Dirty Old Man

3 Responses

  1. Muhammed Jacob says:



    We need them in life’s early morning;
    we need them again at its close;

    We feel their warm clasp of true friendship;
    we seek them when tasting life’s woes.

    At the altar each day we behold them,
    and the hands of a king on his throne
    are not equal to them in their greatness;
    their dignity stands all alone.

    And when we are tempted and wander to
    pathways of shame and of sin,
    It’s the hand of a priest that will absolve us-
    not once, but again and again.

    Other hands may prepare a feast, but
    the hand that will bless and unite us
    is the beautiful ahnd of a priest.

    God bless them and keep them all holy for
    the Host which their fingers caress;

    When can a poor sinner do better than to
    ask Him to guide thee and bless?

    When the hour of death comes upon us,
    may our courage and strength be increased,
    By seeing raised over us in blessing the
    beautiful hands of a priest!


    Alter Christus?
    The Roman Catholic Church teaches that her priests are “Alter Christus,” which means literally “another Christ.” Because Christ is God, this is a most serious claim. One would expect to hear such a claim from the false pagan religions, but from a supposedly Christian religion? Here’s some evidence for you to consider.

    “The priest is indeed another Christ, or in some way he is himself a continuation of Christ.” (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on the Priesthood).

    “The priest on earth (is) another Christ.” (The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism.)

    “In this moment, the priest quite literally becomes Christ Himself.” (This is the Mass, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Page 100)

    “The priest is not just the cross, he is Christ Himself.” (The Lone Star Catholic, March 1, 1959)

    “To the carnal eye, the priest looks like other men, but to the eye of faith he is exalted above angels.” (Faith of our Fathers, Gibbons, Page 422)

    “Another grace of the synod [Synod of Bishops, October, 1990] was a new maturity in the way of looking at priestly service in the Church; and thus also of the personal life of each and every priest, that is to say, of each priest’s participation in the saving mystery of Christ: ‘Sacerdos Alter Christus.'” (Pope John Paul II, Letter to Catholic priests on the occasion of Holy Thursday, 1991).

    “The priest is given transcendent power to forgive sins, to administer the sacraments, but most of all to offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in which he becomes an ‘Alter Christus'” (Pastoral Reflections on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass [http://www.cny.org/archives/cv092498.htm], Cardinal John J. O’Conner.)

    “In the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the priest is a substitute of Christ Himself. As a result of his ordination, he is a true alter Christus.” (The Latin Mass: Chronicle of a Catholic Reform, Summer 1995 Issue [http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/stickler.html]. )

    “Thus the priest, as is said with good reason, is indeed another Christ;” (Papal Encyclical ‘Ad Catholici Sacerdotii’ on the priesthood, Pope Pius XI, December 20, 1935)
    What did the Paedophile Priest say to the Altar Boy as he buggered him in the Sacristy?

    “Body of Christ”!

    Peter Damian (1007-1092) helped to place in motion the Gregorian Reform in the Church, which dealt with moral transgressions that were taking place at that time among the clergy. He wrote the Book of Gomorrah against the sin of sodomy and offered the work to Pope St. Leo IX, who praised it in glowing terms. It is considered the main work on the topic in Catholic teaching.

    We transcribe here some of his words as an example of a quite different language than what is used today, employed by a great Saint to exterminate this detestable vice.

    Peter Damian

    “In fact, this vice cannot in any way be compared to any others, because its enormity supersedes them all. Indeed, this vice causes the death of bodies and the destruction of souls. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of reason, and expels the Holy Ghost from His temple in the heart of man, introducing in His stead the Devil who is the instigator of lust.

    “It steers the soul into error, banishes all truth from the deceived soul, sets traps for those who fall into it, and then caps the well to prevent those who fall in from getting out. It opens the gates of Hell and closes the doors of Heaven to them, turns a former citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the infernal Babylon, transforming him from a heavenly star into a straw for the eternal fire. It wrenches a member from the Church and plunges him into the voracious flames of the fiery Gehenna.

    “This vice strives to tear down the walls of the heavenly motherland and rebuild those of the ruined Sodom. Indeed, it violates temperance, kills purity, stifles chastity, and cuts the head of virginity – which is irrecoverable – with the sword of a most infamous union. It infects everything, stains everything, pollutes everything; leaving nothing pure, nothing but filth, nothing clean. ‘All things are clean to the clean,’ as the Apostle says, ‘but to them that are defiled, and to unbelievers, nothing is clean; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15).

    “This vice expels one from the choir of the ecclesiastical host and forces one to join the ranks of the possessed and those who work in league with the Devil. It separates the soul from God and links it with the devils. This most pestiferous Sodomite queen makes those who obey her tyrannical laws repugnant to men and hateful to God, forcing them into a nefarious war against God and obliging them to enlist in the ranks of the perverse spirit.

    “It [this sin] separates him from the company of angels and deprives the soul of its nobility, imposing on the unfortunate soul the yoke of its own domination. It tears its henchmen from the arms of virtues and leaves them exposed as prey to the arrows of all the vices. It leaves one to be humiliated in the Church, condemned at court, defiled in secret, and dishonored in public. It gnaws at the person’s conscience like a worm and burns his flesh like fire …

    “The miserable flesh burns with the fire of lust, the cold intelligence trembles under the rancor of misgivings, and the unfortunate man’s heart is overwhelmed by hellish chaos, subjecting him to countless pains of conscience as he is tortured in punishment.

    “Yes, as soon as this most venomous serpent plunges its fangs into the unfortunate soul, it is immediately deprived of its senses and memory, the edge of the intelligence is dulled, he forgets God and even himself.”

    “Indeed, this scourge destroys the foundations of the faith, weakens the forces of hope, dissolves the bonds of charity, annihilates all justice, undermines fortitude, eliminates hope, and dulls the edge of prudence.

    “And what else shall I say? For it [the sin of sodomy] expels all the forces of virtue from the temple of the human heart, and, as if pulling the door from its hinges, allows the entrance of every barbarity of vice ….

    “In effect, the one whom …. this most atrocious beast has swallowed down its bloody throat is prevented, by the weight of its chains, from practicing any good work, and is precipitated into the abysses of his uttermost iniquity.

    “Thus, as soon as someone has fallen into this abyss of extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly motherland, separated from the Body of Christ, censured by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all the Holy Fathers, despised by men on earth and rebuked by the society of heavenly citizens. He creates for himself an earth of iron and a sky of bronze.

    “On the one hand, laden with the weight of his crime, he is unable to rise; on the other hand, he is no longer able to conceal his evil in the refuge of ignorance. He cannot be happy while he lives nor have hope when he dies, because here and now he is obliged to suffer the ignominy of men’s derision and, later, the torment of eternal condemnation.”

    Peter Damian, Liber gomorrhianus, cols. 175-177,
    apud Atila S. Guimaraes,
    Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia, TIA, 2004, p. 297


    Studies Confirm Homosexuality’s Dangers –
    In an article titled “Health Risks: Fisting and other Homosexual Practices,” Michelle A. Cretella, MD and Philip M. Sutton, PhD, LMFT, LP

    CAUTION – These texts may cause feelings of extreme revulsion

    “Medically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV (Diggs, 2002). The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention estimates that gay and bisexual men (men who have sex with men or MSM) in the United States are 50 times more likely to contract HIV than are heterosexual men (Lansky, 2009). This is largely due to having multiple sexual partners and engaging in risky sexual practices, including a high incidence of anal intercourse within this population (Diggs, 2002). For example, the estimated HIV risk with a single sexual exposure through receptive anal intercourse (2%) is 20 times greater than for receptive vaginal intercourse (0.1%), (Pinkerton, Martin, Roland, Katz, Coates, & Kahn, 2004).

    “Semen has immune-suppressant activity that increases the chance of sperm fertilizing a woman’s egg during vaginal intercourse. If released in the rectum, however, semen makes this already vulnerable tissue more prone to both infection and the development of cancer – rectal carcinoma in MSM results from infection with a highly carcinogenic strain of HPV (Diggs, 2002). Of greater concern is that despite knowing the high risk of contracting HIV, many MSM repeatedly indulge in unsafe sex practices such as “bare-backing,” i.e, deliberate, ‘unprotected’ anal intercourse (Parsons & Bimbi, 2007; Parsons, Kelly, Bimbi, Muench, & Morgenstern, 2007; van Kesteren, Hospers, & Kok, 2007.) Homosexual women are also at higher risk for STI and other health problems than are heterosexual women (Evans, Scally, Wellard, & Wilson, 2007.)

    “The negative consequences of homosexual behaviors are not limited to the physical harms noted above. Compared to their heterosexual peers, homosexual high school students and young adults (fourteen to twenty-one years old) in New Zealand, which has a culture highly tolerant of homosexuality, had significantly higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, nicotine dependence, other substance abuse and/or dependence, multiple disorders, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999).

    “In general, compared to heterosexually behaving adolescents and adults, having same-sex sexual partners is associated with substantially greater risk for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, psychological distress, substance use disorders, for suicidal thoughts and suicidal plans, suicide attempts, unstable relationships and lower levels of quality of life (Andersson, Noack, Seierstad, & Weedon-Fekjaer, 2006; Balsam, Beauchaine, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Cochran, Keenan, Schober, & Mays, 2000; Cochran, Sullivan, & Mays, 2003; Cochran, Ackerman, Mays, & Ross, 2004; de Graaf, Sandfort, & ten Have, 2006; Drabble & Trocki, 2005; Gilman, Cochran, Mays, Hughes, Ostrow, & Kessler, 2001; Herrell, Goldberg, True, Ramakrishnan, Lyons, Eisen, & Tsuang, 1999; Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002; King, Semlyen, Tai, Killaspy, Osborn, Popelyuk, & Nazareth, 2008; Mathy, Cochran, Olsen, & Mays, 2009; Russell & Joyner, 2001; Sandfort, de Graff, Bijl, & Schnabel, 2001; Sandfort, de Graaf, & Bijl, 2003; Sandfort, T. G. M., Bakker, Schelievis, & Vanwesenbeeck, 2006.) The findings are consistent both for countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden where homosexuality is more socially accepted, and for the U.S. where it is less accepted.

    “While the seriousness of such health risks may not be minimized, neither may the vulnerability of teenagers and young adults to being taught ways of behaving that put them at significant risk. NIMH scientist Dr. Jay Giedd, M.D. has reported that as humans develop, their brains’ “frontal cortex area” which governs judgment, decision-making and impulse control “doesn’t fully mature until around age 25” (Voit, 2005). In other words, “the frontal lobes, the very area that helps make teenagers do the right thing, are one of the last areas of the brain to reach a stable grown-up state” (Strauch, 2003, p.16.) As a result, while physically, “the teen years and early 20s represent an incredibly healthy time of life … the top 10 bad things that happen to teens involve emotion and behavior” Because “the brain is pretty adept at learning by example, something that parents can and do to influence their children’s brain development is ‘modeling.’ The teenage brain is pretty adept at learning by example, so parents – and the other adults involved in the lives of teenagers – teach healthy ways of behaving by showing and giving good examples of how to live” (Voit, 2005), and unhealthy behaviors by showing or giving poor examples.


    “An adolescent’s desire to prevent or cease experiencing serious medical, psychological, and relational health risks is sufficient reason for him or her to seek and receive competent psychological care to minimize or resolve the desires, behaviors and lifestyles associated with such increased risks. The concerns of parents, family members and friends of persons whose sexual behaviors and/or attractions leave them at risk for such harms are understandable and scientifically and clinically justified. Regardless of venue, the health and well-being of young persons is best served by sex education that is consistent with established clinical experience and scientific research.”


    NARTH has released a more extensive review of the health risks associated with the behaviors of homosexual gratification in Volume I of the Journal of Human Sexuality (NARTH, 2009; cf. http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html
    for a summary or to obtain a complete copy of this document). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides updated information on specific health risks related to homosexual behaviors, cf. http://www.cdc.gov/std/hiv/default.htm


    Agnew, J. (1985). Some anatomical and physiological aspects of anal sexual practices. Journal of Homosexuality, 12 (1), 75-96.

    Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79-98.

    Aragon, T. J., Vugia, D. J., Shallow, S., Samuel, M. C., Reingold, A., Angulo, F. J., & Bradford, W. Z. (2007). Case-control study of shigellosis in San Francisco: The role of sexual transmission and HIV infection. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 44, 327-334.

    Balsam, K.F., Beauchaine, T.P., Rothblum, E.D. & Solomon, S.E. (2008) Three-year follow-up of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102-116.

    Cochran, S. D., Keenan, C., Schober, C., & Mays, V. M. (2000). Estimates of alcohol use and clinical treatment needs among homosexually active men and women in the U.S. population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1062-1071.

    Cochran, S. D., Sullivan, J. G., & Mays, V. M. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53-61.

    Cochran, S. D., Ackerman, D., Mays, V. M., & Ross, M. W. (2004). Prevalence of non-medical drug use and dependence among homosexually active men and women in the U.S. population. Addiction, 99, 989-998.

    De Graaf, R., Sandfort, T. G. M., & ten Have, M. (2006). Suicidality and sexual orientation; Differences between men and women in a general population-based sample from The Netherlands. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(3), 253-262.

    Diggs, J. (2002). The health risks of gay sex. Corporate Resource Council: Retrieved January 12, 2010 from:

    Drabble, L. & Trocki, K. (2005). Alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, and other substance use among lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 19-30.

    Evans, A. L., Scally, A. J., Wellard, S. J., & Wilson, J. D. (2007). Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in lesbians and heterosexual women in a community setting. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 83(6), 470-475.

    Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 876.

    Gilman, S. E., Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M, Hughes, M., Ostrow, D., & Kessler, R. C. (2001). Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 933-939.

    Herrell, R., Goldberg, J., True, W. R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M., Eisen, S., & Tsuang, M. T. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality: A co-twin control study in adult men. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 867-874.

    Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Rodgers, B., Jacomb, P. A., & Christensen, H. (2002). Sexual orientation and mental health; results from a community survey of young and middle-aged adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180 (5), 423-427.

    King, M., Semlyen, J., Tai, S. S., Killaspy, H., Osborn, D., Popelyuk, D., & Nazareth, I. (2008). A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 70.

    Koop, C.E. (1990). The U. S. Surgeon General’s Statement, “Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice.” Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Brochure, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), last updated: 08/18/2009. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html#stron
    Lansky, A. (2009). Co-presenter, Future Directions and Updates from the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, 2009 National HIV Prevention Conference, Centers for Disease Control National Prevention Information Network. Retrieved on January 29, 2010 from:http://www.cdcnpin.org/nhpc_2009/Public/ListWebcast.aspx.

    Mathy, R.M., Cochran, S.D., Olsen, J., & Mays, V.M. (2009). The association between relationship markers of sexual orientation and suicide: Denmark, 1990-2001. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from: DOI 10.1007/s00127-009-0177-3.

    MassResistance (n.d.). Retrieved on January 28, 2010 from:


    National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee (2009). What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, 1, 1-128.

    Parsons, J. T., & Bimbi, D. S. (2007). Intentional unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men: Barebacking – from behavior to identity. AIDS and Behavior, 11(2), 277-287.

    Parsons, J. T., Kelly, B. C., Bimbi, D. S., Muench, F., & Morgenstern, J. (2007). Accounting for the social triggers of sexual compulsivity. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 26(3), 5-16.

    Pinkerton, S.D., Martin, J.N., Roland, M.E., Katz, M.H., Coates, T.J., & Kahn, J.O. (2004). Cost-effectiveness of postexposure prophylaxis after sexual or injection-drug exposure to human immunodeficiency virus. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(1), 46-54. Retrieved on January 28, 2010 from:


    Russell, S. T. & Joyner, M. (2001). Adolescent sexual orientation and suicide risk: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1276-1281.
    Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graff, R., Bijl, R. V., & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders; Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 85-91.

    Sandfort, T. G. M., de Graaf, R., & Bijl, R. V. (2003). Same-sex sexuality and quality of life: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(1), 15- 22.

    Sandfort, T. G. M., Bakker, F., Schelievis, F. G., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2006). Sexual orientation and mental and physical health status: Findings from a Dutch population survey. American Journal of Public Health, 96(6), 1119-1125.

    Sowadsky, R.(1996) “Fisting: Is Fisting Safe Sex” retrieved January 12, 2010 from http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/SafeSex/Archive/TransmissionSexual/Q9192.html

    Staver, M. (2010). Obama appointees and nominees. Liberty Counsel, 28-30. Retrieved January 27, 2010 from http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/obama_appointees_nominees_011910.pdf

    Strauch, Barbara (2003). The primal teen: What the new discoveries about the teenage brain tell us about our kids. New York: Doubleday.

    Voit, S.(2005). NIMH’s Giedd Lectures on Teen Brain. Retrieved January 12, 2010 from:


    Whiteman, S. (2000). ‘What’s Fisting?’ Scott Whiteman’s Affidavit on the 2000 GLSEN ‘Fistgate’ Scandal. Retrieved on January 28, 2010 from:


    Wolfe, D. (2000). Men like us: The GMHC complete guide to gay men’s sexual, physical, and emotional well-being. New York: Ballantine Books. Retrieved December 17, 2009 from


    The following articles and their links are just a sample of over 80 articles on the NARTH website written on various aspects of the medical and mental health risks associated with homosexual behaviors.

    Selected articles

    An Ethical Checkup for the CDC and Massachusetts Department of Public Health

    The Health Risks of Gay Sex, by internist John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.

    Gay Teens and Attempted Suicide

    Risky Sex and the Adolescent Brain: Implications for School Counseling Programs

    Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

    Gays and Lesbians Prone To Psychological Symptoms and Substance Abuse


    The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

    Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:
    One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

    One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

    Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

    Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

    Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

    Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

    Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

    73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

    25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

    Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

    78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

    Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

    Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says,

    “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

    50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

    Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says,

    “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10).

    For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

    It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

    Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

    Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

    37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

    41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

    Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

    The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

    The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

    Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

    21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

    50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

    About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

    33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

    There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

    Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).
    73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

    Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

    Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls.


    The homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights…..To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games….At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing…then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won” (25).

    Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington:

    “We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives” (27).

    Part of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity: “The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion” (1).

    Homosexuals knowingly lied (and still lie) about the 10% figure (i.e., homosexuals make up 10% of the population). As Tom Stoddard (formerly of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund) said, “We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness” (17).


    The Kinsey study of 1948, which homosexuals often cite to say that 10% of the population is homosexual, actually says that only 4% of the population is exclusively homosexual. This study involved a disproportionate number of people who had been in jail for sex crimes (hardly a random sample of the population). Kinsey also did perverse studies involving young boys and pedophiles.

    Current research shows that the true percentage of homosexuals is in the 1-2% range. Consider how small this number is when compared to most of the numbers above.

    Homosexuals aren’t discriminated against in employment, so why should they be a protected class?
    The average yearly income of a homosexual is $55,430.00 (most of which is disposable because no children to take care of!). The average of the general population is $32,144.00. The average of blacks is $12,166.00 (24).

    59.6% of homosexuals are college graduates. 18.0% of the general population are college graduates (24). Too bad they aren’t smart enough to listen to God. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22).

    49.0% of homosexuals hold professional/managerial positions. 15.9% of the general population hold such positions (24).

    Where’s the job discrimination?


    (1) Advocate, 1985.
    (2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.
    (3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
    (4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
    (5) “Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea.” Lancet, April 25, 1987.
    (6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. “Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men.” New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
    (7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
    (8) Fields, Dr. E. “Is Homosexual Activity Normal?” Marietta, GA.
    (9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
    (10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
    (11) Kus, R. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America.” Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
    (12) Lesbian News, January 1994.
    (13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
    (14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.
    (15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
    (16) MsKusick, L. et. al. “AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco.” Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
    (17) Newsweek, February 1993.
    (18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
    (19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
    (20) Rueda, E. The Homosexual Network. Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
    (21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, “Can We Talk.”
    (22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
    (23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
    (24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
    (25) “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
    (26) United States Census Bureau
    (27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
    (28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp.
    (29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

    © 2000- 2003 International Organization of Heterosexual Right

  2. Muhammed Jacob says:


    The History of Child Abuse Lloyd deMause The Journal of Psychohistory
    The History of Child Abuse
    Lloyd deMause
    The Journal of Psychohistory V. 25, N. 3, Winter 1998
    The following speech was given at the National Parenting Conference in Boulder, Colorado, on September 25, 1997.
    It also appears in Sexual Addicitons & Compulsivity V 1 n1 1994
    (posted with permission)
    describes crimes of abuse

    During the past three decades, I have spent much of my scholarly life examining primary sources such as diaries, autobiographies, doctor’s reports, ethnographic reports and other documents that document what it must have felt like to have been a child – yesterday and today, in the East and the West, in literate and preliterate cultures.
    In several hundred studies published by myself and my associates in The Journal of Psychohistory, we have provided extensive evidence that the history of childhood has been a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes – and the further away from the West one gets – the more massive the neglect and cruelty one finds and the more likely children are to have been killed, rejected, beaten, terrorized and sexually abused by their caretakers.
    Indeed, my conclusion from a lifetime of psychohistorical study of childhood and society is that the history of humanity is founded upon the abuse of children. Just as family therapists today find that child abuse often functions to hold families together as a way of solving their emotional problems, so, too, the routine assault of children has been society’s most effective way of maintaining its collective emotional homeostasis. Most historical families once practiced infanticide, erotic beating and incest. Most states sacrificed and mutilated their children to relieve the guilt of adults. Even today, we continue to arrange the daily killing, maiming, molestation and starvation of children through our social, military and economic activities. I would like to summarize here some of the evidence I have found as to why child abuse has been humanity’s most powerful and most successful ritual, why it has been the cause of war and social violence, and why the eradication of child abuse and neglect is the most important social task we face today.


    The main psychological mechanism that operates in all child abuse involves using children as what I have termed poison containers – receptacles into which adults project disowned parts of their psyches, so they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves. In good parenting, the child uses the caretaker as a poison container, much as it earlier used the mother’s placenta as a poison container for cleansing its polluted blood. A good mother reacts with calming actions to the cries of a baby and helps it “detoxify” its dangerous emotions. But when an immature mother’s baby cries, she cannot stand the screaming, and strikes out at the child. As one battering mother put it, “I have never felt loved all my life. When the baby was born, I thought he would love me. When he cried, it meant he didn’t love me. So I hit him.” Rather than the child being able to use the parent to detoxify its fears and anger, the parent instead injects his or her bad feelings into the child and uses it to cleanse his or herself of depression and anger.
    Consider a typical infanticidal, incestuous culture, the Bimin-Kuskusmin of New Guinea. As is so often true in pre-literate cultures, the mothers have long post-partum taboos against sex with their husbands, sleep naked against their children until they are about four years old, have orgasms while nursing them and regularly masturbate them. One three-year-old boy describes how whenever his mother was sad or angry she masturbated him so roughly that it hurt him, and he struggled to get away, complaining of a pain in his penis. “It hurts inside,” he told the ethnologist. “It goes Ôkoong, koong, koong’ inside. I think it bleeds in there I don’t like to touch it anymore. It hurts when I pee…” Sometimes, after his mother hurt him while masturbating him, he wounds himself in the thigh and abdomen with a sharp stick and draws blood, looking at his penis and saying, “Now it hurts here, outside, not in penis. Look, blood. Feels good…” Although he is only three years old, he understands quite well that he is being used as a poison container by his mother to relieve her depression. He says, “Mother twist penis, tight…Hurt inside…Mother angry, hurt Buuktiin’s penis. Mother sad, hurt Buuktiin’s penis…Mother not like Buuktiin’s penis, want to cut off…”

    Maternal incest and pederasty by men are quite common in pre-literate groups and were common in earlier historical times. Boys in many New Guinea groups today, for instance, are so traumatized by the early erotic experiences, neglect and assaults on their bodies that they need to prove their masculinity when they grow up and become fierce warriors and cannibals, with a third of them dying in raids and wars. In fact, I have found that rather than the incest taboo being universal – as anthropologists claim – it is incest itself that has been universal for most children in most cultures in most times. A childhood more or less free from adult sexual use is in fact a very late historical achievement, limited to a few fortunate children in a few modern nations. To give you some idea of the extensive evidence I have gathered for such an unlikely conclusion, I would like to begin by summarizing the evidence which exists for the sexual abuse of children around the world today.

    In America, the most accurate scientific studies, based on lengthy interviews, report that 30% of men and 40% of women remember having been sexually molested during childhood- – defining “molestation” as actual genital contact, not just exposure. About half of these are directly incestuous, with the family members, the other half usually being with others, but with the complicity of caretakers in at least 80% of the cases. These experiences of seduction are not just pieced together from fragmentary memories, but are remembered in detail, are usually for an extended period of time and have been confirmed by follow-up reliability studies in 83% of the cases, so they are unlikely to have been fantasies. The seductions occurred at much earlier ages than had been previously assumed, with 81% occurring before puberty and an astonishing 42% under age 7.

    As high as these molestation rates seem, however, they represent only a portion of the true rates, not only because those interviewed do not include populations that have been shown to have extremely high rates- – such as criminals, prostitutes, juveniles in shelters, psychotics, etc. – but also because only conscious memories were counted, and the earliest seductions of children are almost never remembered except during psychotherapy. Adjusting statistically for what is known about these additional factors, I have concluded that the real sexual abuse rate for America is 60% for girls and 45% for boys, about half of these directly incestuous.
    Other Western nations have made fewer careful studies. A recent Canadian study by Gallup of 2,000 adults has produced incidence rates almost exactly the same as those found in the United States. Latin American family sexual activity – particularly widespread pederasty as part of macho sexuality – is considered even more widespread. In England, a recent BBC “ChildWatch” program asked its female listeners – a large though admittedly biased sample – if they remembered sexual molestation, and, of the 2,530 replies analyzed, 83% remembered someone touching their genitals, 62% recalling actual intercourse. In Germany, the Institut fur Kindheit has recently concluded a survey asking West Berlin schoolchildren about their sexual experiences, and 80% reported having been molested.

    Outside the West, the sexual molestation of children is a routine practice in most families. Childhood in India begins, according to observers, with the child being regularly masturbated by the mother, the girl “to make her sleep well,” the boy “to make him manly.” The child sleeps in the family bed, witnesses and most likely takes part in sexual intercourse between the parents. The child is often “borrowed” to sleep with other members of the extended household, leading to the Indian proverb that:

    “For a girl to be a virgin at ten years old, she must have neither brothers nor cousin nor father.”

    Childhood is so eroticized that, as one Western observer put it,

    “The little Hindu girls are deflowered by the little boys with whom they play, and repeat together the erotic lessons which their parents have unwittingly taught them on account of the general promiscuity of family life throughout India. In all the little girls of less than ten years of age the complete hymen is wanting…Incest is often the rule rather than the exception.”

    Child marriage was, of course, a long-standing Indian practice. When laws were passed in 1929 trying to outlaw it, the government was overwhelmed by men insisting that early marriage was an absolute necessity, since little girls were naturally very sexual and must be married early if they are to be restrained from seducing adults.

    “Cupid overtakes the hearts of girls…at an early age,” they said.

    “A girl’s desire for sexual intercourse is eight times greater than that of males.”

    Indian mothers also often supported early marriage, frankly admitting it was necessary in order to protect their little girls against rape in the family, saying that:

    “they were afraid to leave their daughters at home, even for one afternoon, without a mother’s eye and accessible to the men of the family.”

    The Indian subcontinent, in fact, still has many groups, such as the Baiga, where actual incestuous marriage is practiced, between fathers and daughters, between mothers and sons, between siblings and even between grandparents and their grandchildren – thus disproving the oft-repeated anthropological truism that “no known tribe has ever permitted incest” because if it were allowed society would surely cease functioning. In many of these villages, the children move at the age of 5 or 6 from the incestuous activities of the family bed to spend the rest of their childhood in sex dormitories, where they are initiated by older youth and men into intercourse with a succession of other children, none for longer than three days at a time, under threat of gang rape.
    Childhood in China has historically had the same institutionalized rape rituals as in India, including the pederasty of boys, child concubinage, the castration of boys to be used sexually as eunuchs, marriage of young girls to a number of brothers, widespread boy and girl prostitution and the regular sexual use of child servants and slaves. So prevalent was the rape of little girls that Western doctors found that, as in India, few girls entering puberty had intact hymens. Even the universal practice of foot binding was for sexual purposes, with a girl undergoing extremely painful crushing of the bones of her feet for years in order that men could make love to her big toe as a fetish, a penis-substitute.

    Childhood in contemporary Japan, although somewhat more Western than that of other Eastern nations, still includes masturbation by mothers “to put them to sleep.” Parents often have intercourse with their children in bed with them, and “co-sleeping,” with parents physically embracing the child, often continues until the child is ten or fifteen. One recent Japanese study found daughters sleeping with their fathers over 20% of the time after age 16. Recent sex surveys report memories of sexual abuse even higher than comparable American studies, and “hot lines” of sexual abuse report mother-son incest in almost a third of the calls, the mother saying to her teenage son,

    “It’s not good to do it alone. Your IQ becomes lower. I will help you” or “You cannot study if you cannot have sex. You may use my body,” or “I don’t want you to get into trouble with a girl. Have sex with me instead.”

    Historically, Japan has been one of the most endogamous societies in the world, with incestuous marriages in court circles being approved even in historical times and preferred sibling, cousin, uncle-niece and aunt-nephew marriages having been so extensive that genetics experts have discovered that the incestuous inbreeding has affected the size and health of the Japanese. Even today, there are rural areas in Japan where fathers marry their daughters when the mother has died or is incapacitated, “in accordance with feudal family traditions.”

    The sexual use of children in the Near East is as widespread as in the Far East. Historically, all the institutionalized forms of pedophilia which were customary in the Far East are documented extensively for the Near East, including child marriage, child concubinage, temple prostitution of both boys and girls, parent-child marriage (among the Zoroastrians), sibling marriage (quite common among Egyptians), sex slavery, ritualized pederasty and child prostitution. Masturbation in infancy is said to be necessary “to increase the size” of the penis, and older siblings are reported to play with the genitals of babies for hours at a time. Mutual masturbation, fellatio and anal intercourse are also said to be common among children, particularly with the older boys using younger children as sex objects. The nude public baths (hammam) are particularly eroticized in many areas, being especially notorious as a place of homosexual acts, both male and female.

    Girls are used incestuously even more often than boys, since females are valued so little. One report found 80% of Near Eastern women surveyed recalled having been forced into fellatio between the ages of 3 and 6 by older brothers, cousins, uncles and teachers. The girls rarely complain, since:

    “if there is any punishment to be meted out, it will always end up by being inflicted on her.”
    Arab women know that their spouses are pedophiles and prefer having sex with children to having sex with them. Their retribution comes as follows. When the girl is about 6 years old, the women of the house grab her, pull her thighs apart and cut off her clitoris and often also her labia with a razor, thus usually ending her ability to feel sexual pleasure forever. One Egyptian woman relates her memory of how it happened to her. After being used sexually by the men in her family during her early childhood, she says:

    I was six years old that night when I lay in my bed, warm and peaceful…I felt something move under the blankets, something like a huge hand…another hand was clapped over my mouth to prevent me from screaming.

    They carried me to the bathroom…I remember…a rasping metallic sound which reminded me of the butcher when he used to sharpen his knife…My blood was frozen in my veins…my thighs had been pulled wide apart…I felt that the rasping knife or blade was heading straight down towards my throat. Then suddenly the sharp metallic edge seemed to drop between my thighs and there cut off a piece of flesh from my body.

    I screamed with pain despite the tight hand held over my mouth, for the pain was not just a pain, it was like a searing flame that went through my whole body. After a few moments, I saw a red pool of blood around my hips.

    I did not know what they had cut off from my body, and did not try to find out. I just wept, and called out to my mother for help. But the worst shock of all was when I looked around and found her standing by my side. Yes, it was her, I could not be mistaken, in flesh and blood, right in the midst of these strangers, talking to them and smiling at them.

    A recent survey of Egyptian girls and women showed 97% of uneducated families and 66 percent of educated families still practiced clitoridectomy. Nor is the practice decreasing – UN reports estimate that more than 74 million females have been mutilated, with

    “more female children mutilated today than throughout history.”

    Clitoridectomy, like all sexual mutilations, is, I believe, an act of incest. If it is incest when a father rapes a daughter, it is also incest when parents assault their children by cutting off, sewing up, burning, flaying or gashing their genitals. In all these cases, the child is being used for the sadistic sexual pleasure of the parent. In fact, circumcision ceremonies are often followed by drinking parties that end in intercourse, so sexually arousing is the circumcision- – in some areas, the traveling circumcizer is actually accompanied by some prostitutes, who know how sexually excited villages become after the ceremony. Therefore, the practice of sexually mutilating children’s genitals- – one of the most widespread rituals in the world – by itself makes incest a near-universal trait.

    Historically, the routine use of children as poison containers to prevent adults from feeling overwhelmed by their anxieties has also been universal. Examples from the history of childhood regularly reveal children are expected to “absorb” the bad feelings of their caretakers. As one peasant community in rural Greece puts it, you must have children around to put your bad feelings into, especially when the “Bad Hour” comes around. An informant describes the process as follows:
    One of the ways for the Bad Hour to occur is when you get angry. When you’re angry a demon gets inside of you. Only if a pure individual passes by, like a child for instance, will the “bad” leave you, for it will fall on the unpolluted.

    Newborn infants, in particular, were perfect poison containers because they were so “unpolluted.” The newborn then became so full of the parent’s projections that even if he or she is allowed to live (up to half the children in early societies were murdered at birth), the infant had to be tied up – tightly swaddled in bandages for up to a year or more- – to prevent it from “tearing its ears off, scratching its eyes out, breaking its legs, or touching its genitals,” i.e., to prevent it from acting out the violent and sexual projections of the parents.

    Children were particularly useful as poison containers when adults felt anxious about recent or impending success. Success stirs up superego retaliation, and the sacrifice of children to appease the gods – that is, the punitive parents – was an extremely widespread guilt-reducing device. Most early states practiced child sacrifice. Typical was Carthage, where a large cemetery has been discovered called The Tophet filled with over 20,000 urns deposited there between 400 and 200 B.C. The urns contained bones of children sacrificed by their parents, who often would make a vow to kill their next child if the gods would grant them a favor – for instance, if their shipment of goods were to arrive safely in a foreign port. Some urns contain the bones of stillborn babies along with the bones of two-year-olds, indicating that if the promised child was not born alive, an older child had also to be killed to satisfy the promise. The sacrifice was accompanied by a musical, wild dancing and riotous orgy, and was probably accompanied by the ritual rape of virgin girls, as it was with the Incans.

    Plutarch told how the priests would:

    “cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds; meanwhile the mother stood by without a tear or moan [while] the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums…”

    Sacrifice, rape and genital mutilation of young girls continues to take place today in the Andean mountains, particularly to ward off the guilt coming after successful cocaine deliveries. These ceremonies, from antiquity to today, resemble closely the satanic rituals made familiar recently in the newspapers, using the infliction of rape, sexual mutilation and other horrors in order to visit upon child victims elements of the traumas of the satanists’ own childhood.

    That child sacrifice was carried out mainly by the rich in each of these early societies confirms my theory that it is a guilt-reducing technique. Whenever new ventures were begun, children would be sacrificed. Whenever a new building or bridge was built, a child would be buried within it as a “foundation sacrifice.” Children still play at capturing a child and making it part of the bridge in “London Bridge’s Falling Down.” Children’s bodies were particularly useful in curing disease. Whatever one’s physical ills, a child could be used to “absorb” the poison that was responsible. When, for instance, one wanted to be cured of leprosy, one was supposed to kill a child and wash one’s body in its blood. When one wanted to find out if a house whose previous occupants had died of plague was still infected or not, one rented some children to live in it for several weeks to see if they died – rather like the use of canaries in mines to detect poisonous gas. When one was impotent, depressed or had venereal disease, doctors prescribed having intercourse with a child. As late as the end of the nineteenth century, men who were brought into Old Bailey for having raped young girls were let go because “they believed that they were curing themselves of venereal disease.” Raping virgins was particularly effective for impotence and depression; as one medical book put it,

    “Breaking a maiden’s seal is one of the best antidotes for one’s ills. Cudgeling her unceasingly, until she swoons away, is a might remedy for man’s depression. It cures all impotence.”

    And, of course, whenever a parent had a disease, they always had their children handy to absorb the poison. Thus British doctors in the nineteenth century regularly found when visiting men who had venereal disease that their children also had the same disease – on their mouths, anuses or genitals.

    No matter what anxieties one had, one had children always at hand to use to relieve them. The evolution of childhood from incest to love and from abuse to empathy has been a slow, uneven path, but one whose progressive direction is, I think, unmistakable. This evolution of parent-child relations is, I contend, an independent source of historical change, lying in the ability of successive generations of parents to live through their own childhood traumas a second time and work through their anxieties in a slightly better manner this second time around. It is in this sense that I say that history is like psychotherapy, which also heals through revisiting one’s childhood traumas and reworking earlier anxieties. If the parent – the mother, for most of history – is given even the most minimal support by society, the evolution of childhood progresses, new variations in historical personality are formed, and history begins to move in new, innovative directions.

    The crucial relationship in this evolution is the mother-daughter relationship. If little girls are treated particularly badly, they grow up to be mothers who cannot rework their traumas, and history is frozen. For instance, although China was ahead of the West in most ways during the pre-Christian era, it became “frozen” and fell far behind the West in evolutionary social and technological change after it adopted the practice of footbinding girls. Similarly, the cliterodectomy of girls in Moslem societies has inhibited their social development for centuries, since it likewise puts a brake on the ability of the next generation of mothers to make progress in caring for their children. Clearly, different groups have moved different distances up the ladder of psychological evolution, since some contemporary groups still practice brain-eating as our Paleolithic ancestors did, and different subgroups of our more advanced nations still terrorize and abuse their children in ways identical to those that were commonplace centuries ago, producing the “historical fossils” (early “psychoclasses”) we now call borderline personalities and other severe character disorders. Your neighbor is as likely to be a result of medieval parenting as of modern parenting, so modern societies contain a full range of childrearing modes and psychoclasses.

    The “generational pressure” for psychological change is not only an independent historical force – originating in inborn adult-child striving for relationship – it occurs independent of social and technological change, and can be found even in periods of economic stagnation. My “psychogenic theory of history” posits that a society’s childrearing practices are not just one item in a list of cultural traits, but – because all other traits must be passed down from generation to generation through the narrow funnel of childhood – instead makes childrearing the very basis for the transmission and development of all other cultural traits, placing definite limits on what can be achieved in the material spheres of history.

    The main source of childhood evolution is, I believe, the process I call psychogenesis, by which parents – mainly the mother for most of history – revisit a second time around the stages of childhood and undo to some extent the traumas they themselves endured. It is in this sense that history is like a psychotherapy of the generations, undoing trauma and giving historical personality a chance at a new start with every baby born. Only humans have brain networks that allow this miracle to take place. All cultural changes in the past 100,000 years of Homo sapiens are epigenetic, not genetic. Regardless of changes in the environment, it is only when changes in childhood occur that epigenetic changes in the brain can occur and societies can begin to progress and move in unpredictable new directions that are more adaptive. That more individuated and loving individuals are ultimately more adaptive is understandable – because they are less under the pressures of infantile traumas and are therefore more rational in reaching their goals. But that this childhood evolution – and therefore all social evolution – is terribly uneven is also understandable, given the varying conditions under which parents all over the world have to conduct their childrearing tasks.

    The basic patterns of evolution of childhood have begun to be traced by myself and other psychohistorians. I would like to summarize the six childrearing modes that I have suggested are common to all groups that have traversed the full path of childhood and cultural evolution so far. These modes are, in fact, quite independent of technological development. But the overall evolutionary direction of parent-child relations is, I think, evident in the historical record, regardless of what labels one chooses to put on its stages.

    The earliest childrearing mode I have called infanticidal to highlight the constant presence of infanticidal wishes in the parent. Real infanticide is, of course, ubiquitous in most preliterate cultures, ranging about a third or more of all children born, and evidence remains of widespread infanticide among all historical records. By historical times, census figures from antiquity show boy/girl ratios as high as 400 boys to 100 girls – a believable figure since, as Poseidippos said,

    “even a rich man always exposes a daughter.”

    I have estimated that perhaps half of all children born in antiquity were killed by their caretakers, declining to about a third in medieval times and dropping to under 1% only by the eighteenth century. Since these skewed sex ratios do not vary by economic class – the rich do away with their children at about the same rates as the poor – the evidence suggests that the parents were coping with the emotional anxieties of childrearing more than economic conditions.

    That incest is also traditional in the infanticidal mode is harder to prove conclusively, since what really happened in the family bed does not often leave historical traces. Yet all the records we have suggest that this was so. Man began, after all, as an incestuous primate – along with other primates, who remain incestuous today. In most simple societies today in such areas as New Guinea, boys and girls are used sexually by both their mothers and by the men, who gang rape girls and often are also pederasts who use the boys sexually, have boy-wives, or force all the boys to fellate them daily from age seven to fourteen “in order to ingest semen to counteract maternal pollution.”

    By the time historical records begin, the widespread sexual use of children is well documented. The Greek and Roman child lived his or her earliest years in an atmosphere of sexual abuse. Girls were commonly raped, as reflected in the many comedies that have scenes that were considered funny of little girls being raped. Both Greek and Roman doctors report that female children rarely have hymens – just like the Indian and Chinese girls I described above. In order to find out if your young wife was really a virgin (girls usually married before puberty to older men), one had to use mystical tests for virginity, since intact hymens were so rare.

    Boys, too, were regularly handed over by their parents to neighboring men to be raped. Plutarch has a long essay on what was the best kind of person a father should give his son to for buggering. The common notion that this occurred only at “adolescence” is quite mistaken. It began around age seven, continued for several years and ended by puberty, when the boy’s facial and pubic hairs began to appear. Child brothels, rent-a-boy services and sex slavery flourished in every city in antiquity. Children were so subject to sexual use by the men around them that schools were by law prohibited from staying open past sundown, so their pedagogues – slaves who were assigned to protect them against random sexual attack – could try to see that their teachers didn’t assault them. Petronius especially loved depicting adults feeling the “immature little tool” of boys, and Tiberius was said by Seutonius to have:

    “taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his little fishes, to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio…”

    Since boys in antiquity shared the experience of being buggered, Christianity constructed its central myth of the Father sending his son down to be penetrated by a soldier’s lance in order to restage the common experience of fathers giving their boys to a neighbor to be sexually penetrated. Those who accepted the myth, accepted the penetration, and were promised the Father’s love and Mary’s tears in return. Although Christianity attempted to reduce the outright killing of newborns, thus moving beyond the infanticidal mode, it continued the abandonment of children – whether by child sale or by sending to wet nurse or monastery or nunnery or foster family or to other homes as servants – which is why I labeled this second stage the abandoning mode. The refusal of parents to raise their own legitimate children was so powerful that through the nineteenth century over half of the children born in Florence, for instance, were dumped into foundling homes at birth, to be picked up by their families – if they lived that long (the majority died) – when they were around five years old, thus avoiding having homes where crying babies disturbed the peace.

    The same abandonment was common in France, where, in 1900, over 90% of the babies born in Paris were carted out to the countryside to wet-nurses at birth. As one author put it, “mother love” was a late historical achievement, not an instinctual trait.

    Despite the advance that just abandoning rather than outright killing your children represents, most of the other childrearing practices of antiquity continued in the middle ages, with the buggering of boys – even in monasteries – continuing to be widespread and even accepted by society. By the time boys were in their teens, they were so addicted to violent sex that they sometimes formed adolescent raping gangs that grabbed and
    raped any girls or young women they could find unprotected, to such an extent that the majority of women in some cities would have been raped by these gangs at some time in their lives.

    The erotic beating of children continued in Christian times, because of the anxieties of living with a child who is so full of your projections. Children were experienced as always about to turn into “changelings,” those who, as St. Augustine puts it, “suffer from a demon” – which usually meant just that they cry too much, since the Malleus Maleficarum says that one can recognize changelings because they “always howl most piteously,” and since Luther says they:

    “are more obnoxious than ten children with their crapping, eating, and screaming.”

    That children with devils in them had to be beaten goes without saying. A panoply of beating instruments existed for that purpose, from cat-o’-nine tails and whips to shovels, canes, iron rods, bundles of sticks, the discipline (a whip made of small chains), the goad (shaped like a cobbler’s knife, used to prick the child on the head or hands) and special school instruments like the flapper, which had a pear-shaped end and a round hole to raise blisters. The beatings described in the sources were almost always severe, involved bruising and bloodying of the body, began in infancy, were usually erotically tinged by being inflicted on bare parts of the body near the genitals and were a regular part of the child’s daily life.

    Century after century of battered children grew up to batter their own children in turn. Public protest was rare. Even humanists and teachers who had a reputation for gentleness approved of the severe beating of children. Those who attempted reform did so only to prevent death. As a thirteenth-century law said,

    “If one beats a child until it bleeds, then it will remember, but if one beats it to death, the law applies.”

    As Batholomew Batty put it, parents must “keep the golden mean,” which is to say they should not:

    “strike and buffet their children about the face and head, and to lace upon them like malt sacks with cudgels, staves, fork or fire shovel,” for then they might die of the blows. The correct way, he said, was to “Hit him upon the sides…with the rod, he shall not die thereof.”

    By the thirteenth century in the West, abandonment via oblation, or the giving of young children to monasteries for sexual and other uses, was ended, the first disapproval of pedophilia appeared, the first childrearing tracts were published and some advanced parents began to practice what I have termed the ambivalent mode of childrearing, where the child was not born completely evil, but was seen as being still full of enough dangerous projections so that the parent, whose task it was to mold it, must beat it into shape like clay.

    Church moralists for the first time began to warn against sexual molestation of children by parents, nurses and neighbors (the mothers had previously been instructed to masturbate their boys “so their yards will grow long”). The length of time of swaddling was eventually reduced from a year or more to only a few months. Pediatrics and educational philosophy were born. Parents of means began suggesting that perhaps rather than sending their infants out to be wet nursed in some peasant village – and thereby condemning over half of them to early death – the mother might herself nurse her infant. The baby, said some mothers who began to try nursing their own babies, even responds to this care by giving love back to the nursing mother, stroking her breast and face and cooing. And if the father, as often happened, complained that his wife’s breast belonged to him not the baby, these bold new mothers suggested that the father should be allowed to hold the baby too.

    These childhood reforms immediately preceded and thereby produced the humanistic, religious and political revolutions we associate with early modern times. For the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in Western Europe represent the great watershed of psychogenic change, wherein vastly improved childrearing allowed at least some of the schizoid and borderline personalities of antiquity and medieval times – who regularly heard voices and hallucinated visions – to move on to the more integrated, less splitting modern neurotic personality more familiar to recent times, thus achieving Melanie Klein’s “depressive position.”

    The sixteenth-century watershed in childrearing allowed people to reduce splitting and feel real depression for the first time, as can be seen in the popularity of Renaissance melancholy (Hamlet’s admirable depressive guilt), the ability of Protestants to end the good mother/bad mother splitting of Mary/Eve, and the ability to internalize the projective panoply of split Catholic saints/devils into Protestant depressive guilt. With this vast improvement in childrearing – in some families at least – the modern world could begin, with the development of science, technology and democratization now being possible in parts of the West.

    By the seventeenth century, the intrusive mode of childrearing began, particularly in England, America and France, whereby the child was seen as less full of dangerous projections, so it could actually be unswaddled soon after birth, not given regular enemas (which had until then been given daily from birth to remove the bad contents felt to be inside the infant), toilet trained early rather than late, hit but not regularly whipped, and punished for masturbation rather than being masturbated by adults. It eventually became unacceptable for men to go about with a mistress on one arm and a catamite on the other, though underground seduction of minors continued.

    Intrusive parenting, in essence, began to substitute psychological pressure for physical abuse, so that rather than whipping the child to prevent it from sin, it was, for instance, shut up in the dark closets for hours or left without food, sometimes for days. One mother shut her three-year-old boy up in a drawer. Another had a house she described as:

    “a sort of little Bastille, in every closet of which was to be found a culprit – some were sobbing and repeating verbs, others eating their bread and water…”

    Another five-year-old French boy, in looking at a new apartment with his mother, told her,

    “Oh no, mama…it’s impossible; there’s no dark closet! Where could you put me when I’m naughty.”

    Although erotic whipping of children decreased gradually, the intrusive mode required nevertheless a steady pressure on the child to “break its will” and discipline it properly. This breaking of the will began early. John Wesley’s mother said of her babies,
    “When turned a year old (and some before), they were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly.”

    One would never know, she claimed, that children were present in her house. Rousseau confirmed that in France babies in their earliest days were often beaten to keep them quiet. Another mother wrote of her first battle with her four-month-old infant,

    “I whipped him till he was actually black and blue, and until I could not whip him anymore, and he never gave up one single inch.”

    One can sense in this description of baby battering the struggle with the mother’s own powerful parent, with the baby seen as so obstinate that it “won the battle” even after being beaten. In fact, this “double image” of the child as both a powerful adult and a wicked child accounts for the merging of beater and beaten in our myriad historical accounts of child abuse. Here, for instance, is an early American father describing the beating of his four-year-old boy for not being able to read something. The child is first tied up naked in the cellar. Then, the father writes,

    With him in this condition, and myself, the wife of my bosom, and the lady of my family, all of us in distress, and with hearts sinking within us, I commenced using the rod…During this most unpleasant, self-denying and disagreeable work, I…felt all the force of divine authority and express command that I ever felt in any case in all my life…But under the all controlling influence of such a degree of angry passion and obstinacy, as my son had manifested, no wonder he thought he “should beat me out,” feeble and tremulous as I was; and knowing as he did that it made me almost sick to whip him. At that he could neither pity me nor himself.

    This picture of the merging of parent and child, with the father complaining that he is the one “beaten out” and in need of pity, is common for the intrusive mode. Similar confusion between parent and child can be seen in the severe punishments for masturbation championed by the child-training literature since Tissot. Prior to this, children were masturbated by adults and even licked on their bodies as though they were substitute breasts. For instance, Little Louis XIII, in 1603, was described by his pediatrician as having his penis and breasts kissed by everyone in the court, and his parents would regularly make him part of sexual intercourse in the royal bed. But childrearing reformers beginning in the eighteenth century began to try to bring this open sexual abuse under control, only it was the child who was now punished for touching his or her genitals, under threat of circumcision, clitoridectomy, infibulation and various cages and other genital restraint devices. These terrorizing warnings and surgical interventions only began to die out at the end of the nineteenth century, after two hundred years of brutal and totally unnecessary assault on children’s bodies and psyches for touching themselves. Despite the reformers’ efforts, progress was so uneven that one British journalist could write in 1924 that:

    “cases of incest are terribly common in all classes. [Usually] the criminal…goes unpunished…Two men coming out from [an incest] trial were overheard saying to a woman who deplored there had been no conviction, ‘What nonsense! Men should not be punished for a thing like that. It doesn’t harm the child.’”

    It goes without saying that the effects on the child of these physical and psychological punishments were immense. Adults remembered that as children they had had recurring nightmares and even outright hallucinations as they lay awake at night, terrorized by imaginary ghosts, demons, “a witch on the pillow,” “a large black dog under the bed,” or “a crooked finger crawling across the room.” History is filled with reports of children’s convulsive fits, dancing manias, loss of hearing and speech, loss of memory, hallucinations of devils and confessions of intercourse with devils. Nor did the parents help their children’s mental anguish by giving them comfort. It was thought that the way for children to get over their fears was to make them face fear even more concretely, so adults used to take children on visits to the gibbet to inspect rotting corpses hanging there, while being told moral stories. Classes used to be taken out of school to witness hangings, and parents would also sometimes take their children to hangings and then beat them when they returned home to make them remember what they had seen. Even humanists, like Mafio Vegio, who protested the severe beating of children, would admit that:

    “to let them witness a public execution is sometimes not at all a bad thing.”

    The effect on the children of this corpse-viewing was of course massive. One little girl, after her mother showed her the fresh corpse of her nine-year-old friend as an example, went around saying,

    “They will put daughter in the deep hole, and what will mother do?”

    Another woke at night screaming after seeing hangings, and “practiced hanging his own cat.” Religion was a further source of terrorizing. God was said to:

    “hold you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire” and children’s books depicted Hell as follows:

    “The little child is in this red-hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out…It stamps its little feet on the floor…”

    Various terrorizing figures were used to control the child. If you were bad, the werewolf would gulp you down, Blue Beard would chop you up, Boney (Bonaparte) would eat your flesh, and the black man or the chimney sweep would steal you away at night. This need to personify punitive figures was in fact so powerful that adults actually dressed up dummies to use in frightening children. As one English writer, in 1748, explained the practice:

    The nurse takes a fancy to quiet the peevish child, and with this intent, dresses up an uncouth figure, makes it come in, and roar and scream at the child in ugly disagreeable notes, which grate upon the tender organs of the ear, and at the same time, by its gesture and near approach, makes as if it would swallow the infant up.

    Another writer, in 1882, described how the nurse of a friend’s child wanted to leave for the evening while the parents were out, and so told the little girl that a:

    horrible Black Man…was hidden in the room to catch her the moment she left her bed…[Then] she made a huge figure of a black man with frightful staring eyes and an enormous mouth, and placed it at the foot of the bed where the little innocent child was fast asleep. As soon as the evening was over…[she] went back to her charge. Opening the door quietly, she beheld the little girl sitting up in her bed, staring in an agony of terror at the fearful monster before her, both hands convulsively grasping her fair hair. She was stone dead!

    By the nineteenth century’s socializing mode, some parents no longer needed to terrorize, beat and sexually seduce their children, and more gentle psychological means began to be used to “socialize” the child. The socializing mode is still the main model of upbringing in Western nations, featuring the mother as trainer and the father as provider and protector, and the child is seen as slowly being made to conform to the parents’ model of goodness. Many of the abusive practices are reduced in the home but remain elsewhere in society. While Elizabeth I was sexually seduced as a girl by her caretakers and Louis XV had Madame du Barry procure little girls for the King to rape in his royal bedroom, by the nineteenth century parents would less often commit incest themselves but still sent their children to schools where they were erotically whipped on the bare buttocks and usually buggered by the older boys and masters. As John Addington Symonds reported his experience as a boy at public school:

    Every boy of good looks had a female name, and was recognized either as a public prostitute or as some bigger fellow’s ‘bitch.’ Bitch was the word in common usage to indicate a boy who yielded his person to a lover. The talk in the dormitories and the studies was incredibly obscene. Here and there one could not avoid seeing acts of onanism, mutual masturbation, or the sports of naked boys in bed together.

    Reformers during the nineteenth century tried to bring the rest of society into the socializing mode by legislation designed to prevent outright battering and sexual abuse of children, which of course still went on in the majority of families around them. But those who tried to oppose buggering and beating boys in schools were opposed by parents who said “It didn’t hurt me.” Those who tried to pass child labor legislation to reduce horrendous working conditions and hours were labeled Communists. And those who thought one could bring up children kindly were considered impractical visionaries.

    Even so, the decrease in parental seduction and beating during the intrusive mode produced an explosion of social innovation, allowing nations to produce the democratic and industrial revolutions of the modern period. As Hanns Sachs pointed out long ago in his paper “The Delay of the Machine Age,” when people in antiquity first invented the steam engine, they dared to use it only for children’s toys. It was only after fifteen centuries of childrearing evolution that steam could finally begin to be used by less fearful and more individuated adults to provide power for the benefit of mankind. As hellfire and physical discipline were replaced by other childrearing methods, it was the socializing psychoclass that built the modern world, with its democratic, innovative and class-dominated society.

    What kind of society might be envisioned by children brought up under the latest childrearing mode – what I have termed the helping mode – whereby a minority of parents are now trying to help their children reach their own goals at each stage of life, rather than socializing them into adult goals – is yet to be seen. I suspect it will be far less class-centered and more empathic of others than is the socializing modern world with which we are familiar. That helping mode children grow up to be incapable of creating wars is also becoming evident from watching the anti-war activities of my children and those of their friends who have been brought up by other helping mode parents.
    For war is only understandable as a sacrificial ritual in which young men are sent by their parents to be hurt and killed as representatives of the independence-seeking parts of themselves. Psychohistorians have regularly found that images on the magazine covers and in political cartoons in the months prior to wars reveal fears of the nation becoming “too soft” and vulnerable, with images of dangerous women threatening to engulf and hurt people. These regressed group-fantasies eventually produce so much anxiety that a sacrifice of innocent victims is deemed necessary, and another nation who also needs a sacrifice is located. So regular are these group-fantasies in the media that I was able to forecast, for instance, the recent Persian Gulf War months before Iraq invaded Kuwait by locating in the American media an upsurge in imagery of devouring mommies and guilty children needing punishment.

    That periodic sacrifices are in fact lawful is suggested by the regularity with which they occur, nearly every state producing a major war on the average of about every 25 years throughout the past two millennia. In between wars, periodic economic sacrifices serve to relieve our guilt for too much prosperity and to cleanse us of our dangerous economic and social progress. Depth psychology has shown that in individuals progress toward individuation and success often produces regression, including both fears of leaving mommy and wishes for maternal re-engulfment, along with fears of losing one’s self. In nations, the same thing occurs after periods of rapid change and prosperity, and is defended against by the sacrificial ritual called war.

    That all social violence – whether by war, revolution or economic exploitation – is ultimately a consequence of child abuse should not surprise us. The propensity to reinflict childhood traumas upon others in socially-approved violence is actually far more able to explain and predict the actual outbreak of wars than the usual economic motivations, and we are likely to continue to undergo our periodic sacrificial rituals of war if the infliction of childhood trauma continues.

    Clear evidence has been published in The Journal of Psychohistory that the more traumatic one’s childhood, the more one is likely to be in favor of military solutions to social problems. Technologically, the human race is now quite able to satisfy its needs – if we can live together without violence. But unless we now employ our social resources toward consciously assisting the evolution of childrearing, we will be doomed to the periodic destruction of our resources, both material and human. To Selma Freiberg’s dicta that “Trauma demands repetition” I would only add “repetition in social behavior.”

    We cannot be content to only continue to do endless repair work on damaged adults, with more jails and police and therapists and political movements. Our task now must be to create an entirely new profession of “child helpers” who can reach out to every new child born on earth and help its parents give it love and independence.

    Such a parent outreach movement is already under way in a few cities, and special issues of The Journal of Psychohistory have been published to document its operation. A special issue on “Changing Childhood” is the most recent to be published, showing the success of parent outreach projects in several states. The success of parenting centers such as the one pioneered in Boulder, Colorado, for instance, has been astonishing. Through parenting classes and home visiting by paraprofessionals, they have measurably reduced child abuse, as shown by careful follow-up studies and by reduced police reports and hospital entrance rates. All this has been accomplished with very small monetary outlays, since these parent outreach centers operate mainly with volunteer labor, while it has the potential to save trillions of dollars annually in the costs of social violence, police enforcement, jails and other consequences of the widespread child abuse of today.

    Such a parent support movement would resemble the universal education movement of over a century ago. People then objected to providing universal education, by saying,

    “Well, yes, perhaps free education is useful for all children – but that would require hiring millions of teachers. How can we afford it?”

    We, too, admit that we will eventually need millions of parent helpers to teach parents how to bring up children and produce non-violent adults. But the teaching of parenting is just the unfinished half – the most important half – of the free education movement of the past, with its goal the empowerment of children to realize their innate capacities for love and work.

    Changing childhood is a communal task. And it works. In 1979, Sweden passed a law saying that hitting children was as unlawful as hitting adults! Imagine the audacity! Children were people, just like adults! Parents who hit their children weren’t put into jail – that would just deprive the children of their caretakers. But the parents were taught how to bring up children without hitting them. And at the same time, high school students were taught how to bring up children without violence. By now, 20 years later, these high school students have their own children, and…surprise! They don’t hit them!

    To those who object to the cost of communities helping all parents, we can only reply:

    Can we afford not to teach parenting?

    What more important task can we devote our resources to?

    Do we really want to have massive armies and jails and emotionally crippled adults forever?

    Must each generation continue to torture and neglect its children so they repeat the violence and economic exploitation of previous generations?

    Why not achieve meaningful political and social revolution by first achieving a parenting revolution?

    If war, social violence, class domination and economic destruction of wealth are really revenge rituals for childhood trauma, how else can we remove the source of these rituals?

    How else end child abuse and neglect? How else increase the real wealth of nations, our next generation? How else achieve a world of love and laughter of which we are truly capable?

    It appears we have our work cut out for us.

    Information about the annual National Parenting Conference can be obtained by writing Robert McFarland, M.D., 2300 Kalmia, Boulder, CO 80304.
    Lloyd deMause is Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory and President of The International Psychohistorical Association and can be reached at 140 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10024. He is author of The History of Childhood, Foundations of Psychohistory and Reagan’s America.

    This article is based upon extensive primary source material fully referenced in the over 600 footnotes contained in the following sources:
    1. Lloyd deMause, “The Evolution of Childhood.” in his Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots, 1982.
    2.”On Writing Childhood History.” The Journal of Psychohistory 16 (1988): 135-171.
    3.”The History of Child Assault.” The Journal of Psychohistory 18(1990): 1-29.
    4.”The Universality of Incest.” The Journal of Psychohistory 19 (1991):123-164.
    For more psychohistorical articles on child rearing go to http://www.psychohistory.com

  3. Muhammed Jacob says:


    Sigmund Freud in his 1905 work Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, outlined a theory of psychosexual development with five distinct phases:
    – The oral stage (0 – 1.5 years)
    – The anal stage (1.5 – 3.5 years)
    – The phallic stage (3.5 – 6 years) culminating in the resolution of the Oedipus conflict
    – The Latency Phase (6–12 years of age)
    – The genital, or adult stage

    Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 54b
    “Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a male child, a young one is not regarded as on a par with an old one; but a young beast is treated as an old one.23 What is meant by this? — Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that”

    “Joseph Wortis based on an interview with Freud in 1935: Freud commented that he viewed gentiles as prone to “ruthless egoism,” whereas Jews had a superior family and intellectual life. Wortis then asked Freud if he viewed Jews as a superior people. Freud replied:
    “I think nowadays they are… When one thinks that 10 or 12 of the Nobel winners are Jews, and when one thinks of their other great achievements in the sciences and in the arts, one has every reason to think them superior”
    Page 108
    The Culture of Critique
    Freud thought Gentiles were prone to “ruthless egoism” but simultaneously declared that the self-described “Chosen Ones” are “superior”? It seems he must have been projecting his own tribe’s worst characteristics onto the Gentiles, and extrapolating from there. Also, many of Freud’s own patients were Jewish, so most of his “scientific” conclusions were not scientific at all, but rather based on the psycho-analysis of a rather, ahem, psychologically skewed sampling — although his conclusions are no doubt valid for the majority population that dwells in Israel (and probably Manhattan and Hollywood).

    The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the JEWISH Bible in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):
    “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (JEWISH Bible).”
    Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:
    “Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible…God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own…anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture.”
    The Talmud (and not the JEWISH Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.
    In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the JEWISH Bible. It was the BABYLONIAN TALMUD. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.
    Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,
    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1
    Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2
    Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
    References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
    The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
    Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment:
    “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3
    In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:
    “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4
    It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.
    As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.
    But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to European lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
    Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
    What exactly did these sages say?
    The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”. Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:
    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)
    One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,
    “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” 5
    Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6
    Presumably, the majority of little Jewish boys get raped before they are nine by Rabbis. They get caught doing this constantly.
    A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:
    “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7
    The JEWISH Talmud also says,
    “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” 8
    Clearly, the JEWISH Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.
    R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 55b)
    A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yebamoth. 57b)
    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
    It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)
    The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
    The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9
    But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
    The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.
    “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
    The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.
    “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest anymore.” 10
    The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,
    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11
    In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
    Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
    Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:
    There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.
    The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,
    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12
    These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but
    “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
    In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:
    “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
    The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
    Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
    The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honoured by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.
    9 Sanhedrin 55a.
    10 Kethuboth 11a.
    11 Kethuboth 11b.
    12 Yebamoth 60b.
    13 Sanhedrin 76b.
    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Kethuboth 11b.
    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing …like putting a finger in the eye”
    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Menahoth 43b-44a.
    “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave”.
    Cases of Clergy Abuse
    Case of Shlomo Aviner (Rosh Yeshiva, Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva, Rabbi of Beit El, Israel)
    Case of Rabbi Lewis Brenner (Convicted of child molestation. The original charges included 14 counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of sodomy in the third degree, a Class E felony, in exchange for a sentence of five years’ probation.)
    Case of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks (Accusations about sexual inappropriate behavior with children started surfacing in the 1980’s. Rabbi Bryks is currently a member of the Vaad Harabonim of Queens. The Vaad is a Rabbinical committee that makes important decisions within an orthodox community.)
    Case of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach (Accused of several cases of child molestation, and sexual assault of young women)
    Case Rabbi Perry Ian Cohen – Montreal and Toronto Canada (Accused of sexual abuse of a seventeen year old. Fired for sexual impropriety with congregants)
    Case of Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen (Accused of sexually harassing students at Bar-Ilan University)
    Case of Rabbi Ephraim Goldberg – Boca Raton, Flordia (Pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of exposure of sexual organs in a washroom at a Palm Beach Mall.)
    Case of Rabbi/Cantor Sidney Goldenberg (Convicted of molesting children. The first complaints came in 1971. He was finally convicted in 1997.)
    Case of Cantor Joel Gordon (Convicted of having keeping a house of prostitution and involvement in a prostitution ring.)
    Case of Rabbi Israel Grunwald (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. The charge against him were dropped after agreeing to perform 500 hours of community service and to seek counseling. Grunwald was the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas).
    Case of The State of Israel Vs. Sex Offender (Convicted of repeated rape and forced molestation of his graddaughter.)
    Case of Yehudah Friedlander – Rabbi ‘s Assistant (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. Friedlander was the assistant to the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas)
    Case of the Rabbi at Hillel Torah, Chicago, IL (A teacher at the Chicago school was accused of child molestation. His name was not released. The school did everything correctly in attempting to keep the children safe once accusations were made.)
    Case of Rabbi Solomon Hafner (Accused of sexually abusing a developmentally disabled boy)
    Case of Rabbi (Alan J.) Shneur Horowitz (Convicted and sentenced to 10 – 20 years in prison for sodomizing a nine-year-old psychiatric patient. Allegedly, he has assaulted a string of children from California to Israel to New York in the past twenty years. Alan J. Horowitz is an Orthodox rabbi, magna cum laude, M.D., Ph.D. A graduate of Duke University, and was a writer for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).
    Case of Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)
    Case of Rabbi Israel Kestenbaum (Accused of child pornography on the internet)
    Case of Rabbi Robert Kirschner (Accused of sexually exploited or harassing three congregants and a synagogue employee)
    Case of Rabbi Ze’ev Kopolevitch (Convicted of molesting students at Rosh Yeshiva, Netiv Meir yeshiva high school)
    Case of Rabbi Baruch Lanner (Convicted – child molestation.)
    Case of Rabbi Jerrold Martin Levy (Convicted of two counts of soliciting sex through the Internet and two counts of child pornography. He was sentenced to six years and sex in prison. He was caught in the “Candyman” year-long sting operation by the US government.)
    Case of Rabbi Pinchas Lew (Accused of exposed himself to a woman.)
    Case of Rabbi/Psychologist Mordecai Magencey (lost his license to practice in the State of Missouri because of his sexual misconduct with his patients.)
    Case of Rabbi Richard Marcovitz (Convicted of indecent or lewd acts with a child, and sexual battery)
    Case of Rabbi Juda Mintz (Convicted – internet sting on child pornography)
    Rabbi Yona Metzger (Accused of sexually misconduct with four men)
    Case of Rabbi Avrohom Mondrowitz (Accused of two counts of sex abuse with boys at a special education school in New York)
    Case of Cantor Howard Nevison (Accused of molesting his nephew)
    Case of Rabbi Michael Ozair (Accused of sexual molestation of a then-14-year-old girl)
    Case of Cantor Stanley Rosenfeld (Convicted of molesting a 12-year-old boy he was tutoring.)
    Case of Rabbi Charles Shalman (Accused of sexual misconduct toward female congregational members)
    Case of Cantor Robert Shapiro (Accused of three counts of rape and four counts of indecent assault and battery to a mentally retarded woman)
    Case of Cantor Michael Segelstein (Accused of attempted rape; Chabad – Las Vegas, Nevada)
    Case of Rabbi Ze’ev Sultanovitch (Accused of sexually molesting a number of adult yeshiva students at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva)
    Case of Rabbi Melvin Teitelbaum (Accused of three counts of sex crimes against two boys under the age of 14, and one count of assault with intent to commit rape against one boy’s mother. The charges were dropped for lack of evidenced)
    Case of Rabbi Isadore Trachtman (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)
    Case of Rabbi Hirsch Travis (Rabbi in Monsey, accused of posing as a Brooklyn doctor specializing in infertility problems, and allegedly sexually abusing and assaulting a patient.)
    Case of Rabbi Matis Weinberg (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)
    Case of Rabbi Yaakov Weiner (Accused of molesting boy at Camp Mogen Avraham, New York)
    Case of Rabbi Don Well
    Case of Cantor Phillip Wittlin (Convicted of molesting two girls)
    Case of Rabbi Mordechai Yomtov (Convicted of sexual abuse and committing lewd acts against three boys)
    Case of Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman (Violated guidelines concerning “sexual ethics and sexual boundaries,” )
    Case of Rabbi Max Zucker (Accused by three women of improperly touching)
    And Other Trusted Officals (Parents, Teachers, Camp Counselors, etc.)
    Case of Arie Adler and Marisa Rimland, NY (Arie Adler was accused of molesting his daughter. Marisa Rimland murdered her daughter, and then committed suicide).
    Case of Simcha Adler – Ohel Counselor, NY (Plea-bargained charges of sodomy, sexual abuse and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child down to attempted sodomy.)
    Case of Eugene Loub Aronin – School Counselor, TX (Convicted in 1984 of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy)
    Case of B’Nai Torah Congegation – Hillel Community Day School janitor, Boca Raton, FL (Accused of child molestation)
    Case of Chaim Ciment (Accused and charged with first-degree sexual abuse, after allegations were made that he fondled a 17 year old girl in an elevator).
    Case of James A. Cohen – Jewish Youth Group Leader (Convicted child molester, sentenced to 9 years for assaulting 4 boys)
    Case of Larry Cohen – Soccer Coach, Lake Oswego, OR (Accused of molesting two individuals.)
    Case of Lawrence Cohen – School Teacher, NJ (Convicted and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for transmitting child pornography through his home computer).
    Case of Phillip “Eli” Cohen, London, England (Accused of 13 charges of indecently assaulting a boy and four offences of indecently assaulting a girl)
    Case of Stuart Cooperman, MD – Pediatrican, Merrick, New York (Accused of molesting six female patience).
    Case of Delaware Family (Father accused of alleged child molestation)
    Case of Mordechai (Morton) Ehrman – Simcha’s Play Group, Brooklyn, NY (Accused of molesting dozens of students).
    Case of Hbrandon Lee Flagner (Convicted of the kidnapping and aggravated murder of Tiffany Jennifer Papesh a 8-year-old girl. Flagner also claimed to have molested hundreds of girls during his life. While in prison, Flagner convert to Judaism by an Chasidic rabbi.)
    Case of Arnold and Jesse Friedman (Capturing the Friedmans) (Convicted sex offender)
    Case of Richard “Steve” Goldberg (Allegedly engaging in sex acts with several girls under 10 in California. He is on the FBI’s ten most wanted fugitives list)
    Case of Ross Goldstein (Convicting of sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and use of a child in a sexual performance. He was Sentenced to four concurrent indeterminated terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment. Also see: Case of Arnold and Jesse Friedman)
    Case of Several Child Sex Offenders in Har Nof 0 Jerusalem, Israel (Outlines several cases of alleged child sex offenders in the charedi town of Har Nof)
    Case of David B. Harrington – School Principal / Big Brother, Rockville, MD (Convicted sex offender. Cases from the 1960’s – 1980’s.)
    Case of State of Israel Vs. a Sex Offender (Convicted – 68 year old Israeli religious man pled guilty to repeated molestation of his granddaughter, was sentenced to 19 years in jail.
    Case of Eric Hindin – Jewish Big Brother Volunteer, Newton, MA (Convicted of 35 counts of child rape. He was sentenced to 20-22 years in prison).
    Case of Judge Ronald Kline, CA (Accused of possessing child pornography and for allegedly molesting a neighborhood boy 25 years ago).
    Case of the Kosher Butcher in Chicago (Accused of molesting children for over 30 years)
    Case of Lawrence Nevison – (Convicted of molesting his nephew. He is the brother of Cantor Howard Nevison)
    Case of Stuart Nevison – (Convicted of molesting his cousin. He is the brother of Cantor Howard Nevison)
    The Case of the Students of Ner Israel Yeshiva in the 1950’s (Students accused of sexually molesting a younger student)
    Case of the New York Society for the Deaf’s Home (Accused of treating disabled patients “like animals,” beaten, drugged and robbed of their government checks).

    Case of Ozzie Orbach, M.D. (Accused of molesting his daughter)
    Case of the Rogers Park JCC, Chicago Illinois (This was the first case of alleged mass molestation recorded in Illinois to involve accusations of sexual abuse by a group of adults, consists of 246 allegations that staff members abused children enrolled at the center, according to the Illinois Department of children and Family Services).
    Case of Jonathan Rosenthal – Community Police Liason, London, England (Acquitted of sexually assaulting a few children, after a jury used ancient common law right, deciding evidence wasn’t strong enough.)
    Case of Adam Theodore Rubin – Teacher, Coach and Girl Scout Coordinator (Accused of using a computer to solicit sex with a minor, possession of a controlled dangerous substance and possession of drug paraphernalia).
    Case of Georges Schteinberg – Teacher, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Accused of possession of child pornography. Charges dropped when Schteinberg fled the country).
    Case of Aryeh Scher – Israeli vice-consul, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Accused of possession of child pornography. Charges dropped when Scher fled the country).
    Case of David Schwartz – Camp Counselor, Culver City, CA (Convicted and sentenced to one year in residential treatment and five years’ probation for molesting a 4-year-old boy in his care at summer camp. A six-year prison sentence was suspended).
    Case of Jerrold Schwartz – Scoutmaster, NY (Convicted and sentanced to 8 years in prison for multiple counts of sodomizing his former scout ).
    Case of Irwin Silverman – Chief Counsel to U.S. secretary of interior 1933-53 (Accused of molesting his daughter Sue William Silverman. )
    Case of Paul Slifer – Teacher (Accused of sexually assaulting a several students, and impersonating a doctor. )
    Case of Ari Sorkin – Synagogue Youth Worker, Elkins Park, PA (Accused of molesting a 16 yr. old girl)
    Case of Tel Aviv Arts School, Tel Aviv, Israel
    Case of Dr. Saul and Judith Wasserman (Accused of molesting their daughter)
    Case of David Douglas Webber – Mashgiach (Kashrut Supervisor), Canada (Convicted and sentenced to six years for possessing child pornography and molesting seven boys over the past eight years).
    Let me cut right to the chase: The title for this essay should really be “The Specifically Jewy Perviness of Harvey Weinstein,” which, as luck would have it, is in fact the title of a short entry by Jewish writer Max Oppenheimer in the very Jewish magazine Tablet. This Jewish writer opines that “Harvey, sadly, is a deeply Jewish kind of pervert.”
    Okay, I’m good with that. It fits the facts.
    What is this “perversion”? Well, Herr Oppenheimer kindly explains how it is common for Jewish men to lust after women with a “non-Jewish origin,” or, to be more specific, White non-Jewish women. As Oppenheimer writes about the targets of Weinstein’s lust,
    “It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women — Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc. — was a Gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy . . .”
    Now what’s all this talk about revenge? And what does that have to do with non-Jewish women? To unpack all of this, I’m going to have to go back in literary history to a Jewish American writer few of my readers under age forty (or fifty?) will even know: Philip Roth.
    Needless to say, Oppenheimer knows this history, which is why he employs the following subtitle to his piece:
    “The disgraced film producer is a character straight out of Philip Roth, playing out his revenge fantasies on the Goyim.”

    Before visiting what Roth has written, however, I must offer a brief description of the word “shiksa” and its manifestation in American film.
    Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1994) defines shiksa as:
    n. Yiddish 1. A girl or woman who is not Jewish. 2. A Jewish girl or woman whose attitudes and behavior are felt to resemble those of a gentile. Cf. shegetz.
    If only it were that simple. As it turns out, there is a far deeper, darker meaning to the term. For instance, Rabbi Daniel Gordis, in the glossary of his book Does the World Need the Jews? mentions the word’s pejorative roots:
    “shiksah — a Yiddish word for a non-Jewish woman, which has a terribly derogatory connotation.” Orthodox Jew Yossi Klein Halevi concurs, writing in his book Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist that shiksa is a “nasty Yiddish word implying ‘slut.’”

    Author David Brenner and Leo Rosten (in his popular The Joys of Yiddish) both agree that the word means “blemish.”
    Perhaps it is the late Israel Shahak, however, who best explains the word’s true meaning. In his important work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3000 Years (get the pdf of the book here), Shahak notes that the Megiddo Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, defines the word as:
    “unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination . . .”
    Now, do any of you recall the way Woody Allen pokes fun at psychoanalysts in the film Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex? It seems a man in the film is quite enamored of his sexual relationship with a sheep. Thus, there may be two levels of humor at work here: the surface level where comic discrepancy is obvious (sex with a sheep vs. shiksa), but also the intimately Jewish one where only one schooled in Hebrew or Yiddish might connect the animal to Shahak’s etymology of the word shiksa.
    In fact, this likely explains the scene in the film where the psychoanalyst, played by Gene Wilder (yes, he’s Jewish) has an Armenian patient who confesses to sex with a ewe named Daisy. Watch that scene. Now, armed with the above knowledge, you may see why Wilder is about to burst out laughing. We can assume the inside Jewish word joke is part of it, but there is also the humor that likely comes from once again “pulling one over on the goyim,” who will miss the entire subtext of the (Jewish) joke — all at the expense of us goyim.
    (The theme appears again in the movie in the scene featuring a rabbi “whose secret fantasy is to be whipped by a statuesque shiksa while his wife eats pork.” If you’re confused by all these images, be patient, for we’ll get to detailed explanations soon.)
    Because Hollywood is certainly a Jewish milieu, scores of films are filled with shiksa themes large and small, and Woody Allen is just one Jew who mines the theme. There are many others. In the breakthrough film Lenny (1974), for example, a film starring Jewish actor Dustin Hoffman as renegade comedian Lenny Bruce (born Leonard Schneider), we see the quintessential shiksa lust scene: Bruce bursts into a room, intent on meeting his blonde girlfriend, and is stunned to see her posing naked for him. Transfixed, he quivers and intones, “Oh yeah. Oh yeah. It’s a shiksa goddess.” (By the way, Wiki tells us that “Lenny has received a rare ‘100% Fresh’ score on the review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes based on 16 reviews.”)
    There are any number of useful books on Jews and Jewish themes in Hollywood film, beginning with Patricia Erens’ The Jew in American Cinema. As one example of the shiksa theme, she points to the 1963 film Come Blow Your Horn as a typical specimen of Jewish men’s yearning for the shiksa, or, in Erens’s words, “the Jewish male’s search for sexual fulfillment, especially among large-breasted flighty Gentile women.” In this movie, “Alan and Buddy seek a carnal experience which they associate with the Shiksa. For them this provides a measure of independence, as well as acceptance in non-Jewish society.”
    The shiksa theme, then, can be viewed from a variety of angles. Within an exclusively Jewish setting, it can be seen as a discourse on the limits Jewish culture sets for its adherents: it is taboo for males to go outside the group for sex or for mating. Perhaps no one has understood the deep roots of this discourse and their lamentable influence on American culture better than sociologist John Murray Cuddihy, author of the seminal 1974 work The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, a book I would only recommend to the most serious scholars of The Jewish Question.
    In tandem with what Erens writes, Cuddihy agrees that shiksa lust represents an internal Jewish drama: the lure of the non-Jewish women is always threatening to tear the Jewish male away from his own tribe. Cuddihy, however, takes this further, writing that
    In Freud, the deepest taboo of Judaism, the taboo against intermarriage, the forbidden lust of the Jew for the Gentile shiksa, for the shiksa as “the promise of fulfillment,” is rationalized, psychologized, and reinterpreted as the desire for the mother, which desire” he continues, “is held taboo by everyone, of course, not just by Jews.” The particularist, ritual taboo of the Jewish subculture — intermarriage, connubium — is reconceptualized (and psychologized) as the universalist, “scientific,” anthropological taboo on incest.”
    Of course, since Freud’s ideas had their popular impact during “The Jewish Century,” his bizarre theories were imposed on an unwitting American public, which suffered for decades from this Jewish assault. (For more on this, see MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, Chapter 4, “Jewish Involvement In The Psychoanalytic Movement.”) Our point, here, however, is to introduce the theme of the shiksa to a wider Gentile public and to tie it into the current uproar over Harvey Weinstein’s case. And that finally leads us to that most Jewish of authors, Philip Roth.
    That “Informer to the Goyim,” Philip Roth
    Roth began writing in the midst of what we can think of as the “Jewish American literary onslaught,” as Jews practically took over publishing fiction in America, and Jewish authors shouldered aside non-Jewish writers. Any English student at an American university from 1970–2000 or so would be familiar with the names: Abraham Cahan, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Joseph Brodsky, Henry Roth, Bernard Malamud, Chaim Potok, Saul Bellow, E.L. Doctorow, J.D. Salinger (half), Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag (“Goys are the cancer of human history”), Erika Jong, Cynthia Ozick and so many others.
    Error! Filename not specified.Roth came to the fore with the publication of his 1959 novel Goodbye, Columbus, an autobiographically humorous look at Jewish life in the greater New York area. It was with Portnoy’s Complaint, however, written a decade later, that Roth gained stardom. In synch with the times, this novel shocked the elders of that era, including many older Jews, for Roth was explicitly revealing to the goyim many of the negative traits commonly found among American Jews. He was also revealing many of the negative attitudes Jews held with respect to their goy countrymen, an offense which prompted John Cuddihy to label Roth an “informer to the goyim.”
    Portnoy’s Complaint is, in so many ways, the story of Roth himself, a tactic which became his trademark. Wiki notes that the book amounts to a “humorous and sexually explicit psychoanalytical monologue of ‘a lust-ridden, mother-addicted young Jewish bachelor,’ filled with ‘intimate, shameful detail, and coarse, abusive language.’” And that it is.
    For example — and central to our purposes in this essay — protagonist Alexander Portnoy chronicles his sexual escapades with his shiksa sex object, whom he cruelly nicknames “The Monkey.” Throughout the novel, Roth describes how Portnoy humiliates this Christian girl with all manner of explicit sexual acts. Roth’s characterization of Portnoy’s vicious contempt for “The Monkey” represents perfectly the easily established hostility American Jews hold for the Christian majority.
    Consider this long passage Roth wrote that describes the depth of longing for a non-Jewish girl. At this point in the story, it is not particularly hostile, but it does give us a stunningly frank insider description of Jewish male attitudes:
    Shikses! In winter, when the polio germs are hibernating and I can bank upon surviving outside of an iron lung until the end of the school year, I ice-skate on the lake in Irvington Park. . . . I skate round and round in circles behind the shikses who live in Irvington. . . But the shikses, ah, the shikses are something else again. Between the smell of damp sawdust and wet wool in the overheated boathouse, and the sight of their fresh cold blond hair spilling out of their kerchiefs and caps, I am ecstatic. Amidst these flushed and giggling girls, I lace up my skates with weak, trembling fingers, and then out into the cold and after them I move, down the wooden gangplank on my toes and off onto the ice behind a fluttering covey of them — a nosegay of shikses, a garland of gentile girls. I am so awed that I am in a state of desire beyond a hard-on. My circumcised little dong is simply shriveled up with veneration. . . . How do they get so gorgeous, so healthy, so blond? My contempt for what they believe in is more than neutralized by my adoration of the way they look, the way they move and laugh and speak — the lives they must lead behind those goyische curtains! Maybe a pride of shikses is more like it . . .
    So: dusk on the frozen lake of a city park, skating behind the puffy red earmuffs and the fluttering yellow ringlet of a strange shikse teaches me the meaning of the word longing. It is almost more than an angry thirteen-year-old little Jewish Momma’s Boy can bear. Forgive the luxuriating, but these are probably the most poignant hours of my life I’m talking about — I learn the meaning of the word longing, I learn the meaning of the word pang. There go the darling things dashing up the embankment, clattering along the shoveled walk between the evergreens . . . I want Jane Powell too, God damn it! And Corliss and Veronica. I too want to be the boyfriend of Debbie Reynolds — it’s the Eddie Fisher in me coming out, that’s all, the longing in all us swarthy Jewboys for those bland blond exotics called shikses . . .
    In a later scene, however, the brilliant Portnoy, having just recited a famous poem, reveals to his blonde lover (“The Monkey”) the name of the poet — William Butler Yeats — but immediately realizes:
    “how tactless I had been, with what insensitivity I had drawn attention to the chasm: I am smart and you are dumb . . .”

    Later, Portnoy happens upon a note she has written and responds:

    “I am just face to face with my first specimen of The Monkey’s handwriting. A note to the cleaning lady. Though at first glance I imagine it must be a note from the cleaning lady . . .”
    dir willa polish the flor by bathrum pleze & dont furget the insies of windose mary jane r
    Portnoy reads the note three times, finding new meaning with each reading, the most significant of which he describes:
    Oh that z, that z between the two e’s of “pleze” — this is a mind with the depths of a movie marquee! And “furget”! Exactly how a prostitute would misspell that word! But it’s something about the mangling of “dear,” that tender syllable of affection now collapsed into three lower-case letters, that strikes me as hopelessly pathetic. . . . This woman is ineducable and beyond reclamation.
    Despite this contempt — or perhaps because of it — Portnoy continues his sexual relationship with his shiksa, “The Monkey.”
    Was this at all motivated by revenge fantasies, though? In fact, it becomes easy to argue that it is because Roth himself tells us so. In passages related to the Quiz Show scandal of the 50s, the author inserts a scene into the book that portrays a naked, viscerally anti-goy animus:
    I was on the staff of the House subcommittee investigating the television scandals. . . . and then of course that extra bonus, Charlatan Van Doren. Such character, such brains and breeding, that candor and schoolboyish charm — the ur-WASP, wouldn’t you say? And turns out he’s a fake. Well, what do you know about that, Gentile America? Supergoy, a gonif! Steals money. Covets money. Wants money, will do anything for it. Goodness gracious me, almost as bad as Jews — you sanctimonious WASPs!
    Yes, I was one happy yiddel down there in Washington, a little Stern gang of my own, busily exploding Charlie’s honor and integrity, while simultaneously becoming lover to that aristocratic Yankee beauty whose forebears arrived on these shores in the seventeenth century. Phenomenon known as Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.
    Did you get that last line? “Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.” Harvey Weinstein, is that how you also felt? Is that why Max Oppenheimer writes,
    “The disgraced film producer [Weinstein] is a character straight out of Philip Roth, playing out his revenge fantasies on the Goyim”?
    If you are still not convinced Roth’s character Portnoy is filled with revenge fantasies, then consider Portnoy’s telling confession to his psychiatrist in another scene.
    “What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds — as though through fucking I will discover America. Conquer American — maybe that’s more like it.”
    Quite frankly, I think readers should copy these quotes and share them with any friends or family willing to listen. Then talk about the Weinstein article. Show them Max Oppenheimer’s piece, too. Try to explain this Jewish mentality to them. Though you need not necessarily mention it explicitly, try to get across the message that Jews constitute much of the elite in this country — and many of those Jews are hostile toward the people they rule — hostile toward us. This goes a long way toward explaining our current situation, I maintain.
    This theme of Jewish men lusting after and abusing shiksas is in the news now but it deserves attention on its own anyway. Thus, I plan to do two or three more essays in this series to further explore the topic. For instance, I’ll take an in-depth look at how Dustin Hoffman often plays a character with a shiksa love interest, beginning with that blatantly Jewish film The Graduate. I will also look at Ben Stiller films as well, then possibly move on to examples from television.
    This is the kind of stuff we should be learning in graduate seminars, but instead most students are learning harmful nonsense about “White male privilege,” tranny rights, and the sorrows of Sitting Bull and such. Nothing about Jewish power and privilege, let alone the deeper attitudes Jews hold toward the vast non-Jewish world they rule over.
    Stay tuned.
    PS: I can’t help but add one peeve I have had ever since reading “Portnoy’s Complaint” years ago: Why didn’t the objects of Roth’s scorn rise up and crush the assailant? Why did those Baby Boomers think the whole thing was just one fine joke? “Oh, how clever!” they would say. “Oh, how naughty!” Those Boomers back then should have known that this literary assault was part and parcel of the Jewish assault on all parts of Western civilization. Now we who have inherited this fallen world must deal with the consequences, with the Harvey Weinsteins and their ilk. Thanks, Boomers.
    by Edmund Connelly, Ph. D.