largely sex offenders, elevated "sodomy" from its illegal, debased status to some legality as "oral sex" and "sexual variation." Then, the 1955 American Law Institute Draft Model Penal Code cited the Kinsey Institute phony data to convince legislatures and judges nationwide that oral and anal sodomy were healthy "sexual outlets" on a par with the marital union or the tender embrace of a Romeo and Juliet.
Not to forget June's "academic freedom." As principal investigator for the US Department of Justice funded study, "Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler" (1953-1984) Reisman's peer-approved content analysis found images of the common "missionary position" rare, autoerotic and oral sodomy the chief acts in mainstream heterosexual (and later, homosexual) pornography, with buttocks assuming serious focus in the last decade. The formal (sex education) and informal (pornography) sex industries and their consumers thus see oral sex as bankable sex.
The Kinsey Institute pornography "turn" is seen also in Wardell Pomeroy, Kinsey co-author, who, while publishing classroom child sex education books was seeking funds from commercial pornographers to produce child sex films (child pornography, for research purposes only). Pomeroy (an academic courtroom mercenary for Larry Flynt) pushed "positive incest" both for
Penthouse Forum and for child pornographer Flynt, Clinton's patron saint. News flash: dirty money can turn out dirty science. On the evidence, the Kinsey Institute and its satellite sexology centers have long profit-shared with adult and child pornographers. For, not only did Pomeroy shill for Larry Flynt, former Kinsey Institute director Paul Gebhard shilled for
Penthouse; both men assuring their one handed consumers that the Kinsey Institute proved incest normal and harmless.
And, speaking of embarrassing, since Reinisch criticized the AMA firing based on "academic freedom," (that is, trying to cover up uncomfortable truths) let's end this short article by excerpting a private memo from
Gebhard to Reinisch (his successor) warning her to cover-up Kinsey's phony data:
[Y]our recent letter of December 3 , which I gather was sent to a number of individuals as well as to me, [which] refuted Judith
Reisman's allegations about Kinsey and the Institute ... may embarrass you and the university if it comes to Reisman's attention. Hence I want to warn you and relevant university officials so that some damage control might be devised.
So much for "academic freedom," as Reinisch initiated massive "damage control" to hide Kinsey's fraud and sexology's pornographic "special interests." In sum, by 1948 a group of psychosexually disordered men organized themselves into a sex "profession" at the Kinsey Institute which spawned Kinseyan satellite sexology agencies, profitably producing and using pornography as "sex therapy" for themselves and others. "Damage control" required that Reinisch cover up the fact that pornographers like Larry Flynt were in business with sexologists, sloshing about in the same slime pit. The JAMA article was doubtless planned to aid the president, by all accounts a habitué of pornographic sex. But, dirty money turns out dirty science. If, as Justice Breyer said, "law cases can turn almost entirely on an understanding of the underlying technical or scientific subject matter," that understanding had better not turn on special interests wrapped in the cloak of science.
Eunice Van Winkle Ray is founder of RSVP America.
© 1999 Western Journalism Center
© 1999 Western Journalism Center