Making “Social Science”
by Revilo P. Oliver (pictured, with his wife Grace Needham Oliver, in 1966)
WHEN Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, employed by the Rockefeller Foundation, published the first of his two books (1) in 1948, I paid no attention to it, assuming that it was just another bundle of the piffle that constitutes most of contemporary “sociology.” By the time the second volume appeared in 1953, the welkin was already resounding with hosannahs to the new Savior of mankind, so I read both volumes.
(footnote 1. Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (Philadelphia, Saunders, 1948), and Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female (ibidem, 1953).)
I saw at once the volumes were very important. They disclosed a most significant datum about human behaviour, to wit, that there were large numbers of Aryans who would unthinkingly accept as scientific determinations a series of entirely unsupported allegations that were purportedly based on data, supposedly obtained when unknown persons were questioned by unknown busy-bodies, and recorded in code on sheets no one would ever be permitted to see — sheets housed in a safe that was protected by a threat that the sheets would be destroyed if anyone obtained a legal right to inspect them.
The secret data, moreover, were not even classified or categorized, but treated as one lump, much as though one were to generalize about all who live in a certain city block without noting the relative proportions of cats, dogs, infants, and adult bipeds in the total. There was an assertion that the data were “representative,” but there was no classification by race, age, habitat, social position, or education — all factors known to affect gravely the kind of conduct under investigation. And what was even worse, the gullible Aryans believed findings that were disproven by their own observations and experience. (2)
(footnote 2. See the Appendix below.)
It seemed to me that far more important than the question whether the conclusions were correct was the surprising acceptance of them by persons who should have known something of the methodology of science. At that time, had anyone claimed that he had proved the existence of Martians or sea serpents by taking photographs that he would let no one see, only lame brains would have been so deficient in common sense as to pay any attention to him. But Kinsey made an analogous claim, and otherwise rational people believed him! (3)
(footnote 3. Kinsey claimed that the secrecy and mystification was needed to conceal the identity of the persons who had answered questions for his unidentified inquisitors, but that was obviously a feeble pretext. For one thing, he also said that names and addresses were not recorded on the sheets on which the replies were entered in a presumably secure code or cipher.)
Obviously the credence accorded Kinsey was not acceptance of a fact that had been scientifically determined, but was of the same order as belief in the Christian myths, which are accepted because they excite pleasurable emotions and keep a shimmering veil between the believer and the grim world in which he lives. Kinsey’s conclusions were accepted as gospels — and with as much credulous faith. It was true that persons who firmly believed in either the tales about Jesus or Kinsey’s findings usually disapproved of the other, but that was only to be expected. It was also true that religious faith was emotional and necessarily uncritical and irrational, while faith in Kinsey was represented as an intellectual conviction, but one could not but observe that both faiths were based on assumptions about the validity of evidence that, by its very nature, could not be tested and empirically verified.
The two volumes were significant because they proved two things: 1) that there was a general and shocking ignorance of valid science and the requirements of scientific proof; and 2) that the phenomenal credulity attested a native or acquired lust to preconize and invert the sexual fixations that Christianity had inherited from its Jewish authors. (4)
(footnote 4. By a nice irony, all Christian denominations are now agitated by endless discussion of, and violent controversies about, sexuality of all kinds.)
There was, of course, some dissent in the rush to believe for the sake of believing what one wants to believe. Some holy men thought the conclusions absurd, although many accepted them as conclusive proof that everyone ought to be dosed with lots of Jesus. Professional interests likewise evoked dissent from Freudian psychiatrists whenever Kinsey’s results conflicted with their own Jewish cult. Some old-fashioned Americans, who adhered to Victorian or, at least, Edwardian standards, snorted “bosh” or “nonsense,” but supported their brusque rejection with no more than appeal to the known conduct of their friends and respectable acquaintances, and thereafter ignored an imminent threat to their nation. Some moralists irately attacked Kinsey’s work, usually on the grounds that while it was probably correct, it should be suppressed or denied in keeping with the distinctively Christian policy of edifying people morally by lying to them.
The only effective challenge of Kinsey’s work that I can now call to mind was, oddly enough, directed at his second volume, which was, in reported methodology, slightly the less fallacious of the two. In Kinsey’s Myth of Female Sexuality (New York, Grune & Stratton, 1954), two gynaecologists, Drs. Edmund Bergler and William S. Kroger, impugned Kinsey’s book on the only really cogent grounds by denying its accuracy and its authors’ veracity. After pointing out how spurious was the methodology concealed in specious claims, they proceeded to show that the “non-medical generalizations” were largely at variance with what was medically observed by gynaecologists, who necessarily had to ascertain accurately the sexual propensities and conduct of their patients before dealing with their sexual maladies. So far as I know, their protest was generally ignored as “educators,” “sociologists,” the practitioners of “social science,” and politicians gleefully rushed to apply the new gospel, as Procrustes had applied his beds, to every victim over whom they had acquired power during the Americans’ headlong rush to serfdom.
In 1964, Gershon Legman, who had been one of Kinsey’s associates, his conscience perhaps aroused by perception of the havoc that was being wrought in American society, confessed that he had served Kinsey, whose purpose was to create and disseminate propaganda that would radically change the sexual conduct and habits of the American people by making male homosexuality, promiscuity, paederasty, and many other perversions acceptable to them, and by encouraging them with pseudo-scientific fabrications to emulate what they had abominated as degeneracy. His confession was, however, ignored, and the promoters of the purposes named by Mr. Legman triumphantly consummated their revolution of sexual morals and mores in the United States, especially by driving the new gospel into the heads of children whose thoughtless or unfeeling parents sent them into the tax-supported boob-hatcheries to have their minds pickled in “humanitarian” slop, and by forcing the hapless children to behave as their captors demanded.
Kinsey’s gospel was generally accepted with enthusiasm and fulsomely described as “the cornerstone of almost everything that is known about human sexuality.” It was Revealed Truth with a vengeance — a vengeance everyone pretended not to perceive.
Such works as Jess Stearn’s The Sixth Man (New York, Doubleday, 1961), which purports to present “facts, not opinions” without prejudice, were, of course, spawned by Kinsey’s statistics, and even speak of a “spread” of perversion without reference to Kinsey’s propaganda to the effect that perversion was natural and normal, at least for every sixth — or fifth — American male.
What is amazing is that no one undertook an independent study to check the accuracy of Kinsey’s statistics. I remember that a psychologist to whom I suggested such a project as a feasible road to celebrity gave me the look I would have been given by a Christian dervish, had I suggested an investigation of the genealogy of his Jesus. He roundly denounced my impious suggestion as absurd, for the facts were already known!
Only after forty years of intensive sabotage of American children has the basic fact about Kinsey’s research been disclosed to his victims by Drs. John H. Court and J. Gordon Muir: Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, the Indoctrination of a People (Lafayette, Louisiana; Huntington House, 1991).
After forty years, it is now obvious that Kinsey perpetrated an enormous fraud, almost as flagrant as the Jews’ great Holohoax. Like Marx, he set out to create data that he could use to “prove” the hoax he was contriving.
I suspected that much or all of Kinsey’s data was based on replies that he and his employees had simply concocted. It now appears, however, that, like so many takers of polls, he made sure of the answers he would get by asking questions of persons whom he knew to be certain or likely to give the answers that he wanted.
Fully one-fourth of the males who were interrogated were in prison or had been recently released from prison, having been convicted of crimes, usually sexual offenses. Many others were persons who came to his informants in search of advice on sexual problems they could not solve for themselves, and from this group it is probable that the replies of male perverts were given precedence over all others. Other replies to questions were obtained by hired solicitors, including the known leaders of homosexual organizations and cliques and other members of the criminal underworld. The probably unanimous responses reported by such persons were probably diluted in the statistical compilation by replies from non-perverted males to make the results credible — credible, that is, to the credulous seekers of evidence against our civilization.
The results that “prove” that children are sexually active from birth and naturally homosexual as well as “bisexual” were obtained by perverts who took babies and very young boys and manipulated them sexually until they were able to induce a simulation of an orgasm or at least an acceptance of such repeated stimulation as not repulsive. These crimes against children were used to “prove” the bizarre allegation that children of our race (and presumably other races, but we need be interested only in our own) had sexual instincts (as distinct from recognition of sexual difference) before the onset of puberty and thus were astonishingly different from all other mammals, who become sexually active only when they are sexually mature — a difference inexplicable in terms of biological evolution.
On this basis, Kinsey and the edjewgaters loudly preached their new gospel that all inhibition of sexual relations between adults, between children, and between adults with children was “cultural restraint,” it being taken for granted that culture and civilization should be hated and abolished. And by incessantly dinning this gospel into children’s minds for forty years, the desired result was obtained, the creation of hordes of perverts who could be organized by the Jews’ standard technique for destroying nations that tolerate them — organized to “demonstrate,” yell, and vote for their “rights” to exploit normal and civilized Americans. And now our streets are, from time to time, filled with mobs of sullen degenerates, called “gay” by the prostitutes of the press, proudly exhibiting their depravity as lepers exhibit their sores.
And as a final blessing from the great “scientist” who laid “the cornerstone of almost everything known about human sexuality,” the invariably deadly African Plague, usually called Acquired Immunity Deficiency, brought to this country and spread by loathsome perverts exercising their Kinsey-given rights, became an epidemic that is not only destroying perverts and niggers, but is so contagious that it is being increasingly communicated to valuable parts of our population and dooming innocent persons to slow and hideous death.
Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey was, as we all know, hired by the Rockefeller Foundation to produce the books that were immediately and generally accepted as “the cornerstone of almost everything known about human sexuality.” The Rockefellers paid him, and Kinsey delivered the goods!
Male perverts have existed from the beginning of recorded history for a wide variety of reasons, but a necessarily long discussion of the aetiology of the degeneracy must be postponed to a later occasion. Everyone knows that the incidence and concomitants of the vice has varied widely from people to people. It is, for example, commonplace among Semites, who consider it normal. There were instances of it even among our barbarous Germanic ancestors, who signified their disapproval by hanging the pervert or sinking him in a bog.
Americans, however, needed only to refer to their own personal observations. For example, in the colleges and universities with which I was acquainted, there were always one or two members of the faculty who were suspected of sexual perversion and five or six under-graduates who were suspected of being their bedfellows. They did not obtrude themselves and were not given to proselytizing, and they were not persecuted or ostracized, given the belief in personal liberty that was common among Americans in that far-off era. Men privately regarded the homosexuals as oddly given to inexplicable proclivities for which they felt a certain mild contempt, but always treated them courteously, in obedience to the rule de gustibus non est disputandum.
It is hard to say what precisely was the basis for the probably correct suspicions. A curious case is that of a blond undergraduate who had a slender and small-boned physique, and could have been a very successful as a female impersonator; he, moreover, professed a kind of aestheticism and was contemptuous of athletes, but no suspicion attached to him, although very few knew that he had a mistress who could have refuted any imputation of deficient or perverse virility.
Among the men whom I met or knew by reputation, the incidence of homosexuality was probably about 0.2% to perhaps 0.5% It is possible, of course, that there were perverts who were so discreet that they excited no suspicion, for in those placid days, before the revelations of the sexual messiah, it was not taken for granted that when two or more persons of the same sex share an apartment or a dwelling that none of them could have afforded alone, they engage in sexual intercourse. That there could have been successful discretion on a considerable scale is possible and the implication can be neither confirmed nor refuted, but anyone who lived in the society of that time will regard it as extremely improbable.
There were, of course, reports that the vice was prevalent among some groups in the lower classes, such as sailors, and among those engaged in occupations that were judged unmanly, such as ballet dancers, couturiers, and pious young men, but no one was worried. There were all sorts of crimes in the slums, too, but that did not matter in a society that seemed stable and sound, although it was even then being undermined by the Federal Reserve in preparation for its great coup in 1932.
I shall be astonished if my observations do not generally agree with those of other men of my generation, which, remember, was not senescent forty years ago.
* * *