THAT Interview

Postscript added.
The feminist leftards are so immersed in their own mantra-illustrated and bejewelled rhetoric that they do not even listen to those with a different point of view.  They do not argue from 'fact' but from what they think.  Not that they do think. They hear only themselves, even when someone carefully explains something.  Not that they hear anyone else.  To them the word "Listen" is a command and a reprove: something that YOU don't do. The 'stars' of the feminist left can do no wrong in the media's view and it takes a very clear and patient person to show them up.

So it was we watched Jordan Peterson sit and calmly suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous calumny delivered by one Cathy Newman. Peterson is a Clinical Psychologist, quite used to confronting the mad, the bad and the sad. Here he found all three. And we saw him wipe the floor with her.

Someone is going to have to mop the studio floor after too.

Bettina Arndt gave us a run down of this car-crash of an interview.

Feminism’s clay feet exposed on British television.

British journalist Douglas Murray said he’d never seen a television interview more catastrophic for the interviewer. 

Others are naming TV journalist Cathy Newman’s grilling of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson as a pivotal moment exposing modern feminism’s clay feet. 

Within three days of the 30 minute Channel 4 interview being posted on YouTube it had attracted over 2 million viewers and Newman’s performance was greeted by widespread hilarity on the twittersphere.

Channel 4 now seems to have woke up to the self-inflicted damage the interview is doing to one of the station’s stars and is in damage control with Newman playing the victim role claiming she’s receiving "vicious misogynistic abuse." 

Station management is employing extra security to deal with what they claim are threats to Newman’s safety. Whilst there is no evidence the flood of online criticism of Newman constitutes any threat, Peterson has responded by telling his supporters to constrain their comments.

Newman refused to give Peterson any credence in what he was saying, constantly reframing it to put quite different words and ideas into his mouth.  It was a 'straw man' exhibition worthy of the Tate Gallery.

He was having none of such dishonest nonsense. 

Ironically the major gotcha moment in the interview was all about freedom of speech. Newman decided to grill Peterson about the reason the Canadian psychology professor had first attracted international attention – namely his refusal to use manufactured gender pronouns now mandated under law in his country. After a series of ill-informed, aggressive attacks failed spectacularly to disconcert her calm, reasoned guest, Newman asked Peterson, 

“why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”

The good professor responded: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now 

You’re certainly willing to risk offending me 

in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that?” he said, acknowledging her attacks had made him rather uncomfortable but that was fine. “You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on…But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

His answer left Newman totally floundering. 

The good-natured Peterson smiled sweetly and said: “Ha, gotcha!”

But it was on the classic feminist issues that Newman was exposed as a vapid ideologue incapable of defending her cherished beliefs. 

Peterson’s rational, fact-based responses to questions about women’s achievements in the workplace went totally over her head. 

Newman responded to evidence with anecdotes, claimed he’d made statements he hadn’t. Their discussion on the gender wag gap started like this:

Peterson: Multivaried analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist

Newman: But that's just not true, is it. That nine per cent pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

P: Yeah but there's multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender but it's not the only reason. If you're a social scientist worth your salt you never do a uni-varied analysis. You say, well, women in aggregate are paid less than men, then we break it down by age, occupation, interest, personality.

N: But you're saying basically it doesn't matter if women aren't getting to the top, because that's skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it. You're saying that's just a fact of life.

P: No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying there are multiple reasons for it that aren't being taken into account.

N: But why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content not to get to the top?

P: I'm not saying that they should put up with it, I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong, and it is wrong, there's no doubt about that. The multi-varied analyses have been done.” 

And so went on, with Newman incessantly straw-manning, niggling, attacking and wilfully refusing to listen to Peterson’s responses.

Many, like British sociologist Nicholas A Christakis, found themselves in awe of Peterson’s cheerful, reasoned responses. “This man Jordan Peterson is preternaturally calm and composed in the face of a hostile interviewer who also had simply not thought adequately about her ideas and approach. Facts and reason are powerful allies,” he tweeted.

But unfamiliar territory for feminists who are rarely confronted with this type of evidence, particularly in public. 

UK conservative politician Paul Weston points out that what’s so extraordinary about the Peterson interview is that it managed to refute the ideological claptrap which holds sway throughout much of the mainstream media. 

As he says in a YouTube video posted this week, the anointed liberal elite which controls the media knows it doesn't represent popular opinion but “works tirelessly to make damn sure no one's allowed anywhere near the media bubble to propose a learned valid legitimate opinion.”

Yet Peterson slipped through and Newton and her team were shown up for not doing their homework to discover why it is that this formidable man attracts literally millions of followers online. 

Journalist Tim Lott, writing last year in the Spectator UK, said that after listening to hours of Peterson’s videos, he concludes the man is “one of the most important thinkers to emerge on the world stage for many years.” 

As Newman discovered to her peril.

And our pleasure. Pints all round.

Yes, even for Mz Newman who is most in need of it. She has a distorted soul, lies far too easily for her own mental health, and needs all the Grace she can be given. 

That and a sound whacking.

But Peterson gave her that.

He is a Professor, more used to talking with students. They can be as thick as two short planks but have youth as an excuse. They can learn.  Newman cannot hold that rope. 

She is too busy trying to loosen the noose.

Pax 

Postscript.

The Independant Man had a few words too.

The Thinking Man & Woman

What goes on in the heads of men and of women? I get asked this by folk deep into their Ale, in one way or another. Or I get told that men and woman think differently. As if all men thought one way and all women thought a different way. Personally, I don't think many people think at all. Or not at all well. Questioning and curiosity are fine qualities to have but people prefer to be certain. They will arrive at a conclusion far too quickly. Right or wrong. And they believe their conclusions.

Don't believe everything you think is what I generally say to those with a far away look, hugging a pint.  Some may have seen this elsewhere.

Especially when they have a woman or three floating around amid their brain cells. Not many men of my acquaintence spend much time on the question of what and how women think. They have 'beliefs' about it and they suffice. Right or wrong.  

This seems to annoy many women who give the impression of being thinkers about what men think.  But they are just the same in their certainty. It is a failing on the part of both for whom some curiosity would be better than irked dismissal.

The Lady of the Tavern, TSG, brought April by for a quiet drink.

Alice the Professor
who could teach me whatever she wants :)

Peaceful April is a thinking Gal it seems and she had some quite insightful views to which we listened. M'Lady certainly paid attention and wanted me to too.

She could pass for a 'thinking man's crumpet'. Some men assign such designations. It is a man's way of thinking I am told and I have done that m'self. The designation is already given to the fabulous Alice Roberts in my book.  But I am not here to fight anyone's corner or assert my preferences for the ladies. 

April is quite taken by the way men think and notes a difference from how she does it. 

April

I was actually impressed, listening to her, that she did not generalise how she went about thinking to all women.

So to April and her views of men's thinking. She started by saying what she thought it was a good idea to think about how men think, as well as what they think about.  And she actually asked men ! 

That is impressive in itself. 

I like the gal and gave her a fine drink to set her off.

How Men Think

I believe that if we as women could better understand how God designed our men to operate, think, feel and look at life – we could be so much more accepting, understanding, empathetic and appreciative of their strengths and even their weaknesses. 

OK, She had my attention, despite the early leap to what she believes.  Belief is what you live your life by and what April had to say does in fact give some evidence that she does at least give some time and thought to it. 

I believe that if we realize that a man’s brain works very differently from our own, we will be able to allow him the time and space he needs without resenting him, or thinking he is unloving, or assigning evil motives to our husbands – just because they don’t think, talk and act like we do.  

 https://peacefulsinglegirl.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/how-men-think-2/

This is just a small sample size of men.  I hope to feature some other men with different ways of thinking, different personalities and different vocations in future posts on this topic.

MY HUSBAND’S THOUGHT PROCESSES

I asked Greg  (an engineer) if he solves problems at work and home with words in his mind.  The thought had never occurred to me that anyone could solve anything in their head without a constant stream of words.  He amazed me when he said that he doesn’t really use words for solving many problems.

The constant stream of words can carry one away. Like any river it flows, sometimes quite fast.  Many people (too many? most?) go with the flow. A living organism is noted for an ability to  determine its own direction. It can swim against the stream. It can make progress rather than just drift. The drifting word confusions and propensity to gibberish were expressed by James Joyce in 'Ulysses', showing it is not just a woman's mind-attribute.

To make the words make sense one has to stop them, look at them, subject them to 'tests' of truth, relevance, consequence - these three at the very least. April is trying to here.

For house projects (carpentry and plumbing, etc) he said he thinks in numbers and pictures, but not words.  

And for family and marriage issues and big decisions, he said he thinks more in the form of input and output, logic systems, or a scale.  

That really blew my mind!  

No wonder he can’t always explain to me how he arrived at a conclusion – he isn’t using words to get there, but he is using a very logical method.  It is just not remotely MY method!

When he judges whether his logic system is working well, he uses my response and happiness as the measure of success – or the “output” of his system.  Wow!

And he said that when his system didn’t produce good results (my happiness) repeatedly – he just shut down the whole thing because the system wasn’t working.  

That is the “shut down” I saw for weeks or months in the past.

MY DADDY’S EXPLANATION OF HIS THOUGHT PROCESSES

I asked my Daddy about this, too.  He’s also an engineer.  He said that when he is working on projects on the house or on machines, he thinks in pictures.  He said when he is working on certain problems “Words are a waste of time and energy.  Pictures are much faster.”

There are just two of other modes to think on. I am glad she has seen them at last: they seem to have suprised her. There is another mode though that women seem to have - Intuition. That too defies verbal explanation, although it is often amusing to hear a woman try to explain how she arrived at her intuitive conclusion. 

I am not knocking it. 

Think too of the 'fighter-Ace': that experienced pilot who has a spatial sensitivity and mode of conceptualising at high speed, under great stress, that enables him to 'know' where other aircraft not only 'are' but will be in ten seconds time, in relation to himself, when all are operating in three dimensions, with intent to deceive to boot!! He is just as unable to put it into words. He too is 'intuitive'. And rare.

OTHER MEN’S EXPLANATIONS OF HOW THEY THINK

Man 1:

I certainly think through things a lot but when you are in a position of leadership or authority (like a President) you have to be careful what you say because it could have dire consequences. 

Imagine if a pastor or priest thought out loud about everything that came into his head. 

Some of his thoughts may not be healthy for consumption but his position would give credibility to them. This may be a result of hard wiring or it may me a result of how boys are raised into men.

I will say this though. In my head I am isolating variables and thinking about them in words. I am just not speaking those words aloud or writing them down.

It is when you start to write them down that you can really pin down the meaning and analyse where you are going with it. 

The worse thing that can happen with our thoughts is that they capture us rather than we put them to useful, truthful, work. 

They can 'own' us rather than the other way around. 

From this we get mantras and Agitprop and all of the shoddy lack of though we see particularly on the left.

It does depend on the problem as to what I am thinking. I can imagine an engineer thinking in pictures because if you are building something you have to visualize it. 

I am a chemist so when I am thinking about molecular structures I am definitely not thinking in words. 

When I am thinking about theology or philosophy I am thinking in words. 

I think it is hard to generalize.

MAN 2:

I would agree with Greg as well about not really thinking and processing with words. I tend to process alot just as he indicated by thinking about all the different options and if I do this these are the results, if I do this other thing the results change like this.

When it all comes down to it I look at all the options and figure out which is the best result. Sometimes it’s a matter of picking the least bad result because nothing is great, but many times it’s picking from a few good results and you have to consider how many people it will affect as you can’t know how they will see the results either. So I would definately say a majority of the time I focus and process with the right side of my brain.

 (From PW – the right side of the brain in men and women is where logic and reasoning happens.  For men, this area is not nearly as connected to the verbal center in the left side of the brain as it is for women.  This is a really important difference – that God created very purposefully – I believe – so that men can deeply concentrate and focus on spacial issues and think more efficiently about certain types of problems without the distraction of words and emotions.)

Everyone is a friggin' psychologist !! Even some who are, think they are.

I will say that I have a pretty active imagination as well and sometimes while I still think about which choices will affect the outcome and look at all the options there are quite a few times where I will do that with pictures. Sort of a silent film in my head if you will.

I can see the scene unfold before me and based on choices made see how people react or how it unrolls from there. Granted it’s still all just my opinion on how it will happen and I can’t know for sure how someone else will react, but the movies I’ve created in my head to solve problems tend to be correct more than incorrect. So while I believe that I am still processing based on logic, past reactions I’ve seen, etc there is definately a part of my left brain that is in there moving things along as well. Even with that said there are still almost no words taking place. The only time words come up in the movies is when I have to say something to make a choice and see what the reactions are.

I would also agree with the “can’t explain it with words” comment. 

There have been many times in my life where if given the time to make a decision I process it and come to a decision and when I put forth what that decision is I am questioned to explain it. When I was younger I actually tried to explain it at times and it never came out well. When I start getting pressured about a topic and can’t explain it well enough I tend to fall back on using more basic words and things like always, never, all the time come out. I’ve learned that to someone who thinks and processes with words those particular words are caustic. As soon as those start coming out there’s not much chance of salvaging the discussion because those words mean something different to me than they do to women. Or more acurately they have more meaning to women than most men.”

OTHER MEN

I have more posts on this topic – other men in different professions say they think mostly in words.

There are a variety of ways that men think – and sometimes it is REALLY different from the way that we as women think.

Hmmmmm. And how do 'women' think? 

There are some guys who need extra time to process their thoughts and feelings before they are ready to talk about them.

So, if your man needs time to think and be alone for awhile during a big decision – that doesn’t mean he doesn’t care.  It probably means he cares very much and he needs some time to think before he says anything.  

If you can give him that time, understanding that he thinks and works through problems in a different way from you – your relationship will be MUCH better!

Women also need to understand that if a man feels verbally attacked for sharing his feelings – he will quickly decide just not to share his feelings anymore.  

That is a pretty foreign concept for many women.  

Women tend to assume that if a man doesn’t say anything about his feelings, he doesn’t have any feelings.  That is NOT true!   A man can be very deeply wounded and NEVER SAY A WORD about it.

I am pleased my Southern Gal brought April by. Keep an eye on that lass.

We have a phenomenon of 'mind'. With it we can Apprehend things; We can, a step further, Comprehend them. Not many go that far.  Further still we can Understand. 

It seems too that occasionally we can 'Know' without comprehending or understanding.

Drink. Think.

Do both slowly and deliberately.

Pax. 

The Unlicensed Mathematician

You hear it all in a Tavern and some is frankly unbelievable. Yet we all have some exposure to the sheer stupidity of 'authorities'.  Not just stupidity but meglomania; bloody-mindedness; more than just a little 'over-reach'.  They make the 'little man' fight the machinery of State, Courts etc. We heard of one today.

A chap was fined for doing maths, without a licence !

Christian Britschgi was in having a pint and I overheard his tale. It wasn't him. It was another chap. Mats Järlström.

Oregon Man Fined for Doing Math Without a License Speaks Out

Free speech and traffic lights

Meet Mats Järlström, the man who was fined for doing math without a license.

As (had been) reported earlier this year, Järlström's wife was issued a citation in May 2013 after a red light camera in Beaverton, Oregon, caught her clearing an intersection a tenth of a second late. That small amount of time made Järlström—an electrical engineer by training—curious. He started researching traffic light timing in the city.

 http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/oregon-man-who-was-fined-for-doing-math

What he found suggested to him that there was a problem with the mathematical formula that Beaverton was using to time its yellow lights. 

He tried to bring his research to the city council but was repeatedly rebuffed. 

Next he brought it to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. Instead of investigating his claims, the board investigated Järlström. In 2016 the state fined him for daring to call himself an engineer. 

(Järlström had formal engineering training in his native Sweden and runs his own equipment calibration business, but he does not hold an Oregon engineering license.)

A lengthy court battle ensued between Järlström, who believes he has a First Amendment right to promote his theory, and the Board of Engineering, which believes Järlström has the rights they say he does. 

Throughout this process, the board has used the threat of further fines to keep Järlström from publicly discussing his research. But on Tuesday, a federal judge granted an injunction against the board, preventing them from fining Järlström for talking while his court case grinds on.

In an interview with Reason, Järlström discussed his research, his yellow light theory, and how he managed to turn his wife's $260 ticket into a federal court case.

Järlström's work started with the simple filming and timing of the yellow lights at the intersection where his wife was ticketed.

"I shot different cycles of yellow lights," he tells Reason, "and it turned out that the lights were shorter than what the city of Beaverton said on their website."

Järlström hoped these findings might convince the court to let his wife's ticket slide. They didn't, and his wife ended up having to pay the fine. For many people, that would have been the end of it. But Järlström kept researching the issue, and he found what he thinks is a fundamental flaw in how traffic lights function not just in Beaverton but across the country.

In the United States, two types of laws govern how motorists should treat yellow lights. "Restrictive" laws require a driver to enter and clear an entire intersection before the light turns red. "Permissive" laws merely state that a driver must enter an intersection while the light is yellow. Most states take the permissive approach, but Oregon is one of 12 that have adopted restrictive rules.

Järlström says these different policies require different formulas for calculating how long lights should stay yellow. 

Under restrictive laws, yellow lights need both "warning time and the clearing time...you have the warning that you can enter, but the yellow is long enough so that you can travel through and exit the intersection." Permissive yellow lights can be shorter, because the driver doesn't have to clear the intersection before they change.

Beaverton, Järlström found, was using that shorter timing, even though it was enforcing a restrictive rather than permissive regulation. 

Drivers thus were not getting enough time to clear an intersection without being ticketed.

Hmmmmm. Anyone smell a scam here? 

At that point, Järlström's recalls, "I started to look into the theory of the timing of the lights, digging into handbooks I could find, bought them on eBay and Amazon." He even reached out to Alexei Maradudin, one of the three scientists who came up with the modern yellow light formula back in 1959. (One of Maradudin's co-authors is Robert Herman, who also wrote the first paper on the big bang theory.) 

Järlström became convinced that Maradudin's formula was incomplete—that it failed to properly time lights for everything from right-hand turns to inclement weather conditions.

This, says Järlström, means that drivers are being ticketed by red light cameras—not just in Beaverton, but around the country—for traffic violations that were effectively outside of their control. 

"It's a physics problem. It's not anything to do with driver behavior....It's something we need to do on the engineering side."

His findings were strong enough to win him a speaking gig at the 2015 Institute of Traffic Engineers' national conference and a spot on 60 Minutes. He even won over Alexei Maradudin—the very man whose theory he was criticizing.

But he didn't win over the Beaverton city council. 

Ve Heff Vays of Stoppink You.

Järlström went before them 13 times, but he made little headway. He suspects that wasn't because there was a problem with his equations. "If I come in there and tell them that something is wrong and has been wrong for a long time, you see liability issues, paying back fines, etc.," he says. "So obviously they are fighting with their teeth to get me out of there."

Järlström sued the city of Beaverton for refusing to listen to his theory, but his case was dismissed on the grounds that he didn't have standing. 

So Järlström turned to Oregon's State Board of Engineering, asking them in September 2014 to look into the City of Beaverton's yellow light timings. Because he referred to himself as an engineer in his letter to the board, it launched a two-year investigation that ended with it issuing a $500 fine.

"They wanted to kill the messenger," Järlström says. "They just wanted to shut me up."

Järlström paid the fine. But rather than let the matter end there, he then sued the State Board of Engineering for violating his First Amendment rights. The board, Järlström notes, has yet to substantively dispute any of his findings. Instead it's challenging his right to publicize them.

Järlström may well be wrong in the claims he is making about the nation's yellow lights. I am certainly in no position to judge his arguments on the mathematical merits. But he has presented a plausible hypothesis, supported it with credible evidence, and enthusiastically engaged both his engineering peers and the general public on an issue of civic importance.

In a different world, the engineering community would be engaging Järlström right back, probing his findings for their merits and deficiencies. That's what science looks like. That's what a free society looks like. 

Instead, Järlström is locked in a legal battle over whether he even has the legal right to present his research.

Free society vs bloody-minded petty bureaucrats.

You know who will win.

The case has gone forward. He has won the right to criticise and his $500 fine has been returned, but he is still suing them. The 'Engineers' have conceded that he has Free Speech rights. Whoopie-do. That is very generous of them. Not. He seeks his costs.

Even if he eventually gets redress the process is the punishment (plus fines) for daring to come to the aid of  the Free Society. 

Drink up.

It isn't evil we speak of here. It is just plain human fallen nature. 

Pax

Table 34

The best table in the Tavern's restaurant is right up against a picture window that affords wonderful views. That is if you care to gaze through it into the distance and see the detail. But many privileged customers just glance through from time to time and miss the 'meaning' of the great creation which can be seen. It is Table #34 if you book and ask for it.  

There is another table 34 which needs a good look through too and we had it brought to our attention a few days ago. (I know. I've been busy !!) The view is of filth and dismay.

Look at the meaning behind the numbers.

We live in a period when our children are exposed to filth, perversion and AgitProp even in school, taught by perverts, mainly female, and paid-for through our taxes. 

Our Universities provide the 'data' and information packages to help these perverted teacher-drones, devised by women and men (it ain't all women, see) with PhDs in strange 'studies' which are soul-curses.  But they are not new and follow in the footsteps of an eralier era of persuasive perverts who poisoned the academic world. We got a whiff of their stench here and had to fumigate afterwards. But the exposure was worth it.

Oz schools have been infiltrated by perverts and paedophiles. I would say Criminals. Our civil society is falling down under the high heels of transvestite homosexuals. 

Our institution of marriage and the entire concept of an adult man and woman being the only sound sexual union has been severely damaged in the past few months, largely because our political elite are either too ignorant of the truth or they are conspirators with the perverts. Our politicians are Criminal too.

Even our Churches are rife with homosexual clergy. What a horror they have let loose upon children.

Research scientist Gordon Muir, MD kicked it off. He had mentioned...

The understanding that we have of childhood sexuality and normal childhood sexual development as it is believed and taught in academia today comes from the experimental evidence documented in Kinsey's report published in 1948 with the childhood sexuality tables that we have just discussed. **It is absolutely astonishing that this is taken as the basis of what we understand to be normal childhood sexual development.** And when I try to explain this to colleagues in the type of science I'm involved with in what I call the harder sciences of biology or medicine, statistics, immunology, **they do not believe what I'm trying to tell them**. And the only way I can convince them of the truth of this is to go to the library, pull off the shelf of Alfred Kinsey's books and show them what is inside. And it's quite shocking.

He continued: 

(Kinsey) provided the "scientific" basis for (pedophilia). **He felt the main problem with adult-child sexual relations was hysteria and over-reaction on the part of parents and authorities.** His co-author Wardell Pomeroy, a prominent sexologist has written that the Kinsey research uncovered, "many beautiful and satisfying relationships between fathers and daughters." Pomeroy also in his sex-education book "Boys and Sex" refers to the possibility of "loving sexual relationships between children and animals". -Gordon Muir, MD

Jonathon van Maren had a bit to say too, because you are unlikely to go to the library as Dr Muir suggests. 

Most people have no idea who Alfred Kinsey really was and how his so-called research was actually performed. I myself first heard of Alfred Kinsey in the first year of my history degree at university, where my professor announced that there “was no Sexual Revolution at all”—because the Kinsey Reports proved that people had been engaging in all sorts of bizarre and criminal sexual behaviors all along.

The real story is horrifying. It is stomach-churning. But it is also crucial that we know how, exactly, we got to this place in our culture of such sexual nihilism. 

Alfred Kinsey was a pervert and a sex criminal

He is known as “The Father of the Sexual Revolution,” and if you’ve ever taken a university course on 20th century history, you’ll have heard his name: Alfred Kinsey.

Kinsey was not only the “father” of the Sexual Revolution, he set the stage for the massive social and cultural upheaval of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s with his 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and his 1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alfred-kinsey-was-a-pervert-and-a-sex-criminal

These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population (we are so easily tittified when we ought to have been terrified.) things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Pretty well all of Kinsey's 'findings' is sheer Bollox. 

Much less talked about were his other disturbing “findings”— an in-depth study on the “sexual behavior” of children, as well as claims that nearly 10% of men had performed sex acts with animals (as well as 3.6% of women), and that this number rose to between 40-50% based on proximity to farms.

Kinsey’s research portrayed people as amoral and sex-driven, and is credited as fundamentally changing the way our culture views sex.

But was he right?

To begin with, the integrity of much of his work has long since been called into question: among his questionable practices, Kinsey encouraged those he was working with to engage in all types of sexual activity as a form of research, misrepresented single people as married, and hugely over represented incarcerated sex criminals and prostitutes in his data.

But beyond this is the simple fact that Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.

For example, where did he get all of his data on the “sexual behavior of children”? 

The answer is nothing short of chilling. 

Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her ground-breaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to get his so-called research:

Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” 

Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

For example, “Table 34” on page 180 of Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” claims to be a “scientific” record of “multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.” Here, infants as young as five months were timed with a stopwatch for “orgasm” by Kinsey’s “technically trained” aides, with one four-year-old tested 24 consecutive hours for an alleged 26 “orgasms.” 

Sex educators, pedophiles and their advocates commonly quote these child “data” to prove children’s need for homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual satisfaction via “safe-sex” education. These data are also regularly used to “prove” children are sexual from birth.

The man heralded with enthusiasm by mainstream publications such as Time and Life Magazine was nothing less than a monstrous facilitator of child-rape. 

In fact, he even went so far as to record children shrieking and thrashing in pain, passing out and convulsing as the result of the hellish abuse he was putting them through, as evidence of “orgasm”—especially for children who could not yet speak.

Let us look closer at Table 34. It is at the top of the post. LOOK at it. Paul Wesselhoft helps here before we continue with Jonathon.

Children of Table 34

Wardell B. Pomeroy is the author of “Boys and Sex” and Girls and Sex.”  These are two so-called “children’s” books that are recommended by the American Library Association.

 https://wesselhoft.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/children-of-table-34/

Pomeroy is co-author, with Alfred C. Kinsey, of “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.”  In this book, Kinsey and Pomeroy describe their experimentation with the sexual responses of babies and children.  It is shocking to learn how these scientist experimented on young children.

Science absent of ethics is frightening.

In table 34 (page 180), these scientists reveal, what many of us to be, criminal experimentation on 28 babies and children. This was done in the name of science.

Working with the Kinsey team was Mary Calderone, medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1953 to 1964. She later founded the Sex Information and Educational Council of the United States

When one reads table 34 and realizes that a five month old baby was sexually stimulated to orgasms and a four year old child was sexually stimulated to multiple orgasms, a moral person knows that child sexual abuse, in the name of science, was perpetrated.

Table 34 poses at least three disturbing questions: Who are the children of Table 34?  How were they chosen for experimentation?  Where are they now?

Pomeroy and Kinsey have had a major impact on sex education in schools and probably excited and influenced a generation of pedophiles.

In “Boys and Sex” (p.162), Pomeroy says, without moral criticism, that there are “boys who build up a strong emotional attachment to a particular animal and have intercourse with it whenever possible.”

This “children’s” book is in the youth section (age 11) of our library.  Any ageed child can read or check out Pomerey’s book without parental knowledge, as well as other sexually explicit “children’s” books.  I am not referring here to any adult materials, only books that are classified as children’s books.  These so-called “children’s” books are age inappropriate.  They should not have been classified as children’s books in the first place.

There is a definite agenda and a strategic goal behind these sexually explicit “children’s” books.  

Their authors are trying to pre-sexualize minors and undermine parents authority on sex morals for their children.

They do this because they are elitist.  They consider themselves enlightened.  They want to fashion a society that has little or no sexual restraint. Unfortunately, their influence is strongly felt today; it will be felt into the future.

Back to Jonathon.  Let me pull a few pints here. You will need to wash the bad taste from your mouths.

Kinsey’s so-called research was simply a quest to justify the fact that he himself was a deeply disturbed man. Dr. Reisman writes, 

“Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual, who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. 

Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard, had ‘front’ Marriages that concealed their strategies to supplant what they say as a narrow pro-creational Judeo-Christian era with a promiscuous 

‘anything goes’ bi/gay pedophile paradise.”

Got that? The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children. 

His goal was not just to engage in scientific research in order to see where the data took him, but rather, as one of his prominent biographers Michael Jones notes, to launch a crusade to undermine traditional sexual morality.

Caring, empathetic, nurturing female teacher. PERVERT.

He did so to wild success—Kinsey’s influence on sex education and law in the Western world is absolutely staggering.

Some have claimed that even though Kinsey may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. 

This, too, proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman:

1. [Dr. Kinsey’s team] ‘forced’ subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes and promiscuous homosexuals. 

Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man ‘married,’ reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”

It is crucially important that people become aware of the truth behind the Kinsey Reports.

Today’s pornified sex educators, legal experts, academics, and more disturbingly, pedophile groups such as NAMBLA pushing “inter-generational intimacy,” all use Kinsey’s work to justify their agendas and lend their causes scientific credibility.

Now I must go and find my whetstone. It is not only the fine Ales provided by my Supplier that we must drink deeply of, but prepare too for action. I shall put a fine edge on my sword.

The hedge needs trimming.

Pray for us all.

Pax.

 

Scoring For the Good Guys and Gals

It is a pleasure to bring Good News to the Tavern and boy did we get some over the past few days.  I have been very busy of late, what with a splendid picnic in the fine weather after a 'bells and smells' Mass in the tiny Church in Colebrook at the weekend. So much incense that you could not even see a stick to shake !   Many came from all over the State to give our new Monks a good welcome. And the news we shared was equally splendid. 

Prayers have been answered.

The Abortuary in Hobart, the last one, has closed its doors. The chap who calls himself a Doctor but who brings shame on his profession, has thrown in the bloodied towel and gone back to the sinful city of Melbourne.

Some may know that I am rarely to be found in the Tavern on a Tuesday. I have a vigil outside the abortuary, saying a Rosary. I have become something of a fixture there, albeit just once a week, and passers-by smile, greet me as they pass and some even stop to talk. They were taking a risk, being kind to an old man who was defying the wicked law that would have me jailed for a year and fined near to $10,000. 

And as the new year dawned, so did a sale sign on the building. Tom Clift saw it too.

Tasmania’s Only Dedicated Abortion Clinic Has Been Closed

Tasmania’s only dedicated abortion clinic has closed its doors, leaving women requiring surgical abortions faced with the prospect of having to travel interstate.

Or cherishing and nurturing the life in their wombs. 

Dr Paul Hyland ran the Specialist Gynaecology Centre in Hobart, but said that a combination of rising costs and a decrease in demand led to the clinic being shuttered at the end of 2017. It follows the closure of his clinic in Launceston the year before.

 http://junkee.com/tasmania-abortion-clinic-closed/142559

NO. Every mother needs access to help and assistance
to keep, cherish and nurture her baby.
What is the matter with you people?

“In the year 2000 when we set up shop there were 25 to 30 surgical terminations of pregnancy a week,” Hyland told BuzzFeed earlier this week. “When Tasmania got medical terminations [in 2013] that went into rapid decline. We’d be running at a loss if we kept going for the handful of surgical patients we get every week.”

According to Hyland, a majority of women in Tasmania who seek a termination do so via a medical abortion using the drug RU486, a process which is feasible for the first nine weeks of the pregnancy. After that, a surgical abortion is required.

Asked what women who required a surgical option would do, Hyland replied “you’ll have to ask the government.”

Better to ask her husband. Better to ask her to think deeply. 

Tasmanian Health Minister Michael Ferguson is anti-abortion, and campaigned with church leaders against the introduction of RU486 in the state. But Hyland told the ABC that the minister needed to be “pragmatic about the services that are required to Tasmanian people disregarding his own personal values”.

For Dr Hyland to appeal to him 'disregarding his own personal values' is  rich.  Hyland's personal values are in his wallet.

According to the ABC, the closure of Hyland’s clinic means there is only one place in the state currently offering surgical abortions — a private gynaecological clinic in Hobart where the procedure can cost up to $2,500.

'Protesters' - you know, the kind, loving ones
who throw eggs at Christians praying,
suggest a return to the coat hanger
is on the cards. As if !
What is the matter with these people?

Meanwhile, the chief executive of Family Planning Tasmania has warned that some women requiring an abortion may be forced to travel interstate — a situation he described as “absolutely not ideal”.

“Travel before or after the procedure is not advised,” Cedric Manen told the ABC. “Also in any recovery-type situation it’s best to have your friends and family surrounding you … the women would have very little support.”

Indeed, it is best to have loving, caring friends and family with the mother to help her cherish and nurture the baby.  As for women otherwise not having support, they should contact my good friend Gaylene at Esther's House.

https://www.esthershouse-pps.com/#home

"I had support from the moment my call was answered. A lady from Esther's House came to my home on the same day I called them. I knew I had choices but I didn't realise how many I had. Esther's House supported me to get all of the information I needed to make the right choice for me and my baby. I'm so grateful that I made that call. My baby is due in October." Emma

A spokesperson for the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services told BuzzFeed the state government was “currently investigating options regarding the provision of surgical terminations,” and that “women requiring information regarding pregnancy termination should contact their general practitioner for advice.”

This is a 'Liberal' Government which has had a full term opportunity to recind the legislation brought in by the previous Labour-Green government. It has signally FAILED to even address the issue.  

That legislation not only prescribed jail sentences and fines for even one such as I for saying a Rosary within 150 metres of Hyland's abortuary, but obliged other doctors to recommend that pregant mothers go to Hyland. This was and is a Fascist law that forces all pregnant patients to just one private business, in business to kill their babies.

What next? Everyone has to be told of one particular tyre seller for their car needs? Every pharmacy must give their customers a list of just one cheap and nasty chemist that sells 'generics'?  Hold a sign up within 150 mtrs of McDonalds and get a $10,000 fine? 

What is next has already been decided. The taxpayer will fund those who want to kill their baby to fly to Melbourne. 

The mind boggles. The heart grieves.

Logic and reasonableness has virtually disappeared from our elected representatives. Most have done as Hyland suggested and disregarded their personal values. Those that had any that didn't involved the slaughter of babies, that is. The rest seemed happy enough to vote in the fascist, vicious law.

As reason and logic could not win, one needed to appeal to a Higher Authority. Hence my Supplier telling me to have a word with His Mother. She would do something about it.

And she has.

Pray the Rosary.

It is your weapon. My weapon of choice, in public, as I cannot take my sword into the streets.

The Combat Rosary is based upon the original pull chain rosary that was commissioned and procured by, believe it or not, the U.S. government and issued by the military, upon request, to soldiers serving in World War I.

Drink deep of Grace.

Give Thanks and Gratitude.

And do NOT vote any of those bastards back into office. Get rid of the lot of them.

I won't bother taking bets that the Law will remain on the books ad infinitum, despite there being no abortuary there any more. 

And, again, if you know of a pregnant mum who needs a hand, tell her of Esther's House.

Pax