Dancing With The Devil: How Sigmund Freud Paved the Way for a Century of Ritual Abuse (Part II)
What began as theory has become policy...
“…the marriage situation as I have it in The Sexual Revolution is accepted today. But at that time it was unheard of. Freud rejected it completely. He was very angry. And, here, was his disappointment. Instead of developing into one of his best supporters, one of his best students, one who would carry his theory forward, here I was, going ‘off the beam.’ Right?
But I didn’t. I didn’t ‘go off the beam.”
— Wilhelm Reich, Reich Speaks of Freud (1954, Pg. 53)
Get Scipio’s latest book, The Empire of Lies: the American Empire unmasked.
Hit the Tip Jar and help spread the message!
This post contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission or affiliate fee for purchases made through these links.
Unlock the mysteries of Biblical cosmology and enrich your faith with some of the top rated Christian reads at BooksOnline.club.
Click the image below and be sure to use promo code SCIPIO for 10% off your order at HeavensHarvest.com: your one stop shop for emergency food, heirloom seeds and survival supplies.
Related Entries
The world we now inhabit in the West — fractured families, commodified sex, epidemic levels of abuse, anxiety, & loneliness — is the intended consequence of a project that began over a century ago.
In Part I of this series, we traced the dark lineage of modern psychology to its founding father, Sigmund Freud. If our first entry exposed the theological core of psychoanalysis — Freud’s inheritance and affection for Kabbalistic mysticism, his recasting of sexual trauma as fantasy — then Part II must answer the next question:
What happened when those same ideas were unleashed upon society?
Freud positioned sexuality as the central focus of humanity, uprooting millennia of religious and cultural restraint in the process. His retreat from the logical implications of his philosophy, however, could not stop the juggernaut he set in motion: where Freud hesitated, others gladly rushed forward into that abyss. If sexual repression was the source of so many dysfunctions, as Freud posited, then surely sexual liberation — total & unqualified — must be the cure. This perverse logic would find its first great apostle in Wilhelm Reich, a student and colleague of Freud who is better known for his bizarre theories around sexual energy.
To repress adolescent sexuality, in Reich’s view, was to manufacture the obedient citizen, the pliant worker, the hollow man (emphasis mine):
As we have seen, authoritarian society has the greatest interest in the suppression of adolescent sexuality. The perpetuation of authoritarian marriage and family and the production of the vassal structure require this suppression. …
One also might consider the interest of youth in the first place and ask what are thee relative advantages and disadvantages to them of abstinence, masturbation and sexual intercourse, respectively.
— Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (Pg. 102-103)
In dismantling this so-called repression, Reich believed he could create a new humanity: he wasn’t entirely wrong.
Not an entirely new form, mind you, but rather, a disfigured one.
— Wilhelm Reich.
In his seminal work on the subject, The Sexual Revolution, Reich essentially accused Freud of treason (emphasis mine):
To the extent to which psychoanalysis maintains its affirmation of patriarchal culture, it does so at the expense of the very results of its own work. The conflict between the patriarchal cultural concepts of the analytic investigators on the one hand and the scientific results which militate against this culture on the other hand is solved by them in favor of the patriarchal [worldview]. When psychoanalysis does not dare to accept the consequences of its findings, it points to the allegedly nonpolitical (unpragmatic) character of science, while, in fact, every step of psychoanalytic theory and practice deals with political (pragmatic) issues.
— Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (Pg. 20)
In Reich’s estimation, his mentor, once faced with the apparent anti-family implications of his discoveries, hid behind the “nonpolitical” nature of science. Indeed, a tool, in this case the scientific method, is not political in and of itself. But as Reich correctly draws outs, a tool can be used for political ends: to make claims about the most intimate aspects of human relations is inherently political.
The object of this rebellion was the family unit itself, most particularly fathers. The basic unit of civilization becomes, in Reich’s schema, a tool to perpetuate violence and oppression. As Reich boldly asserts, “[the] patriarchal family also perpetuates sexual repression with all its results: sexual disturbances, neuroses, psychoses, perversions and sex crimes” (Reich, Pg. 79). A stunning claim, then and now, and one which Reich does little to substantiate. Notice too Reich’s sleight of hand: he simply asserts that once science uncovers harm (as he sees it), those structures must be dismantled. The psychoanalyst who continues to uphold the legitimacy of the family, of tradition, of sexual restraint — even cautiously — is therefore suspect.
On the other hand, Reich does not advocate for sudden change, but a more gradual process. As I have discussed throughout my Mystery Bablyon series, so often has the Mystery religion, and Masonic revolts in particular, sought to undermine the family. Reich notes with admiration the “progress” which the Bolshevik Revolution made on this front, although not without its errors (emphasis mine):
The sexual revolution in the [Soviet Union] started with the dissolution of the family. The family disintegrated radically, in all strata of the population; sooner here, later there. This process was painful and chaotic; it caused terror and confusion.
— Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (Pg. 157)
The problem, as Reich sees it, was not the abolition of the family de jure — it was the persistence of its memory (emphasis mine):
If, now, society does not succeed, simultaneously with the abolition of authoritarian social principles, in dissolving also its anchoring in the psychic structure of the family individual; if thus the family emotions continue to exist, an ever increasing contradiction will develop between the economic and the cultural development of a work-democratic society.
— Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (Pg. 158)
The emotional ties that bind child to parent, man to wife — this, too, must be erased if the revolution is to succeed. The revolution must extend inward, into the very subconscious, until the last remnants of bourgeoise morality have been scrubbed from the psyche. No longer is the child to be shaped by his parents— he is to be liberated, freed from the “guilt” and “fear” that once constrained his natural instincts.
It is difficult to overstate how disastrously inverted these assertions would prove to be. In the decades since Reich’s dreams became our nightmare, a vast body of empirical research and scientific literature has demonstrated the exact opposite: it is precisely the breakdown of the traditional family that unleashes these social and psychological maladies.
Let us begin with the most serious charge: sexual abuse. Studies show again and again that the safest environment for a child is the home of their married, biological parents. According to the Federal government's own studies, the risk of child sexual abuse is nearly twenty times higher in homes where a single mother lives with an unrelated male partner than in an intact, married family (NIS-4). Step-parents, cohabiting couples, single-mother households — all carry elevated risk of abuse and psychological instability. The presence of the biological father, far from constituting a pernicious threat, emerges as the single greatest protective factor against the victimization of children.
And what of neurosis, psychosis, and perversions? Once again, the data stands in complete contradiction to Reich’s claim. Children raised in two-parent homes — particularly married households with their biological parents — demonstrate the lowest levels of substance abuse, self-harm, and psychiatric disorders. Conversely, children in fatherless or single-mother homes are exponentially more likely to suffer from behavioral disorders, addiction, criminality, and mental illness (American Academy of Pediatricians).
That is to say nothing of course of the Christian or theological arguments for marriage or chastity, as one need not be religious in the slightest to perceive the great damage that Freud’s intellectual progeny has done to the West. One realizes too that we do not live in ideal circumstances — particularly after a century of imbibing such poisonous doctrines — and while no aspersions are being cast upon those who do find themselves in the aforementioned situations, the data is clear that the “nuclear family” is the ideal which our civilization should strive for.
“It is time to identify what effect Alfred Kinsey, the father of the sexual revolution and sex education has had on the lives of so many. Since 1948, public health report data confirm the social costs and consequences of this “sea change” in the way America and the rest of the Western world view human sexuality. As America’s founding moral order has been jettisoned and the shift in the standard of judgment has occurred over the last 50 years, it is certain, based on the statistical evidence, that our present direction deserves review. It is much worse…”
― Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. xxiv)
Most Americans have never heard the name Alfred Kinsey. He is remembered, if at all, as the father of sexology, a pioneer who bravely dispelled Victorian myths and brought sexual knowledge out into the open: that image is the result of a meticulous propaganda campaign.
Kinsey’s public persona was carefully manufactured before his research ever began. He posed as a loving family man — but that image, as even sympathetic biographers like James H. Jones acknowledges, was a calculated deception:
There is no way that the American public in the 1940s and the 1950s would have sanctioned any form of behavior that violated middle class morality on the part of the scientist who was telling the public that he was disinterested and giving them the simple truth…. Any disclosure of any feature of this private life that violated middle class morality would have been catastrophic for his career…. For Kinsey, life in the closet came complete with a wife, children, a public image… that again he preserved at all costs. Kinsey’s reputation still in large measure rests upon an image of him that he cultivated during his lifetime… the official mystique.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 4)
Kinsey, despite the image of the respectable family man presented to the American public, was a man of profound dysfunction (to put it mildly.) Upon even a cursory examination, the legacy of Kinsey is nothing short of monstrous: a man who knowingly cooperated with child molesters and used their crimes as scientific “data” to reshape American society. The crimes he recorded would become the foundation for modern sex education and the liberalization of America’s sexual laws.
The late researcher and professor Judith Reisman spent decades investigating Kinsey’s published works, his private papers, and the secretive archives of the Kinsey Institute. What she discovered was nothing short of horrific (emphasis mine):
The commercial sex industry now joined forces with the Kinsey Institute and academic sexology to prevent any light from being shed on their world. In time I would obtain copies of secret letters and packages, sent clandestinely worldwide by the Kinsey Institute, as well as articles published by pornographers, to discredit both my study of Kinsey and that of children appearing in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. The Kinsey Institute had secretly threatened American University with a lawsuit if I was allowed to carry out my study. Therefore, concealing why they were being such obstructionists, American University administrators demanded that I halt any investigation of Kinsey. Of course, this was a complete violation of academic freedom as well as the public’s right to know, indeed what the taxpayer was paying to know. Since then, the Kinsey Institute has maintained a constant stealth effort, lobbying those in Congress while largely censoring me and my findings from print and broadcast media, all relevant professional conferences and journals, book publishers and such.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. xxii)
What was so dangerous about Reisman’s findings that lawsuits were deployed to silence her?
It begins with Kinsey himself — and what he concealed.
— Alfred Kinsey on the cover of Time magazine, 1953.
From adolescence onward, Kinsey exhibited extreme sexual dysfunction. Reisman traces his sexual obsessions back to his teen years and early “research” into sex behavior among his Boy scout troop (Reisman, Pg. 7). In later correspondence, an adult Kinsey would admit that his “work” with these young boys had laid the groundwork for his future studies — a deeply disturbing suggestion, given what follows.
By the 1930’s, while working at Indiana University, Kinsey engaged in sexually exploitative behavior with his students:
[T]wo male students, Brayland and Coons, worked under Kinsey’s supervision in 1934/ 35. There were numerous episodes, nude and whatnot nude. [There is an explicit] photograph of Kinsey in the buff. On that trip [they engaged in] masturbation sessions, group masturbation. Both of the young men were trying to keep Kinsey at arm’s length.
Asked what Brayland’s wife thought about it, Jones recalled: “I can tell you that she didn’t like Alfred Kinsey. [She responded] that they were just kids from Mississippi and that Alfred Kinsey hurt them.” And in his recent biography, Jones notes,
Kinsey bathed with his students… striding about camp naked… [Confided one student] “You’d see him… going to the bathroom, and all that sort of thing… He’d just take a leak right there in front of us…” Professors simply did not engage in that sort of behavior with their graduate students. Yet Kinsey seemed totally oblivious to sexual taboos… as though he was determined to flaunt them… Kinsey had become a sexual rebel… manipulative and aggressive, a man who abused his professional authority and betrayed his trust as a teacher… [O]nly… a compulsive man would have taken such risks.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 10)
Even Kinsey’s admirers could not excuse or explain away his career of patently unethical conduct. None of this impeded his rise, and, given the nature of the Cryptocracy, was almost certainly known by his benefactors.
In 1938, Indiana University made Kinsey’s “sex research” an officially supported enterprise. The following year, the Rockefeller Foundation — long a patron of anti-patriarchal causes — began funding Kinsey’s work through the National Research Council. Their support continued into the early 1950’s until coming under scrutiny by the Reece Commission (a crucial topic I explore elsewhere.) Later, as public funding increasingly became a subject of controversy, the Playboy Foundation would help bankroll Kinsey Institute projects. By all accounts, Hugh Hefner considered himself a devoted acolyte and admirer of Kinsey.
— (Top) Alfred Kinsey and his wife, Clara Bracken McMillen. (Bottom) Kinsey and his research team at Indiana University.
Kinsey’s most infamous material appears in Table 34 of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male — a chart detailing sexual responses in infants and young boys, down to the number of “orgasms” per hour. The salient question arises: how did Kinsey acquire information which is illegal to produce? The “findings” were obtained through direct collaboration with known child molesters:
In the Yorkshire interview, Gebhard confirmed that “certain of our subjects,” who joined Kinsey’s child sexuality research team, were child molesters:
Interviewer: How did Kinsey come in contact with, say, the paedophiles?
Gebhard: That was rather easy. We got them in prisons, a lot of them.... We’d go after them.... Then there was also a paedophile organization in this country... not incarcerated... they cooperated... You had one in Britain... a British paedophile organization.
So, the Kinsey team found pedophile organizations and asked them to help with its child sex experiments. James Jones, in his Yorkshire interview, admitted the pathology of the man he called “Mr. X,” or “Mr. Green” but who was in fact the U.S. federal government land surveyor named Rex King:
Kinsey relied upon [King] for the chapter on childhood sexuality in the male volume... I think that he was in the presence of pathology at large and... Kinsey... elevated to, you know, the realm of scientific information... what should have been dismissed as unreliable, self serving data provided by a predatory pedophile... I don’t have any doubt in my own mind that man wreaked havoc in a lot of lives. Many of his victims were infants and Kinsey in that chapter himself gives pretty graphic descriptions of their response to what he calls sexual stimulation. If you read those words, what he’s talking about is kids who are screaming. Kids who are protesting in every way they can the fact that their bodies or their persons are being violated.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 135)
What Kinsey described as “orgasm” was, in reality, trauma. What he called “response” was, in many cases, terror.
Kinsey’s fascination with sexuality and sadomasochism led him to the writings of Aleister Crowley — the English occultist and pedophile:
In England, writes Pomeroy, Kinsey had hoped to acquire Aleister Crowley’s diaries for the Institute. Crowley, an “occultist” drug addict and sadist also known as “The Beast,” was accomplished in homosexual magic. He conducted ritual Satanic sacrifices of such heartless cruelty that he was driven out of Italy following the revelation of fatal bloody orgies with children and their mothers in his squalid Sicilian “abbey.” He had died in December 1947.
Kinsey was reportedly unsuccessful in obtaining the diaries, after which he made a pilgrimage to Thelema Abbey, the temple where Crowley had ministered. Crowley’s first book, the pornographic White Stains, advocated sexual magic and was much favored by Kinsey. In fact, Kinsey was photographed in Crowley’s “Chamber of Horrors,” while he and Clara appear together in a photo following Kinsey’s return from the Abbey. The latter appears (without identification) in Pomeroy’s biography, and also in Anger (1995), by William Landis, a biography of Crowley disciple Kenneth Anger.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 279)
As Reisman notes, Kinsey’s worldview aligns disturbingly well with Crowley’s own.
Even if one were to set aside Kinsey’s personal perversions, his documented collaboration with Nazis and child abusers, his work collapses on methodological grounds alone. Kinsey claimed to describe the sexual behavior of the average American man and woman. He sold his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) & Female (1953), as objective, data-driven surveys of the general population. In truth, his sample was grotesquely skewed: Kinsey disproportionately selected inmates, sex offenders, and prostitutes. By Kinsey’s own admission, fully 25% of his male sample came from prison populations, including many convicted of violent sex crimes against children. And that is before we even address the very serious likelihood that significant portions of his dataset were fabricated.
By this trick, Kinsey was able to “show” that vast numbers of American men had engaged in homosexual activity, extramarital sex, incest, and even bestiality. Kinsey then claimed, from this polluted sample, that laws criminalizing these behaviors were out of step with reality. But the “reality” he had created was a statistical fiction to justify his conclusions.
It is clear that Kinsey was a man whose personal pathologies drove his research, whose biases clouded the data, and whose work was promoted because of the ideological revolution it enabled.
— The victims of Table 34.
— Kinsey (L) can be seen with Crowley’s acolyte and lover, Kenneth Anger, (R) in the Chamber of Horrors at the Abbey Thelema shortly before the former’s death.
“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”
— Alfred Kinsey
The Sexual Revolution truly began in the 1940’s, and it was not spontaneous or organic.
For all their differences, both Kinsey and Reich shared the same fundamental objective: to dissolve the barriers that stood between the child and the state. In Reich’s theory, those constraints were patriarchal repression. For Kinsey, they were legal and religious norms, i.e. Christian morality. In both cases, the target was the same: the family.
Sex education, as it exists today, rests directly on the foundation Kinsey built, and so do most academic models of childhood sexuality. The consequences of that work can be felt in the lives of millions. Indeed, the disintegration of the family unit and sundering of familial loyalty is no longer speculative in America: Reich and his ilk have accomplished their goal.
Drawing on the work of Christopher Simpson, Reisman describes how, beginning in the 1930’s, agents trained in psychological warfare under the Office of War Information and the OSS (the forerunner to the CIA) were strategically placed throughout America’s communication infrastructure:
Simpson describes how agents trained in psychological warfare by the American intelligence and espionage apparatus (i.e., the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Office of War Information (OWI)) were infiltrated, with assistance from tax-exempt foundations, into influential positions in journalism, politics, university communications departments, and other powerful mass-media positions. There they could work to “engineer mass consent” as described by Christopher Simpson (addressed further in Chapter 10), and Simpson further states:
In 1939 the [Rockefeller] Foundation organized a series of secret seminars with men it regarded as leading communication scholars, to enlist them in an effort to consolidate public opinion in the United States in favor of war against Nazi Germany-opposed by many conservatives, religious leaders, and liberals at the time.95 [These secret psychological warfare projects] helped define U.S. social science and mass communication studies long after the war had drawn to a close. Virtually all of the scientific community that was to emerge during the 1950s as leaders in the field of mass communication research spent the war years performing applied studies on U.S. and foreign propaganda public opinion (both domestically and internationally), clandestine OSS operations.
Among OWI alumni-in 1953, are,
The publishers of Time, Look, Fortune and several dailies; editors of such magazines as Holiday, Coronet, Parade, and the Saturday Review, editors of The Denver Post, New Orleans’ The Times-Picayune, and others; the heads of the Viking Press, Harper & Brothers, and Farrar, Straus and Young; two Hollywood Oscar winners; a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner; the board chairman of CBS and a dozen key network executives; President Eisenhower’s chief speech writer; the editor of Reader’s Digest international editions; at least six partners of large advertising agencies; and a dozen noted social scientists; chief of the U.S. government’s covert psychological warfare effort from 1950 to 1952 and later dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and founder of the Columbia Journalism Review. World War II psychological warfare work established social networks that opened doors to crucial postwar contacts inside the government, funding agencies, and professional circles [and] unprecedented access to human research subjects.
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 39)
It is unquestionable that this postwar network facilitated the cultural saturation of Kinsey’s work. The significance of this fact and the role that the intelligence services have played in the phenomenon of ritual abuse can not be understated.
“Consent” has became the last remaining moral category: everything else — age, fidelity, biology — has been relativized.
Now ask yourself:
— What kind of system needs to suppress dissent through legal threats, academic blacklisting, and total media silence?
— What kind of system continues to cite data derived from the sexual torture of children?
— What kind of system trains teachers to introduce sexual materials to elementary-age students while dismissing parents as “reactionary?”
— What kind of system classifies testimony of organized abuse as hysteria — no matter how consistent, how specific, or how widespread?
We are now ready to detail what that system has enabled, but to understand what we are about to uncover, we first had to understand what had already been normalized.
Continued in Part III…
— Dancing with the Devil II, digital art, 2025.
“Could Kinsey have conducted screaming, sadomasochistic experiments in Wylie Hall, on the bucolic Indiana University campus while collaborating with international and domestic pedophiles in the 1930-40s, without being detected by University officials and exposed by law enforcement and the media? Kinsey certainly had the complicity of university chieftains. But, Congressman Hays confirms that Kinsey’s funders and guardians extended to the nation’s capitol. Individually, the members of this elitist scientific network operated as a law unto themselves.
They still do.”
— Judith Reisman, Ph.D., Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences (Pg. 317)
Get Scipio’s latest book, The Empire of Lies: the American Empire unmasked.
Hit the Tip Jar and help spread the message!
This post contains affiliate links, which means I may receive a commission or affiliate fee for purchases made through these links.
Unlock the mysteries of Biblical cosmology and enrich your faith with some of the top rated Christian reads at BooksOnline.club.
Click the image below and be sure to use promo code SCIPIO for 10% off your order at HeavensHarvest.com: your one stop shop for emergency food, heirloom seeds and survival supplies.
Further Research
The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-governing Character Structure by Wilhelm Reich
Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
The Children Of Table 34 (1994)
had to double check my memory reading somewhere about Judith Reisman’s personal motivation to investigate the subject after her 13 year old daughter’s assault. she was very brave to stand up to / expose Kinsey and the criminal enterprise built around Kinsey deception.
great Article , Thanks so much
The first thing that came to mind when I read Kinsey's quote (The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform) was Aleister Crowley's Law (Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law)
Similarly, many sexual aberrations have been reclassified as normal variations in the psychiatric manual.