GEP’s new Bulletin (Rundbrief 1/12) reports on some favourable and some disadvantageous de­velopments in (German) psychiatry. The fact that some prominent colleagues have distanced themselves from psychoanalysis recently – of course, it continues to be the most widely practiced psychotherapeutic method in this country[1] – may be a sign of growing rationality in this field. We thought we could further this development by promoting the International Network of Freud Critics (INFC) and have seen some moderate effects, so far.

However, we have to report on rather unpleasant events, too, new psychiatric abuses in our democratic country beside the „old“ examples of such abuses in its former communist part, the GDR. A lot of scientific and political bodies prefer to play them down similarly to what their predecessors did with Nazi crimes before.

Anyhow, these latest malpractices[2] have been brought to public attention by the media, the TV and different journals, in recent weeks and months. The public echo on one of them (the case of Gustl Mollath – Rund­­brief 1/11) is exceeding all former reports on scandals in this field and it seems to be only the beginning. Everybody understands that what has happened to Mollath may happen to anyone, since the cooperation of juridical, psychiatric and political bodies has been so complete that all public interest and the increasing help Mollath is re­ceiving from supporters have not succeed in setting him free.

Not only personal responsibilities are at stake in this and similar cases of medical mal­practice but also proneness to the latter in­side the structure and the (to some extent pseudo-) scientific content of modern psychiatry and psychotherapy itself. If you look only to the modern classification systems like DSM and ICD and consider Personality Dis­orders like the Para­noid Personality Dis­order including the Querulous Personality Disorder (ICD-10: F 60.0) you must not be astonished that it is implemented frequently since its definition is so vague that it can be attributed to almost all opponents. It has also impacted on some of the above mentioned men and women and has ruined their professional careers by its excessive pretentions. APA’s DSM-V is promising still more of such scientific inconsistencies.

All this seems to represent Western “reformed” psychiatry with its new diagnostic “reliability” and its “more human” dealing with sufferers. It shows its “superiority” to former psychiatric schemes, especial­ly to Soviet ones. An­other result of this psychiatric reform mostly instigated by some self-pro­claimed “leading authorities in this field”[3] (or their political masters) seems to be the increasing numbers of psychiatric sufferers reported worldwide.

We subscribing psychiatrists began our professional work in the 1960s, and our fighting against new politically instigated incursions into psychiatric ethics has been faced with numerous distortions and deceptions over the years. Recently, we learned that even some leaders of American psychiatry whom we had appreciated as allies for many years concur with communist collaborators of the former secret police of the GDR (Stasi) now (see summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/11). Of course, the political camps of former days are intermingled and blurred, today. But there is still a frontier between right and wrong. And psychiatric abuse once being centred in communist countries but now being met even in our midst will always be recognized as one of the most malicious attacks on man.

Seeing the unbiased new attentiveness for the mentioned new cases of psychiatric abuses we are con­fident that the fight will be continued as long as they continue to occur. Psychiatry that has gone astray often enough has found and will find its way back to enduring ethical standards. Reasonable criticism from outside and inside will help.

Dr. med. Friedrich Weinberger
President, GEP

Prof. Dr. med. Klemens Dieckhoefer
Vice President, GEP

——————————————————————————–

[1] In Ethics in Psychiatry – European Contributions, Springer 2010, e-ISBN 978-90-481-8721-8, page 286, they speak of “rather limited psychoanalytically reasoned treatment methods with appropriate proof of effectiveness”, without saying why “rather limited methods” should be more effective than full-scale Freudian procedures, the efficacy of which is zero.

[2] In our latest Rundbrief 1/11 we have reported already on the case of a businessman whose international trading enterprise for precious carpets in Munich has been ruined by a highly ranking representative of international psychiatry. We have presented the case of four public servants, investigators of tax evasion dismissed from their employment by a psychiatrist obviously on instigation of political superiors. Gustl Mollath (see above) who is interned in a forensic ward since almost six years has been examined by me (W) and by another experienced colleague and has been found in good mental health, the sentence against him being a charade. And there have been other well documented cases of psychiatric malpractice or even abuse, as well. We regard such incidents resulting from “The Autistic-Un­disciplined Thinking in Medicine” & psychiatry (Eugen Bleuler) and regard the acceptance of psychoanalysis as another example of this.

[3] Ethics in Psychiatry – page 548

Summary of GEP’s Bulletin (Rundbrief) 1/11 of July 2011

In this bulletin (GEP’s Rundbrief 1/11) we expose the reasons for the lack of attention paid to those who have suffered painful systematic abuses of psychiatry in the former GDR. Our association has fought them primarily in the USSR since 1977 but is fighting them wherever they occur.

After the break-down of the Soviet Union the American Smith-Richardson-Foundation has declared it would not like to hear about this issue any more. Starting with a new book (COLD WAR IN PSYCH­IATRY, ISBN 978-90-420-3048-0) by Robert van Voren (alias Johannes Bax) we review this fight. Until 1990 the horrors of these abuses has come to international attention only from the former USSR. As van Voren has revealed now (unintentionally?) the fight against them has been “fought” or better: has obviously been deflected during the 1980s by the tops of some psychiatric associations, e.g. the APA and the WPA, the American and the World Psychiatric Associations. Their representatives have mostly been communists or ex-communists themselves, the vice-president of the WPA being even an unofficial collaborator of the secret police of the former GDR, the “Stasi”. Van Voren praises him for being an “upright communist” and presents himself and some officers of the APA as imparting “feelings of friendship and mutual respect”, now. Thus, it is not surprising that the result of their former “fight” has been that Soviet psychiatrists who abused their profession and tortured dissidents – they had withdrawn from WPA in 1983 fearing to be expelled at that time – could return to this international professional body in 1989 without having changed their positions or their practices. Similarly it’s not surprising that communist influence can be felt in psychiatry today, even more.

We learn from van Voren’s book also that the red top of the APA (of the 1980s only?) has instigated psychiatric reform inter alia by publishing the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is used world-wide together with a similar international system of classification of diseases, the ICD. By their vague and inconsistent diagnostic definitions these manuals allow or even seduce psychiatrists to declare almost everybody to be mentally ill and incompetent and thus deprive them of their rights – e.g. when wanted by higher echelons.

The systems of reform-psychiatric diagnoses have become a means for enforcing orders of superiors regardless of their legality and of their political colour. Recently, they have been used in Germany for expelling civil servants from their positions while properly performing their lawful duties. Reform-psychiatry has become an instrument of exercising almost totalitarian power. In our bulletin we describe what happened to five citizens in our midst, one of them being confined to a psychiatric hospital since over five years just for speaking out against criminal manoeuvres of some high financial potentates (“banksters”). The man has been examined by me and has been found in perfect mental health. It seems that his long confinement is also a result of the Smith-Richardson-Foundation’s unwillingness to hear about psychiatric abuses any more.

The fact that one of the most highly ranking German psychiatrists has recently been sentenced to pay an exorbitant high compensation for professional misconduct may be a warning to our colleagues world-wide not to go astray from medical ethics even under the guise of psychiatric “reform”.

In former bulletins – many of them can be inspected under www.psychiatrie-und-ethik-de – we have highlighted criticisms of Freudian tenets by some American colleagues. Freudian Fraud (the title of a famous book of the eminent American psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey M.D.) is another part of “psychiatric reform” pretending scientific correctness like DSM and ICD. Having been spread world-wide psychoanalysis, too, has not become less fraudulent or less bewildering for individuals and societies by that. Since the psychoanalytic movement originated in the USA we have taken such criticisms by American colleagues to be a sign of relief and hope for all the world and continue to support the International Network of Freud Critics INFC. Having experienced the great moral capacity of our American colleagues who have opposed psychiatric abuse numerously e.g. at the World Congress of Psychiatry in Honolulu 1977 we are confident that they, too, will not tolerate our profession to be reversed into a means of indoctrination, fraud and terror, eventually.

Dr. med. Friedrich Weinberger, Neurologist & Psychiatrist, President, GEP

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/10

Rundbrief 2/10, GEP’s information bulletin of November 2010, discusses first a case of political abuse of psychiatry in the former GDR (1945 – 1989). It is extraordinary not only for the cruel suffering of the victim (L.T.) and the contribution family members have rendered to the state’s psychiatric oppression. It is extraordinary also since some official bodies and doctors have obstructed the rehabilitation of L.T. for 16 years after the fall of the dictatorship. We see some highly ranking psychiatrists to be more interested in transferring reported harm into scientific studies than rendering real help to sufferers like L.T. Their festering wounds help these doctors to promote their own academic career and, incidentally, help them to protect the reputation of their wounding professional predecessors and the reputation of their (psychiatric) institutions.

We review a newly published book, Psychiatrie in der DDR, where those who have experienced communist psychiatry report their experiences, former patients mostly with disgust and glad to have survived, the psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists mostly satisfied with red psychiatry they have served before with their best intention.

An analogy of such attitudes is the long lasting protection of some Nazi criminals by the German state department, the Auswaertiges Amt, which has been exposed recently and is discussed broadly in our country now accompanied with open indignation and remorse. In spite of some lip services in this case the evil-doers of the second dictatorship on German soil are protected in still larger numbers and seemingly with even more sophistication and impudence, the motives being similar here and there: protection of the revered institutions.

Further we discuss a report of Deutschlandfunk that has recently reported about Russian psychiatry mentioning former Soviet psychiatric abuse. We could hear Aleksandr Podrabinek a well known former plaintiff of this practice, and could hear Professor Yuri Sa­venko again, both living in Moscow. In what they said about the present situation in their country we found a lot of common traits, many of the former mal-practitioners being in high medical positions as before here and there. Political abuse of psychiatry is still in vogue today in China.

Happily we can also point to a highlight of good services for the victims of political-psychiatric oppression by a German ministry. The state of Thuringia has registered 21 of them appropriately and brought them to official acknowledgment and compensation. We would wish we could report about similar achievements also by other political bodies in our country.

Further we discuss psychotherapy. We present an original letter of Freud which has become known publicly only recently. Freud who has insisted again and again his tenets to be pure science calls them a “creed” here – obviously by a Freudian slip. Whereas psychoanalysis as a therapeutic practice seems to be in steep decline in English speaking countries it is flourishing in Germany and some other parts of the world as before. We ask how tenets and methods which have been called a “creed” by their inventor him­self can be sold as “evidence based medicine” to suffering people by doctors and ask how even some reputed Freud critics can by-pass this practice continuing in those countries being protected by national and international medical and political bodies. In addition we expose another psychotherapy and its absurdities which are similarly fostered and, thus, popular today (not only) in Germany, Bert Hellinger’s “family positioning”.

We then present a text of a mail we have sent recently to over 2.200 German psychiatric colleagues in free practice. Beside other points we have informed them about the severe sentence against a reputed clinician in German state psychiatry for professional misconduct. Our psychiatric journals mostly controlled by them (and by Big Phar­ma) usually don’t report such sensible stuff. We have pointed to the responsibility of free psychiatric practitioners not only for mental health but also for independent expert opinion, a decisive pledge for a free society.

Acknowledging the contribution other “psycho-pro­fessionals” like psychologists have rendered to psychiatry (e.g. in the field of anxiety disorders) we see the independence of psychiatry including independent expert opinion to be jeopardized by all the bonds of psychiatrists with other “psycho-pro­fessionals” in and outside of the “multi-professional teams” of social psychiatry. The majority of psychiatric treatments needs the confidential dual setting of a patient and his competent doctor. Aldous Huxley, a critic of psychoanalysis, too, has warned us of mental health services rendered by “re-con­dition­ing centers” of a Brave New World. It’s looming, he said, “just behind the next corner”. Some officers of national and in­ter­national psychiatric associations did not really resolve our pertinent concern in recent years.

Friedrich Weinberger M.D., President, GEP Professor Klemens Dieckhoefer M.D. Vice President

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/09 (July 2009)

The main topic of this new bulletin of GEP are the abuses of psychiatry and psychology for political ends in the former communist part of our country, again. After long lasting hesitation they have been acknowledged by official bodies just recently. As we have given many examples of them over the years we have exposed the practice of systematic psychiatric abuse in the GDR in a comprehensive article in a prestigious journal of Berlin’s Free University, now. In the bulletin we also discuss the mild handling of this and other human rights violations by German authorities and the media in present days.

Eventually, we see these failures resulting from directives from high echelons of international health administration like the WHO. Before becoming its first Secretary General G. Brock Chisholm M.D. has requested world wide reform in psychiatry and the humanities and has established the guide lines for them in an address to the US administration in 1945. Denigrating “the concept of right and wrong, the poison long ago described and warned against as ‘the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” Chisholm has recommended “the reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong […] the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. We ask: Are these ends really the goal of psychiatry and psychotherapy and their reform which has been backed emphatically by many Western politicians?

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/08 (of November 2008)

GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief) 2/08 first shows another case of systematic psychiatric abuse in the GDR, the former communist part of our country, and then continues with cases of psychiatric malpractice which have taken place there just recently. This is hardly consistent with the stainless picture professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists display of their disciplines everywhere. It is buttressed by political bodies and the media. In spite of many real achievements psychiatry has reached in recent decades in delivering “mental health care”, its dark chapters should not be swept under the carpet since evil turns happen in this field time and again ruining prosperous careers, destroying human lives. And the atrocities of communist and specially Nazi psychiatry occurred not so long ago.

Psychotherapeutic tenets like psychoanalysis reportedly have mostly been abandoned in Anglo-Saxon countries today. In spite of being regarded as quackery in some quarters of other parts of the world, too, they have been acknowledged officially and pushed into “scientific psychiatry” there, specially in Germany, recently. In this bulletin we cast some light on J.L. Moreno’s Psychodrama as another kind of psycho-babble which, strange enough, is backed intensively by catholic quarters now. Since these tenets are bare of any proven therapeutic efficiency we wonder why they have been promoted so vigorously during the latest decades – in first instance by politicians and “enlighted” media.

Having been founded for fighting psychiatric abuses for political ends GEP is asking: Do some “democratic” politicians foster psychiatry as a means to stifle critics (we report on real present cases of this procedure) and do they support questionable psychotherapies as an efficient way for bewildering people (perhaps whole populations) thus making them more pliable to their suggestions? Public awareness of psychiatry and psychotherapy is necessary and must not be left to anti-psychiatrists.

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/08 (May 2008)

In this bulletin (Rundbrief 1/08) GEP presents new cases of psychiatric abuse which have occurred in the former GDR similarly to what has happened in the former Soviet Union. Beside psychiatry, however, psychology has been abused systematically in the GDR for crushing political opposition hiding often behind a smokescreen of humanely looking medical treatment. This way of discouraging or “decomposing” (“zersetzen”) dissenters has been more subtle or even unrecognizable for the public and the victims themselves. Thus, it suits better to the “needs” of an advanced dictatorship. Today, we are most disappointed or even up-set by the way medical AND state bodies and some of their international peers, too, disregard and even deny these human right violations and the still bleeding wounds caused by psycho-methods and psycho-pro­fessionals during the second dictatorship on German soil. Time and again we experience many of our colleagues recommending their services for overcoming the plight of the victims and simultaneously playing down or by-passing the former contribution of their disciplines to it. After 1945 they have done similarly with the crimes in Nazi medicine.

Another topic of professional dishonesty and, thus, of our concern is the Freudian Fraud. We pick up a title of a book of the American psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey (HarperCollins, 1992) and review it for elucidating the rise of psychoanalysis on the other side of the Atlantic from where it has been re-imported to Germany after 1945. We explicate its history in first instance, however, for demonstrating its recent decline in the New World after having produced many evil consequences. On the European continent Freudian pseudo-science which has never shown any real therapeutic efficacy is still fostered and protected by the medical, judiciary and political establishment. Seemingly the Christian churches have been duped and taken in first by Freud’s anti-Christian movement in the 1950s which has probably become the decisive precondition for the success of Freudo-Marxism in the 1960s in many Western countries. But we assess it to be still more embarrassing that the international scientific community has similarly bowed to the flop leading to widely spread FASHIONABLE NONESENSE (quoting A. Sokal’s and J. Bricmont’s book – Picador, 1998) in our modern world. We close the bulletin by the article Psychoanalytic Mythology of the British Freud-scholar and physicist Allen Esterson (first published by the web-site butterflies&wheels) and by the review of a chapter of his book SEDUCTIVE MIRAGE (Open Court, 1993) concerning the “Frink affair”. Having been sobering in the English speaking world this story is presented by the Rundbrief to German readers for the first time.

GEP’s board consists mostly of psychiatrists who, of course, have no interest to belittle the advances of their discipline and the good services it is providing for many sick people, today. Glossing over its many shortcomings and even fraudulent facets, however, is doing harm not only to the patients but to all the society and the discipline itself. So we wonder how all the misbehavior within this medical field could develop and be accepted by the many experts in this field and by the public, the medical administration, the media and the political class.

Friedrich Weinberger M.D., chairman, GEP

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 2/07 (September 2007)

This bulletin (Rundbrief 2/07) of GEP reports on its recent efforts, including an address its chairman gave to students in Eastern Germany in July. It reports on some results of the former Communist dictatorship in psychiatry there. Then it points to present governmental efforts in changing human “roles” in society; e.g. “gender roles”. This kind of change is commonplace in the conservative “political class”, too, in Germany. Resistance against such “Brave-New-Worldian” development is weak. But the criticism published in the Rundbrief has been uttered by a well known author, Gabriele Kuby, and thus may reinforce GEP’s position.

Further we treat the psychiatric reform of the latest decades, some of its advantages and shortcomings and its Neo-Marxist background. The Rundbrief ends with a dialogue of GEP’s chairman with Norina Kuchta, a psychiatric colleague from Eastern Germany who has experienced psychiatric abuse recently for criticizing some of her left-wing professional surrounding. She has been co-opted to GEP’s board in the meantime.

The Rundbrief tackles the Freudian pseudo-science broadly again. The International Network of Freud-Critics (INFC) established in 2003 on GEP’s web-site (www.psychiatrie-und-ethik,de) has developed well in the past four years, publishing amounts of well founded information in English, French and German. 14 million KBytes have been loaded down from all over the world in August 2007. In September it will be even more. GEP is trusting that fraud in mental health care will end, one day. And it will continue its way as it has done over the past 30 years.

Summary of GEP’s Rundbrief 1/07 (January 2007)

In this bulletin GEP announces the 30. Anniversary of its formation – and looks back upon a mixed array of results of its long lasting endeavors. On the one hand we have seen (and have contributed to) the end of (psychiatric abuse in) the former Soviet Union and (in) the GDR – here ending also the abuse of psychology for political aims, our first and foremost goal. On the other hand we have met a slippage of psychiatric care into a rather socialist condition with sometimes almost totalitarian traits in our own country (e.g. opposing these and similar developments being widely discouraged, obstructed or even suppressed by the heads of faculty, the media and politicians).

The acceptance and the growth of the politically loaded Freudian pseudo-science within and outside the medical (specially the psychiatric) profession have been a trigger or even a precondition for this development as they have contributed already before to the creation of the “New Soviet Man” in the early Soviet Union during the days of Trotsky – failing in the very end but, nonetheless, harmful enough for so many. Freud’s writ, however, has been in power almost everywhere in the West and in many countries, even today, still runs. Since a scientifically stringent and pervading criticism has in the meantime deposed Freudianism in other, especially English-speaking countries, GEP could gladly join its own critical reservations and post them on the new level of the International Net­work of Freud Critics in 2003. It could thus contribute to their further spreading and success in the world. We regard the establishment of the INFC-website to be not only a most necessary but also a most promising activity in the original direction of our aims since 30 years: opposing harmful fraud in psychiatry especially when it’s fostered or implemented politically.

We assess the lasting adherence of German doctors to Freud and similar rhetoricians to be a deplorable residue of a long lasting credulous, perilous and sometimes detrimental indolence toward scientific-ethical challenges. On the other hand we support their present vivid opposition to the government’s attempts at reforming (some suppose: destroying) the so far liberal and social health care system in the country seeing this opposition as a sign of a new sense of freedom and social responsibility and of new courage among German doctors, eventually, giving new hope for the future.

For his “inestimable contribution to the fight for human rights” Dr. Friedrich Weinberger, the chairman of GEP since its beginning, has recently received the award of the Federal Republic of Germany by the state’s president Horst Köhler.

Summary 1/06 (April 2006)

This newsletter of GEP (Rundbrief 1/06) starts with a speech given to victims of persecution by the former communist state in Germany, GDR. Many of them have experienced a kind of repression which is the first concern of GEP – the abuse of psychiatry and psychology. GEP is worried also about the outstanding compensation for the damages these people have suffered since its withholding obviously results from biased expert assessments. And this and many other shortcomings in today’s psychiatry and psychology result from their inclination to, or subversion by, pseudo-science.

Although many state agencies, mass media and medical bodies still continue to foster Freudian and similar pseudo-sciences, a vigorous resistance has evolved in many Western countries as the failures and dangers of corrupted science have become more visible. This is the main topic of this bulletin. GEP together with INFC strive and look forward hopefully for the success of their efforts. Please go to the trilingual site: www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de

Summary 1/05 (July 2005)

GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief 1/05) takes up the fate of victims of the latest totalitarian system, communism, which has been experienced in the Eastern part of Germany like in many other countries for decades. From its beginning in the 70′s, GEP has fought the special “achievement” of “really existing socialism”, psychiatric abuse for political ends and its psychological refining in the former GDR, the “Zersetzung”, “decomposition” of opponents. In spite of the existence of documented clear-cut cases, denial of the abuse of the healing discipline continues in today’s democratic Germany as well as in the psychiatric community worldwide. A parallel to the govern mental downgrading of the victims of communist persecution has been the recent forced abolition of a privately erected memorial for the 1067 per sons who were shot at the former Berlin wall. The government did not deem necessary the erection of such a memorial .

We see this in the ongoing battle between “anti-fascism” and “anti-totalitarianism,” the former being the call of the communists. This formula seems to serve others, too, who look for a new totalitarianism. We see it spreading smoothly in our country and in others under the cover of democracy. A symptom is the steering of opinion in psychiatry and psycho logy by global authorities, i.e. the in creasing restriction of what can be discussed openly. The obligatory psych iatric-psychological screening of all youngsters by school services ordered by president Bush recently seems to go in the same all-pervading, all-controlling direction.

A special example is the suppression of free discussion of the Freudian fraud. Some of its followers try to protect it by invoking anti-Semitism against the critics. The French psychologist Jacques Bénesteau member of our council has recently been so accused. His book MENSONGES FREUDIENS, however, is researched carefully and does not contain anything justifying such denigrating assessment. In fact the accusation is mere slander. By such means some people try to protect fraudulent ideology in science and in society. Concerning the debate of anti-fascism and anti-totalitariansm we point to the deliberations of Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt.

We see one institution in the world which has taken the way of freedom in recent times, newly and unexpectedly, and thus has been most efficient in bringing down com munist dictatorship – the Catholic church with its recently deceased Polish pope. Of course, the church, too, has not spoken out against the Freudian fraud during the last decades. But after the splendid “victory of the Christian message of freedom”over the similarly anti-Christian communism (conceived by the Vatican-II. council) we, a secular group of “psycho-professionals” and lay-people, feel new reason for hope.

The church won a splendid victory over Nazi psychiatry in Germany in the 1940s. If there are new totalitarian tendencies in the world today and the psycho-disciplines are being involved again, it should be possible to overcome these tendencies. There is sensible resistance world-wide and beyond religious boundaries.

Summary 1/04 (June 2004)

GEP’s new Information Bulletin (Rundbrief 1.04) refers first to a congress which took place in April 2004 at the Academy for Political Education in Tutzing (near Munich). Under the general heading of “Psychiatry as a Servant of Totalitarian Regimes”, it addressed some of the shortcomings in psychiatry. In the first instance, the crimes, mass-murders of patients in Nazi psychiatry; but, for the first time, it also allowed for free discussion of recent political challenges in psychiatry e.g. the political abuses of psychiatry in the former Communist part of our country, the former GDR. As has happened with other crimes of Communist totalitarism, psychiatric abuses in the GDR have frequently been minimised or even denied by bodies of mainstream politics in the West.

One of those who experienced psychiatric internment for political reasons reported about his situation in 1968 and his resultant sufferings (Dr. Koch had protested against the destruction of an ancient church by the communists in Leipzig). His presentation deeply impressed the audience. Dr. Weinberger, GEP’s chairman, could illustrate the historical background. The assembly, however, remained hesitant to speak of “systematic abuses of psychiatry in the GDR” since it did not want to blame the many psychiatrists in Eastern Germany who kept their hands clean during the years of Communist rule. Human rights violations in psychiatry have often been addressed with undue hesitation at the international level.

At the end of the three days meeting some light was also shed on those psychological abuses which were developed specially in the late GDR (e.g. systematic decomposition – “Zersetzung”). They could easily, inconspicuously be implemented even by “democratic systems”. Psychiatry is Janus-headed. Even in the best democratic state it has to serve the state’s interests as well as the patient’s. GEP is concerned about growing outside influences in this medical field on national and super-national levels which often have been promoted under the cover of “psychiatric reforms.” They have deeply changed this discipline during the last decades in many countries – often in a more restrictive rather than liberal direction.

The introduction of psychoanalysis inter alia as an officially acknowledged healing method in many countries of the West has widened the influence of psychiatry far beyond the limits of psychiatric illnesses. Since there is no proof of therapeutic efficacy in psychoanalysis and since it is a much-applied method in psychiatry now, reaching, of course, the “walking wounded” rather than those suffering from severe psychiatric illnesses, it can influence – and mislead – many of our fellow citizens.

Last fall we were able to establish the INTERNATIONAL NETWWORK OF FREUD CRITICS together with some scholars in other countries, specially with Prof. Robert Wilcocks of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and Jacques Bénesteau, clinical child psychologist of the children’s hospital attached to the University of Toulouse, France and others. This web-site has developed quickly (on www. psychiatrie-und-ethik.de). But it seems to us that its creation did not happen one moment too soon since Freudian pseudo-science is being supported by political bodies in a lot of Western countries. We wonder about the reasons for this support.

It is evident that there are enormous new potentialities for political and ethical influence (and control) in this “new psychiatry” – which, of course, is less psychiatry than one more manifestation of the modern plague of pseudo-sciences in the medical profession. We are confident, however, that by being critically and honestly alert to the problem, we will be able to overcome the swindle of outside interference in mental health care in the long run.

F. Weinberger – R. Wilcocks

——————————————————-

Summary of GEP’s bulletin 2/03

GEP’s information bulletin (Rundbrief) 2/03 of November 2003 is strengthened by important supporters,

1. High-ranking clerics within the Vatican, e.g. Archbishop Dr. Cordes, head of the PONTIFCIUM CONSILIUM ‘COR UNUM’, who has fought against the detrimental influences on some Catholics of the “psycho-industry”, specially of socalled “group dynamics” after we (together with others) had warned of fraudulent “psycho-technologies” spreading even within the Catholic community. He has encouraged us to continue our quarter-century campaign against abuses of psychiatry and psychology for political ends.

2. The British linguist Robert Wilcocks Ph.D., a professor for Modern French Literature at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and a prominent participant in the international campaign against psychoanalysis or better: against fraud in psychotherapy. (A text of his can be read in the English section of GEP’s website: www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de, the review of the books of an American psychiatrist and an American psychologist on Freudian “cornerstones.”)

As we have often done in recent years, we have shed some light on the present state of the (mostly evasive) discussion of psychiatric abuses to curb political dissenters in the former GDR. We then have considered the strange situation in Western psychiatry and the influence of psychoanalysis in it. The political aspects we see and demonstrate here, of course, are not seen by all of those who write in this newsletter. But all of them agree that the Freudian tenets are fraudulent and proven to be fallacious to such a degree that their dismissal from all parts of society and specially from the “healing professions” is long overdue and – should it take place in the near future (as we are sure it will) – could have political repercussions.

We congratulate some of our American psychiatric colleagues for having taken up the issue and fight against the swindle which has corrupted our pro fession internationally to a large extent morally and politically – and which has been spread over the world earlier specially from American psych iatry. Such scandals like the move for “normalizing” pedophilia at the latest annual con vention of the APA in San Francisco in May 2003 or the long lasting silence to Soviet psychiatric abuses during the 1970s have to be seen as “small fish” if even basic assumptions of the profession turn out to be clearly fallacious but tolerated not only in the “leading” Western nation but internationally. The credibility not only of the psychiatric profession but of the Western system is at stakes.

We have addressed these and similar problems fairly gently for over quarter of a century. In this newsletter we address them more bluntly – the “softly-softly” approach not having achieved the appropriate response over this long period of time. Since there is new support for our positions inside and outside our association we have new hope that the problems will be solved in the near future. The time is ripe. The INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF FREUD CRiTICS has begun its work.

——————————————————–

Summary of Bulletin 1/03

GEP’s new bulletin (Rundbrief 1/03, February 2003) tackles “group therapy”, “group dynamics” primarily. Rudolf Willeke, a retired school director in Westphalia, who has long studied their different tenures and practices and has published books on the issue, explains how they could become the most influential psycho-technologies. And he explains their devastating effects as the prevailing method of modern brainwashing.

Willeke, an engaged catholic, deplores the wide expansion of “group dynamics” within many institutions of his church. Recalling what Malachi Martin has described in his book: Windswept House (Doubleday, New York, 1996), Willeke refers to many of the present difficulties and even scandals of the church originating in the intrusion of these “dynamic” tenures going back to Freud. Freud and his psychotherapy are questioned more than ever today, especially in English speaking countries (see the presentations on “Psychoanalysis” in the English section of our website). Remember that group therapy, a therapeutic swindle like large parts of individual psychotherapy, has been conceived as a means of “reeducation” from its very beginning – not only of the Germans after WW2 but of all peoples, a means for re-evaluating all their values and thus a means for better manipulating them (see our presentation of General Chisholm’s lecture of 1945 in our website – Glimpse into the History of Psychiatric Reform). Now that some tiny resistance is arising, at least within catholic rows, there is hope that our and other peoples will eventually come to grips with the impact of psycho-technologies.

Our bulletin further tackles questions of psychiatric abuse in the former GDR. A realistic assessment of these practices in the former communist part of our country is taking place there, after more then a decade. This provides a hopeful sign that political facts are recognized with growing understanding and commitment to truth and justice within our society against the many distractions and distortions of the media, the medical and psychological associations and the politicians.

——————————————————————

Summary of GEP’s Bulletin 2/02

Our Rundbrief 2/02 of November 2002 treats recent developments in issues of political abuses of psychiatry. Attention to such malpractice taking place now in China has been directed recently by influential organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP). Having once been associated with the latter, we felt it appropriate to distance ourselves from it, since their judgments on what and where is psychiatric abuse and what is to be done on behalf of its victims seemed to us to be rather arbitrary and dependent from foreign influences. Abuses e.g. in the former communist part of our own country were ignored and even denied by GIP. Half information is better than nothing but can be harmful sometimes.

From the beginning of our work we observed the reactions of national and international bodies on psychiatric abuses. Great national and international health organizations, the media, and the political class have often been quite hesitant or even evasive in severe cases of these human rights violations. At the same time political influences on Western psychiatry appeared more and more dubious. Psychiatric “reform” for example, having been initiated by politicians in many countries, has different aspects some of which in our opinion are scientifically unfounded and even politically dangerous.

The reform is enlarging the outreach of psychiatry to ever greater parts of the population and is focussing it more and more on directives of political bodies. It is transforming the discipline, at least in our country, more and more to that of former communism: an instrument of the rulers for influencing or even aligning the values and thoughts of the people, embarrassing their rights and freedoms and making ruling easier for rulers. This totalitarian drive, of course, is supported now by our red-green government but has been initiated by the former conservative faction of rulers as well.

The new outreach of psychiatry has been effected in the first instance by incorporating ever greater parts of pseudo-science, especially psychoanalysis. By teaching Freudian (Freud-Marxist) ideology to students of different professional directions, doctors, psychologists and still more frequently social workers and other “social engineers,” the politicians have created the manpower for staffing new psychiatric-psychological services and institutions and thus enabling themselves to condition the political thoughts according to their ends. In the last decades they have pushed German psychiatry into a new dubious and often fraudulent condition – making scientifically unsubstantiated claims, giving untenable promises and hiding totalitarian perspectives. Freudian ideology, however, has been the backbone of this reform. Most saddening is that it has been quite impossible in this country to speak out against the flourishing untruth within the profession, its perversion in the former GDR as well as its present move in this totalitarian direction.

However, new hope has arisen since stringent criticism is mounting against Freud in Anglo- and Francophone countries now (look for literature into our website: Psychoanalysis). Some of our psychiatric colleagues there fortunately have kept their reason also in other issues of the discipline. Many of the results of the Freudian swindle may collapse over night now. Much suffering prolonged or even produced by it unfortunately will hardly do so. All those who have supported the fraud, many psychiatric bodies up to the World Psychiatric Association and the WHO and many of their international supporters in policy and the media, prestigious foundations, GIP etc. could be blamed deeply tomorrow. But, of course, since there are many who think they can profit from fraud in medicine it is by no means decided how the matter will develop.

In any case we feel encouraged to continue the fight against dishonesty in mental health care and its political abuse.

———————————————————-

Summary of GEP’s News Bulletin (Rundbrief) 3/01

Our Newsletter “Rundbrief 3/01″ is starting from the terror which has stricken America. Political deliberations can not begin otherwise in these days. This atrocity has been declared by some newspapers to be “a reaction to the globalisation”. Its trademarks are free trade, open mindedness, free information, but also a lot of rather disputed re-valuations of values such as abor-tion, euthanasia, genetic alienation and – concerning the issues of our association – psychic manipulation, open and disguised fostering of drug consumption, open and disguised abuses of psychiatry and psychology for politi-cal ends, for influencing and controlling people on behalf of their “Superiors” (A. Huxley). Brave New World is basing in first instance on psychological programs. Re-cently, there have been warnings of Brave New World even in president Bush’s surroundings. Since long time we have uttered such warnings and have been scolded for them.

Our new Rundbrief is mentioning different con-tributions of psychiatry and psychology to such a ques-tionable future. We discuss the new drug liberation which our red-green federal government is introducing in spite of sharply increasing numbers of addicts and drug related deaths. We ponder upon the ongoing influence of Freudian tenets. Since long we accuse our German medi-cal associations and the politicians of having elevated this pseudo-science to an acknowledged “health disci-pline” regardless of lacking proofs of its therapeutic effi-ciency, regardless of ongoing attempts to pretend its effi-ciency and regardless of all the human damages resulting therefrom. But are all these developments not more an international affair? We highly appreciate the sophisti-cated critical studies on Freud which have appeared in some English speaking countries in recent years. But it seems that these committed critics, too, ignore the last-ing dominance of Freudianism in international “mental health care” and its political background. We remember to V.E. Frankl’s Logotherapy as a real non-reductionist alternative in psychotherapy.

And we point out to Dr. G.B. Chisholm’s re-markable words of 1945: “…’good’ is recognized as just as great a menace as ‘evil’… They are fruits of the one tree and are different aspects of the same thing… The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the con-cept of right and wrong… these are the belated objec-tives of practically all effective psychotherapy… If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility… to root out and destroy the oldest and most flourishing parasitical growth in the world, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil… Man’s freedom to observe and to think freely is essential to his sur-vival…” (PSYCHIATRY, Vol. 9, February 1946, No.1). These words have been supported by highly ranking politicians from the very beginning. Obviously they were the base for an enormous augmentation of psycho-professional services in all Western countries and for a lot of deviations within the psycho-professions and our so-cieties after World War two.

Undoubtedly, there is some reason in Chisholm’s deliberations. Would our world, however, have really been or would it be better off before, in or after 1945 by renouncing “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”? Are the disasters of those times and of our present time like the recent one in America not more likely the results of the evaporation of these principles? So big a problem the categories of good and evil, right and wrong (e.g. the “war of the good against the evil”) may contain, can we afford to give them up? Aren’t they the base of all civilisation? Are the pseudo-scientific tenets of Freud & Co. more reliable than the wisdom of centuries of cultural development? And are we psychiatrists and psychologists really in a position “to take the responsibility for” their “eradication”, let alone that we have never been asked whether we are all ready to take it – we psychiatrists who are well prepared to treat mental illnesses but recur to nothing but faith or ideologies (and pseudo-science) when it goes beyond these limits? Are Chisholm’s words not suitable to evoke doubts about the moral condition of Western psychiatrists and psycholo-gists and, eventually, of all Western culture?

Chisholm’s deliberations have obviously been the base for all social widening of our discipline. Obviously it has been the reason for its repeated and widely spread disregard of psychiatric abuses yesterday in the Soviet Union, later also in the Eastern part of our country and today in China, for acceptance, acknowledgement and promulgation of Freudian and other reductionist pseudo-sciences, for acceptance of drug liberalisation and increasing drug distribution by medical and state’s agencies – all this being accompanied by never ending self-adulations of the heads of our profession on national and international grounds thus immunizing themselves against criticisms from within and outside the profession.

Chisholm’s ideas and the political support they have received from the very beginning have brought the change of Western values from their Jewish-Christian origin to today’s neo-liberal, neo-Marxist or even Huxleyan set of values. Are they the “Good” for which we have to fight now? Neither the Taliban-terror nor a Brave-New-Worldian dictatorship which President Bush has addressed recently can be our aim!

We assess broad international discussions of our professional affairs to be necessary. More information at:

www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de

————————————————————–

Summary of GEP’s Bulletin (“Rundbrief”) 2/01 (of March 2001):

25 years ago our Association had begun to fight political abuses of psychiatry when pertinent news came in from the former Soviet Union. Since the most atrocious crimes had happened in German psychiatry during Nazi rule before – mass-murder initiating the holocaust – we, a group of German psychiatrists and “laymen”, felt specially committed to resist politically inspired crimes in this professional field wherever they newly arise, be it also in milder forms. We became rather amazed at the composure which some of the official psychiatric organisations in our country and in other countries including the WPA and the WHO displayed in front of this new category of human rights violations. Eventually, together with other groups we could move them to take a stronger stand. But they all dropped the issue completely when the Soviet Union ceased to exist and free information became accessible from Eastern European countries for the first time. Just at that time we got knowledge of psychiatric abuses even from the Eastern part of our country, the former G.D.R. This issue, of course, is of special interest for us. The German text of our information bulletin 2/01 (Rundbrief 2/01) gives more information about this topic.

“Abuse of science” in mental health care, however, is a theme in other connections, too. In her extraordinary book MANUFACTURING VICTIMS the Canadian psychologist Tana Dineen for example speaks about such “abuse” in regard to the inflationary expansion of offers of professional “help” for psychic problems which often are void promises only presenting a kind of modern “Psychology Industry”. Other moves in some Anglo-Saxon countries are going a similar direction. By the works of Frederic Crews (Unauthorized freud), Richard Webster (Why FREUD WAS WRONG), Allen Esterson (SEDUCTIVE MIRAGE), Han Israels (in German: DER FALL FREUD), Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and others the base of Sigmund Freud’s construction was put in question. Many psychiatric associations, however, go on to advocate and foster the Freudian swindle as they have done during long times of the last century, already. How many suffering people thus have been put off or even ridden into more suffering? How much money has been wasted? In 1999 when the spell of psychoanalysis has been broken in wide parts of the world, already, the German doctors’ Assembly (Deutscher Aerztetag) has acknowledged the fraud. It was considered as a true medical speciality.

There is still another problem in the field of psychiatry and psychology which is close to abuse. “Psychiatric Reform” has been widely propagated by the professional associations and the media as a mere set of charity with psychoanalysis at its top. Of course, every social institution is to be “reformed” continuously. In fact psychiatry has experienced a decisive “reform” – by real scientific progress. By the new pharmaceutics the fate of many patients could improve greatly, many psychiatric wards could be closed etc.

————————————————————–

“The world is changing very fast, leading to new stresses on many individuals which make them more vulnerable to psychiatric diseases or in need of professional help…”

Prof. J.J. López-Ibor, President of the world Psychiatric Association, inviting to a new congress taking place in Madrid, Spain, in next May – not asking how many colleagues and laymen in the world are weary of such unfounded phrases.

————————————————————–

All stressing of “change” in psychiatry and all the emphatic glorification of its “reform” by the associations and the media, however, are by no means aiming to further improve the situation of the sick. The primal aim of most of the emphatic “reformers” obviously is to expand psychiatry and psychology for influencing and controlling the “normal” individual and social life. This is no mere suspicion. This is printed and you can read it in published psychiatric literature, e.g. in Dr. G.B. Chisholm’sThe Re-Establishment of Peacetime Society (Psychiatry, Vol. 9, No.1, February 1946). According to these deliberations the professionals are planned to be “social influence purveyors”. Dineen has quoted so the Canadian lawyer A. Scheflin. And, obviously, for this purpose the politically well adapted leaders of “soul-sciences” push all “reasons” far fetched, right or wrong, and all stuff to impress people and tout clients – no matter whether highly sophisticated or junk science such as psychoanalysis. Psychiatric associations are by no means less active in this respect than psychologists trained in the liberal arts. Most of their promises and exaggerations of “changes” and “needs” mostly strive for more money and more influence only.

In European countries where health service is more socially (or socialistically) regulated than in the United States the proponents of Psychiatric Reform try to get more money specially from public sources. They do so even if all “mental health service” thus will be dictated fully by state’s bureaucrats and ideologists such as the Neo-/Freudo-Marxists of the 1960s. Their theoretical base was largely laid by Freud’s neo-analyst off-spring like Dr. Chisholm. Here you find the blueprint for all the “re-education” and “value changing” and other harm “psychology-industry is doing to people” (Dineen). When some professional organizations (according to Phyllis Schlafly – www.eagleforum.org) e.g. the American teachers’ organization NEA are regarded to be the best partisans of the value-changers the psycho-professional organizations can be considered of no less capability.

At least, in our country the reform of psychiatry has been the real product of the 1960s’ cultural revolution whose representatives serve not only as ministers in our Federal Government, today but are in many other influential posts as well. In psychiatry they have reached their aims by less violent means than casting stones and firebombs against the police. In 1974 they only broke up doctors’ parliament (Deutscher Aerztetag) when psychiatry and psychiatric abuse were discussed in a way they did not like. Today some of them are heads of psychiatric hospitals. You must not be amazed that they earlier have played down psychiatric abuse in the USSR and deny any abuse in the former GDR, now. Perhaps the experiences we have made with fraudulent psychiatric (and medical) authorities in this country in former times are helping at least some of us now to keep sound distance from them whenever non-scientific but ethical and political questions are at stake.

Beside other points our bulletin tackles the drug problem which has been introduced in Germany by our (Neo-)Marxists and which is sustained and widened by them until now. Drug substitution has been the favourite topic of our left wing parties. The resistance of the conservative side, however, has been amazingly weak over the years so that the impression has arisen that the origin of the problem might not be as leftist as it mostly seems.

By all its obvious bias and its unfounded claims “psycho-industry” meets more and more criticism around the world. Change is overdue. But, as Dineen has pointed out, „…a change of this magnitude can not come from within the professions, the fraternal organizations and the licensing boards which have failed to protect the public and continue to promote the industry”. It has been politicians who have created the psychiatric, “psycho-industrial” problem (see Chisholm). So it would not be inappropriate if politicians would help to solve it, now. Such a change would be beneficial for those in poor health and in good health and would help our societies as a whole. Last but not least it would help to re-establish truth in science.

Of course, one can ask why to oppose just the special scandals in psychiatry. Are modern life, modern medicine not full of questionable developments? In the Netherlands doctors are killing their old and sick patients legally, now. The killing of unwanted unborn children has become legal almost world-wide. Cloning and the utilisation (or abuse) of human lives for the well being of those who can afford it are in progress in many countries, too. Distribution of drugs, manipulating of minds, declaring opponents to be mentally ill can be considered to be minor medical faults in comparison, sometimes even as expressions of freedom. And obviously they are widely considered to be correct and therefore, discussed critically in the public no more. You can also ask: Is the responsibility really with the doctors or is it more within the “democratic majorities” in all our countries where the development is taking place. Or is the responsibility, eventually, at the international “classe politique” which is backing or even leading it by their media and/or their “social influence purveyors” in psychiatry, psychology and social work etc? In this case the (Western form of) “abuse of psychiatry for political ends” would even be the most basic problem of all the others we have mentioned above.

Sometimes it seems that there are more questions than answers. We can only invite you to discuss them thoroughly with us.

————————————————-

Summary to GEP’s Bulletin 2/00 (of July 2000)

This bulletin (Rundbrief 2/2000) refers to the systematic abuse of psychiatry in the former communist part of our country or – to be more specific – to its systematic denial in today’s state of “democratic legality.”

Then it covers the alienations of psychiatry which after WW2 were conceived in some Anglo Saxon countries for the re-education not only of the Germans but also of those democratic populations in the West which just had crushed Nazism. The concept of Re-education written down e.g. in Psychiatry, Vol.9, No.1, 1946 by G.B. Chisholm M.D. has been the base of the cultural revolution of the 60s and of all those reforms of psychiatry which were enforced at the same time in many western countries. They are enforced now in the countries of Middle and Eastern Europe by high political bodies, Big Money (and a former ally, the Geneva Initiative of Psychiatry). For long times the concept was hidden from us and from most citizens (psychiatrists included) in all other countries, as well. According to Chisholm et al. the purpose of the “Re-education” is the preservation of an ever lasting peace. If this purpose is 1.) real and 2.) is to be reached by the means of psychiatry and psychology would their implementation for such ends be appropriate? Or would it represent more a political abuse of these sciences?

The preservation of peace has often been the pretext of communist dictators for the preservation of their regimes and it is a calculated bait also in A. Huxley’s totalitarian concept of Brave New World. Sometimes it seems that our leaders in politics, the media and in “psycho-sciences” are prone to realize this “postmodernist” concept. This would explain why the terror of communist psychiatric abuse was of little public concern in the past and continues widely to be played down today, as well.

Re-education and the cultural revolution of the 60s have been based on Freudianism from the beginning. Detrimental results appear more and more in our societies. So we notice with satisfaction that Freudianism is seriously questioned in the USA today. Even the APA which has promoted this pseudo science continuously all over the world seems to be forced to retreat from it, eventually. We think it is time to discuss these developments more thoroughly now on an international base.

——————————————————

Summary to GEP’s Bulletin 4/99 (November 1999)

In this circular letter we present and explain the new name of our Association of psychiatrists and lay people: Walter-von-Baeyer-Society for Ethics in Psychiatry.
Then we expose further details of psychiatric abuse in the former German Democratic Republic. It is being negated by almost all in the political and professional community in Germany and abroad, e.g. at the last World Congress of Psychiatry in Hamburg, August 8-11, 1999. When this practice occurred in the Soviet Union in the 60s and 70s, it was played down for long time, too. Others, however, including our Association considered it to be a real crime against humanity and, eventually, defeated it. So we wonder about the reasons for the present international denial of these human right violations in the former GDR.

We also expose other dubious developments in psychiatry e. g the backing by highly ranking psychiatrists of ill-advised drug politics in many countries. We further discuss some schools of psychotherapy that are increasingly challenged in Anglo-Saxon countries as being pseudo-sciences (e.g. by Frederick C. Crews, Unauthorized Freud). They are supported by medical and state agencies in Germany.

According to some American critics, many of these dubious developments originate or were promoted in the United States by leftist circles; other say: by “Big Money”. As it may be: we highly appreciate that there are also many well-established organisations in the States that fight these developments and defend traditional values. We only wonder why many of them restrict their activity to their limited issues, politically and geographically, and refrain from contacts with others who fight the same battles within their own respective countries. Those who strive to change values, “persons and societies” in the direction of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a dictatorship, were effective to high degree by maintaining broad international connections. We discuss why their opponents are not.

Some of our psychiatric opponents, especially those who negate psychiatric abuse in the GDR, claim that we “believe in conspiracies” implying something delusional. We refer to Marilyn Ferguson’s book “The Aquarian Conspiracy” where the American sociologist has disclosed an “Open Conspiracy” and many contributions of psychiatry to “ personal and social transformations”. In former circulars, we have demonstrated that “soft” forms of psychiatric abuses are spreading in some European countries as a weapon in political debates. A commission of the German parliament (Bundestag) has publicly considered members of “sects” and “fundamentalists” to be in a dubious mental condition whereas large parts of the Catholics and members of other Christian denominations, including the Pope, are openly defamed by the media to be “fundamentalists”. Some highly ranking psychiatrists give support.

In the United States, there are similar conflicts between those who want the “transformation” of men and society and those who oppose it. We think that increasing attention should be given to the double nature of psychiatry and other “human sciences”. Beside help for sick people, they always encompass the danger of abuse by their political leaders. Widening the scope of psychiatry to “Social Psychiatry” means widening and increasing government controls of our personal lives in all our countries. Those who are concerned are invited to contact us.

—————————————————-

Summary to GEP’s (the former DVpMP’s) Bulletin 1/99 (February 1999)

This edition of DVpMP’s Rundbrief (circular of the German Association on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry, a group of lay people and psychiatrists) covers two main issues, firstly the question of psychiatric abuses in the former GDR and their assessment in Germany nowadays, secondly – and strangely connected with this point – the complex of psychiatry, psychotherapy and so called psycho-groups. Calling „cultists“, „fundamentalists“ etc. those who dissent with the mainstream of „modern“ thought of „political correctness“ (and sometimes of demoralization) and thus implying that they are in a dubious psychic condition, are evidently spreading not only in post-communist Russia (see our Rundbrief 2/98) but also in some Western countries, especially in Germany. This is even more alarming as some psychiatrists participate in this kind of defamation. Obviously, this is part of a „cultural war“ which widely goes on – under the German name „Kulturkampf“ even in the United States (see page 5). It is bordering upon a new kind of psychiatric abuse for political ends. The connections with our original theme of Soviet psychiatric abuse are manifold.

Totalitarian tendencies are seen by many observers of today’s political life. They are apparent in the efforts of some state leaders and of their supporters in various social fields, such as in education, psychology etc. We wonder why the outspoken communist bias of some high ranking Western psychiatrists was rarely noticed. Their contributions could be the most effective in corrupting traditional values and thus promoting new totalitarism. Of course, there is a lot of criticism against psychiatry in the world. Often enough, however, it is mixed with strange ideologies and thus deprived of seriousness. „Anti-psychiatry“ is no answer to the current problems. Criticism of improper expansions of psychiatry in everyday life is, however, legitimate and necessary. Fortunately, there is strong resistance against totalitarian tendencies in many parts of the world. We see our endeavours to be part of it.

———————————————————–

Summary to DVpMP’s (today GEP’s) bulletin 2/98 (of May 1998)

This issue of DVpMP’s newsletter (Rundbrief 2/98) begins with recent cases of psychiatric abuse for political ends in Turkmenistan. It continues with the wrong and misleading heading „GDR – No Systematic Abuse“ (see box below). In our former newsletters (Rundbrief 1/96 and 1/97) we have presented five clear cut cases of such abuse and have demonstrated that this method of communist repression has indeed taken place in the former socialist part of our country, too. We wonder why a lot of reputable people, some German ministers, the large majority of the press and even the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP), our former ally, try to play down and even deny this horrible method of totalitarian repression. Why do they want to rewrite history? (In the case of GIP, however, we are surprised by nothing any more – see Vladimir Bukovsky’s comment on page 8).

———————————————————–

from GIP’s bulletin Mental Health Reforms No.1:

DDR – No systematic abuse
Under the heading „No systematic abuse of psychiatry in the DDR“ the Associated Press reported from Potsdam that a Brandenburg commission of experts has found no indications that critics of the Communist regime were put into psychiatric clinics against their will…

———————————————————

We further discuss the participation of high ranking psychiatrists in the distribution of „psychedelic“ drugs and in the promotion of euthanasia, both clear cut betrayals of medical ethics and expressions of the „Culture of Death“ (John Paul II) reminding of worst crimes of Nazi psychiatry. We go on discussing the participation of some of our colleagues and academic teachers in the wide spread campaign against new religious minorities and other dissidents comparing their activities with similar developments in today’s Russia. Recently, the situation in our country has been criticized by the US Foreign Office and even by the Human Rights Commission of the UN after a visitation in Germany in the fall of 1997 (see footnotes 88-94).

In our opinion this development is the result of neomarxist (freud-marxist) ideology and of the ensuing concept of „planned (social) change“ (R. Lippitt) which were created mostly by Anglo-American psychiatrists and psychologists in the forties. Having resisted psychiatric abuse in marxist governed Eastern countries for many years we are now confronted with neomarxist distortions of „psycho sciences“ originating in the West and often offered under the guise of „psychiatric reform“. „To change the attitude and behavior of the population in general regarding the use of psychoactive substances“ is one of the outspoken objectives of many „psychiatric reformers“ like GIP. We deplore not only the objective but the manipulative way of its pursuance. We regard it to be a „soft“ but by no means less dangerous form of psychiatric abuse.

Today, there is much suffering worldwide by the off springs of neomarxism. Consequently there is a rising resistance against its effects in many countries. We think that it is time to look into their roots in „psycho sciences“. They, of course, imply a lot of healing power for sick people. Under political influence, however, they also bear many risks for all of us and our (still) friendly, free and democratic societies (Dr. Hoff Sommers).Further English text on pages 27, 28, 32 & 3

————————————————

Summary to the Bulletin 1/97 (of September 1997)

This edition of the circular letter (Rundbrief) of the German Association on the Political Abuse of Psychiatry (DVpMP) covers in the first instance the issue of psychiatric abuses in the former GDR. As with so many of the crimes committed under communism the issue is played down or even bluntly denied now by reputable medical and political bodies in Germany and beyond. We expose different types and clear cut cases of Soviet style abuse which took place in the former socialist part of our country.

We consider the reasons for the widespread disregard of this category of human rights violation. In American psychiatry of the early 70’s there was a good deal of hesitation in opposing psychiatric abuse in the USSR, too. The same kinds of offence in the GDR are now denied even by those (see the box) who – like the Geneva Initiative on Psychiatry (GIP) – formerly campaigned against abuses in the USSR together with us (when we formed the International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry). We show that playing down the crimes of „applied socialism“ was and is within the behaviour pattern of the „New Left“ whose ideology was created mostly by „mental health professionals“ (some German socialist émigrés among them) in America in the 40ies and has spread world-wide in the 60ies. We also recall that a cover up of psychiatric abuse was practised by such high ranking bodies as the Human Rights Commission of the UN, the WHO and the UNESCO. How does this fit in with their aim of building up a „New World Order“?

Due to past excesses in the psychiatry of their countries psychiatrists in the DVpMP and their partner organisation, the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia, feel that they have a special obligation to defend the humane ideals of their profession. The more psychiatric abuse for political ends is played down the greater is the danger of its re-emergence – perhaps in different forms than met until now.

Some of those who – from WHO to GIP – have played or play down psychiatric abuse are very active now in promoting a form of „Mental Health Reforms“ in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Thus these reforms, too, have to be regarded with caution.

———————————————————–

Content of Chapters

Introduction: 20 Years DVpMP – 20 Years of Resisting Psychiatric Abuse and its Cover up – Page 1; Summary – Page 2; No Systematic Abuse of Psychiatry in the Former GDR? – Page 4; No Systematic Abuse? – The Case of F. Gebhardt – Page 6; No Systematic Abuse? – The Case of Dr. D. Eckstein – Page 9; No Systematic Abuse? – The Case of C. Noll – Page 10; No Systematic Abuse – The Case of D. Koch – Page 11; Systematic Abuse – What Else? – Page 12; Koch, Personal Experience with a State’s Commission of Review – Page 13; Further Peculiarities within the Work of the State’s Commissions – Page 15; Signs of Hope for an Humane and Honest Psychiatry in Russia, Lasting Shortcomings – Page 16; Savenko, Psychiatry and Human Rights – Page 17; Savenko, Competition for Psychiatric Associations – Page 19; Vinogradova, GIP and the Adherence of Psychiatric Organisations to the State – Page 23; Excerpt from DVpMP’s Stasi File – Page 26; From Psychiatric Abuse to Psychiatric Reform – Page 27; Psychiatric Abuse, Psychiatric Reform for a „New World Order“? – Page 28; Prantl, More Europe through Less Democracy – Page 3

Friedrich Weinberger
to a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
during its annual convention in Washington D.C. 1988

published in 1989 as the Foreword to a booklet of IAPUP with the title
“soviet psychiatric abuse in the gorbachev era” – robert van voren (ed.)

At the end of the sixties and the beginning of the seventies we received information and soon clear evidence, that in the USSR some dissidents were declared to be mentally ill and treated accordingly. The use of psychiatry for repressing, punishing and discrediting opponents became known worldwide. In 1972 the West German Psychiatrie Association, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Nervenheilkunde, declared in a resolution:
‚Any abuse of psychiatric methods and facilities for ideological and political purposes is in contradiction to the ethical rules of the medical profession as well as to the principles of universally valid social ethics’. This was one of the first reactions by a professional body, and was also supported by the leadership of the WPA. Since this declaration, however, only related to hypothetical cases of abuse, some regarded it as rather evasive. As a result of the efforts of many psychiatrists all over the world, stronger responses began to be made, eventually by the General Assembly of the WPA in 1977 and 1983 as well. We considered a clear stand to be necessary. Some colleagues, however, thought otherwise and they have been ready to use the tactic of evasion right up to now.

Deceit is the foundation of repression under the cover of mental health-care as well as the main instrument for its ‘justification’. For years the Soviets denied psychiatric abuse despite all the evidence. And also this obvious lie was willingly accepted by many psychiatrists in western countries, including, sorry to say, my country. These colleagues, however, mostly preferred the milder, but no less false assertion, that the abuse was not sufficiently proven. They said, it’s too far away, and stressed the ambiguities which exist in psychiatric diagnoses. They simply passed over the abundant evidence.

But if on the one hand we heard that there was insufficient evidence, on the other hand, we heard the subject was already known to all and thus didn’t need any further attention. In 1988 WPA president Dr. Stefanis has used this argument to keep IAPUP’s contributions out of the WPA Regional Symposium held in October 1988 in Washington D.C.. We were also told that the issue is of little or no importance. The main task of psychiatrists is the promotion of their science. This ‘formidable’ argument was usually combined with attempts to denigrate those, who, like us, deemed the matter to be very significant for the humane aims of psychiatry and for its scientific credibility. Our views and explanations had nothing to do with science, our opponents said, but were anti-communist; an argument first put forward by the abusers themselves, by Dr. Morozov, Dr. Vartanyan, etc.
More often, however, it was simply said that the whole question was being brought up for political motives alone. This argument appealed to the

aversion against all politics which is widespread among physicians, at least in Germany. Of course, it can contribute to privacy in the patient-doctor relationship, that physicians show restraint in public affairs. But this basically well-founded principle has always been ambiguous, too. For some colleagues it has served as an easy excuse to keep out of all struggles which had to be fought for human progress, liberty and justice. German doctors especially are said to have been educated to fulfill just their medical duties and not to get involved into what is called ‘dirty polities’. In the opinion of serious observers their indifference, or rather, indolence towards polities has virtually contributed to the submissiveness of German doctors to authority, more especially to Hitler. Some of our eminent psychiatrists became pacemakers, even worse, executors of his most atrocious crimes.

The actions and omissions of doctors as weil as of everybody else, have a political context, whether it is admitted or not. I’m happy that there are countries where doctors obviously have a more natural attitude towards polities, where they take part in shaping the community, and where therefore psychiatrists were among the first to respond to the challenge of psychiatric abuse to a large extent. In my country, as I have mentioned already, I had been discouraged by the evasions, the distortions, the glossing over of the evils. So it was a great experience for me hearing the contributions of many from the floor during the Special Session on the Abuse of Psychiatry, arranged by the Americans at the World Congress of Psychiatry on 30 August 1977 in Honolulu. Wasn’t it there, where it was made evident that the majority of psychiatrists stand for right and truth and that they can never be turned into accomplices of political perfidy? Never before had I been so proud to belong to the professional group of psychiatrists as in that moment.

The problem of psychiatric abuse is not an inferior issue that has to be kept out of scientific conventions. As long as it exists it has to be on our agendas. Medical science is only scientific as long as it considers its effects on human beings. T 0 ignore some of these effects the way some representatives of the WPA have tried to do in the past and the present representatives, Dr. Stefanis and Dr. Schulsinger do nowadays, is creating almost a travesty of medical science. This science can only prosper if all those who contribute to it, can trust that they are all serving the interests of man. Science, international co-operation of scientists and the strengthening of a scientific association cannot be promoted by courting people who are notoriously involved in crimes.

It’s also a loss for a science if an area which undisputably belongs to it, is withdrawn from its consideration on an artificial pretext. Psychiatry involves the cultural, social and political spheres of human life more than any other medical discipline. So, how can it ignore a political sphere which is so cosely linked to it? Those of us who have studied the details of psychiatric abuse more thoroughly, have gained valuable experience for their own practice, too. Never and nowhere did the observation of human rights in psychiatry happen of its own accord. We psychiatrists have had to learn as we go along and we still have to learn. Science is an answer to challenges – that existing problems pose for the human mind. So, how can scientists not respond to such a challenge as psychiatrie abuse?

The leaders of the World Psychiatric Association dose their eyes to this this practice obstinately. Obviously, they are also not aware of the disgrace they are bringing upon our discipline. For example, in the German press, highly critical articles have appeared about how the issue of abuse is handled by these gentlemen. Unfortunately, we had to get used to the fact that some western psychiatrists prefer to associate with those who perpetuate this abuse, rather than with those who criticize it. By doing so, the representatives of the WPA also ignore the decisions of the majority of their members, as expressed in the General Assemblies of this association in 1977 and 1983. Now they are even trying to change the voting system of the association as the Soviets have demanded since Honolulu. Drafts of new Statutes and Bye-Laws are being circulated among WPA member-societies. According to these proposals the Americans, the British, all who have been defending psychiatric ethics over the years despite various tricky manoeuvres, would lose much of their voting power.

My esteemed colleagues, you should be aware of the fact, that all the efforts you made against the perversion of our science which have earned you the high respect of many of your colleagues worldwide, will be in vain, if you allow your influence within the WPA to be diminished. Now, especially, you and your colleagues in other countries who have opposed the abuse have every reason to defend your position. The ameliorations in this field so far have been achieved thanks to your interventions. Some long-term victims of abuse were released. New legal regulations have been produced. Perhaps we do not need to do very much more to stop this evil and obstruct those who are responsible for it. By adhering to the ethies of our profession, you will have laid the base for a lasting understanding among psychiatrists worldwide. So please do not weaken or surrender your stand nor the means to pursue your aims. Don’t abandon those who are still unjustly suffering in psychiatric wards nor your colleagues who share your medical ideals and the readiness to stand up for them.

Following a comment of Dr. Reisman:

A LONG AWAITED REPORT

 The ALEC Report on Kinsey’s Fraud
ALEC represents 2,400 State legislators across the nation.

Note the attached copy of the ALEC (AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL) monograph on Alfred Kinsey’s frauds: “Restoring Legal Protections for Women And Children:  A Historical Analysis of The States Criminal Codes,” April 2004. I was honored to serve as ALEC’s Scientific Advisor to the Subcommittee on Junk Science for this project, while Dr. Jeffrey served as the Chief Reporter. The statecraft of Ray Haynes (CA), Senator Kay O’Connor (KS) Chair, Rep. Keith King (CO), Senator Laurie Bleaker (KS), Del. Janet Greenip (MD), Rep. Carolyn Coleman (OK), Rep. Andre Martel (NH), Del. John Reid (VA), Senator Jack Westwood (KY) and Eunice and Ron Ray (First Principals Press and RSVPAmerica) was critical in moving this study through challenging political waters to its successful publication. In 1999, leading the call for this legislative study was then ALEC President and California Republican Whip, Senator Ray Haynes, who penned the Introduction:

The evidence presented in this State Factor reveals compelling evidence of illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science taken from Kinsey’s confessions in his own “Reports” (1948-1953).  Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a “sexual revolutionary” and his “Kinsey Reports” are junk science.  Professor of Constitutional law Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame concluded that Alfred Kinsey’s research was:

…contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.

An anonymous ALEC staffer deleted a sentence publicizing the effects of Kinsey’s fraud on the same-sex marriage debate from Haynes’ Introduction:

Today Kinsey’s “junk science” is the unquestioned foundation for all the legal, legislative and media debate on marriage and civil unions.  

Nonetheless, the monograph is a powerful document with legislative credibility and clout.  This is my copy of the final so you need to call ALEC if you want copies of the original.  My thanks to all who worked to make this report possible.

Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

The State Factor
Jeffersonian Principles in Action

Restoring Legal Protections for Women And Children:
A Historical Analysis of The States Criminal Codes

  By Dr. Linda Jeffrey                                                        April 2004

Introduction

It is my pleasure as former National Chair of ALEC, to introduce this State Factor, “Restoring Legal Protections for Women and Children: A Historical Analysis of the States Criminal Codes,” proposed during my chairmanship and then approved December 11, 2003 for publication by the ALEC Education Task Force.  The Education Subcommittee on Junk Science in the Classroom, ably chaired by Kansas Senator Kay O’Connor, commissioned this research because of widespread use of “junk” science misdirecting legislatures, courts and education.

The evidence presented in this State Factor reveals compelling evidence of illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science taken from Kinsey’s confessions in his own “Reports” (1948-1953).  Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a “sexual revolutionary” and his “Kinsey Reports” are junk science.  Professor of Constitutional law Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame concluded that Alfred Kinsey’s research was:

“…contrived, ideologically driven and misleading.  Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.”

Since World War II Kinsey’s fraudulent data informed and directed the American Law Institute’s “Model Penal Code” in eliminating and weakening 52 sex laws that once protected marriage.  If indeed, as Justice Brandeis once said, “law points the way,” the changes to public policies and law naturally followed the Kinsey junk science sexuality model. The ALI’s penal law reforms recommended to legislators and lawyers were largely adopted between 1960 – 1980 and permitted Kinsey’s abnormal sexual conduct to be taught to American children via sex education.  Since then public health costs from sexual disease and dysfunction have skyrocketed indeed all measures of socio sexual disorder have soared from the 1960s, when protective laws began to be weakened and/or eliminated.   

As Kinsey intended, contemplated in the current debate are calls for “discrimination” laws to protect the full range of sexual activities including transvestitism, transgenderism, polygamy, bestiality and the like and, in education, whether to teach our children all “alternate” sexual acts as normal – or to teach Chastity and Abstinence until marriage.  

This State Factor is a valuable reference and resource for your work in government, because it provides you with history and current information of the utmost importance for any informed understanding of many public issues crucial to the protection of America’s families and young people.  Understanding how junk sex science has deformed our thinking and laws is vital as legislators “point the way.”  Restoration of reliable and honest standards in our state laws will ensure more healthful and economically sound outcomes for generations to come.  Only if enough legislators call attention to Kinsey’s questionable findings, can we start to reverse the misguided assault on American law and way of life through investigation, inquiries and repeal of laws and public policies based on “junk” science.  

California State Senator Ray Haynes

SUMmary and Purpose of Paper
This paper presents the first-hand account of history from participants and scholars since 1948 of how “junk science” was introduced into public policies and state law, and suggests the need for serious and official review, recall, and elimination of all “scientific” fraud from public policies including education and state law.  The “junk science” adopted by most state legislatures was based on Indiana University’s Kinsey Reports (1948,1953).  The study presents a history and review of changes in public education, philosophy and program goals since 1950, and the concurrent comprehensive “science-based” criminal law reform known as the American Law Institute’s (ALI’s) Model Penal Code (MPC). This will inform public officials and state lawmakers about how many radical changes were made without informed consent, and as a result, specific protections were lost for American women and children based on widespread legislative and judicial reliance upon the Kinsey Reports and the Model Penal Code.  

Evidence to make this case comes from the most compelling comments and admissions made by Kinsey himself and from those directly associated with the research and its use.

The Junk Sex Science
Alfred Kinsey was a moral revolutionary in scientist’s clothing.  The science was bad, even bogus; the man himself may now be forgotten; but the revolution came to stay, with a vengeance.  Kinsey’s message—fornicate early, fornicate often, fornicate in every possible way—became the mantra of a sex-ridden age, our age, now desperate for a reformation of its own.[i]

Most professionals, public officials, and Americans are unaware that the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was ignited by publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male that appeared in January 1948 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female that followed in August 1953.  Each volume received extraordinary media coverage.  The media coverage was coordinated with Dr. Kinsey and Kinsey-approved articles began appearing across the country prior to the January 5, 1948 public release of the first Male Report.  

The Kinsey Reports “were meant to cause change” according to Kinsey Institute author John Gagnon.[ii]  In 1997, sympathetic Kinsey biographer James Jones revealed that Kinsey’s mission was to end the sexual repression of our “English-American common law traditions.”[iii]  In fact, Kinsey’s “methodology” for changing society’s sexual life was modeled after his studies of gall wasps.  Kinsey said: “The techniques of this research [were] born out of the senior author’s longtime experience with a problem in insect taxonomy.  The transfer from insect [gall wasps] to human material is not illogical,” and could be applied to any population (Male volume, p. 9).

America’s trusted public institutions and professions adopted The Kinsey Reports’ radical findings, which included the stunning conclusion that 95% of “normal” American men, many World War II veterans of “the greatest generation,” would be classified as sex offenders under the 1948 common law state criminal codes.[iv] Alfred Kinsey and his Indiana University colleagues considered state laws protecting “Persons” and “Morality” unenforceable and campaigned for “science-based legal reform” to keep up with Man’s evolution.  

Dr. Judith Reisman’s research into the “scientific” basis of Indiana University’s Kinsey Reports, has dispositively revealed, from the Kinsey authors themselves, the Kinsey data are fraudulent.[v]  The internationally respected British Medical Journal, The Lancet, reviewed Dr. Reisman’s first book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990) recognizing:

Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports…The important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children…The book goes beyond that, however, for Kinsey, et. al, questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behaviour…Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.[vi]

For 50 years the exalted and widely accepted validity of The Kinsey Reports derived primarily from the large sample claimed, possibly 18,000 subjects.  However, Kinsey very unscientifically gleaned “…only a quarter of the cases in his two reports, without notice.”[vii]  

Female volume co-author and former Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard reported:

In the early stages of the research, when much interviewing was being done at Indiana correctional institutions, Dr. Kinsey did not view the inmates as a discrete group that should be differentiated from people outside; instead, he looked upon the institutions as reservoirs of potential interviewees, literally captive subjects. This viewpoint resulted in there being no differentiation in our 1948 volume between persons with and without prison experience … Kinsey never [kept] a record of refusal rates–the proportion of those who were asked for in interview but who refused.[viii]

Kinsey hagiographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy revealed that Kinsey never hired a statistician. “Frank Edmondson, a young astronomer” who had had “some rather superficial statistical training” was Kinsey’s “statistician.” Said Edmondson, Kinsey “’wasn’t a mathematician,’” in fact Kinsey “often got muddled between mean (average) and median,” elementary statistical concepts.[ix] Male volume co-author Clyde Martin “was no scholar,” but served as a statistician without such knowledge.[x]  Dr. Alan Gregg, director of the Medical Science Division, the Rockefeller Foundation funded Kinsey’s research. Rockefeller’s Science Director, Warren Weave, recorded Gregg’s concerns regarding serious flaws in Kinsey’s published data on May 7, 1951:

[T]here has never been, in this group, any trained mathematical statistician who comes within gunshot of having the competence, training, and experience which are required. In Dr. Kinsey’s own listing of his staff (Progress Report, April 1, 1950) he says that Mr. Clyde E. Martin ‘continues in charge of the statistical handling our data (sic).’ His scientific stature has not as yet caused him even to be listed in American Men of Science, the latest 11.5

contains about 50,000 names. Dr. Kinsey must approve highly of him, for in 1951, he raised his salary by 36 per cent. In his own diary record of a visit to Kinsey in July 1950, Dr. Gregg said, under the heading of personnel: ‘Past and present needs remain unsatisfied in point of… statistics.” This fault – this admittedly absolutely basic fault – existed in the project in 1942, it has existed ever since, there is no promise whatsoever that it will cease to exist – and we do nothing about it.[xi]

Within months after the Male Volume was published, Dr. Kinsey was invited to testify before a judicial committee of the California legislature, regarding “problems” with existing sex offense law.  First, he claimed that his decade of research reflected “normal sexuality” to be found in the entire American male population: “[Our research] has the advantage of having a background of the picture typical in the population as a whole…”[xii]  

After Kinsey’s death and in 1979, Kinsey co-author and Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard undertook to “clean up” the data, but by that time most state penal code revisions were    concluding.  Gebhard revealed that of the 18,000 interviews once widely considered so scientifically impressive, 5,300 white males accounted for the research base in the Male Volume; of that 5,300, 2,446 were designated as convicts, 1,003 homosexuals, 50 transvestites, 117 mentally ill, 342 “Other,” 650 sexually abused boys.  This yielded 4,628 n=Aberrant and 873 n = “Normal” Male subjects.[xiii]

Kinsey also failed to allow for “volunteer error,” according to Dr. Abraham Maslow:

[V]olunteers will always have a preponderance of [aggressive] high dominance people and therefore will show a falsely high percentage of non-virginity, masturbation, promiscuity, homosexuality, etc. in the population.[xiv]

Finally, zoologist Alfred C. Kinsey was not the conventional, middle-American family man and academic as marketed by Indiana University and the mass media. In 1997, Kinsey biographer James H. Jones revealed,

The man I came to know bore no resemblance to the canonical Kinsey.  Anything but disinterested, he approached his work with missionary fervor…He wanted to undermine traditional morality, to soften the rules of restraint…Kinsey was a crypto-reformer who spent his every waking hour attempting to change the sexual mores and sex offender laws of the United States…In Kinsey’s case, the personal was always political.[xv]

Later Jones commented on how Kinsey’s own carefully manufactured persona hid his “missionary fervor…to undermine traditional morality” and his own sexual predilections.  The truth would have damaged his credibility and stopped his mission to change the sex offender laws of the United States:

There is no way that the American public in the 1940s and the 1950s would have sanctioned any form of behavior that violated middle class morality on the part of the scientist who was telling the public that he was disinterested and giving them the simple truth…. Any disclosure of any feature of this private life that violated middle class morality would have been catastrophic for his career…. For Kinsey, life in the closet came complete with a wife, children, a public image…that again he preserved at all costs.  Kinsey’s reputation still in large measure rests upon an image of him that he cultivated during his lifetime …the official mystique.[xvi]

Effectively keeping the sex lives of Kinsey and his men hidden, Jones is right that, to date, this effort “came to nothing.”  However, now Jones admits that Kinsey,

…was not quite what he appeared to be–the genial academic in baggy tweeds and bow tie, the simple empiricist disinterestedly reporting his data…Kinsey….was, in reality, a covert crusader who was determined to use science to free American society from what he saw as the crippling legacy of Victorian repression.  And he was a strong-willed patriarch who created around himself a kind of utopian community in which sexual experimentation was encouraged.  In his obsessive energies and powers of persuasion, Kinsey resembled a late twentieth-century cult leader…a self-created visionary with a burning belief in his mission (and ability) to change the world.[xvii]

Finally Jones reports that, “Kinsey concentrated on negative eugenics, calling for a program of sterilization that was at once sweeping and terrifying. “The reduction of the birth rate of the lowest classes must depend upon the sterilization of perhaps a tenth of our population.”[xviii]

While Gore Vidal pronounced Kinsey the “most famous man in the world for a decade” one broadcast documentary, the Channel 4, British Yorkshire Television documentary, “Kinsey’s Paedophiles,” confirmed Dr. Judith Reisman’s findings including Kinsey’s collaboration with active pedophiles, a collaboration that resulted in the criminally derived pedophile “data” that contained the infamous “Table 34,” on page 180 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.  Kinsey-favoring biographer James Jones admitted in the Yorkshire interview what Kinsey’s own seminal research reveals, that is, children, some as young as 2 months of age, were used by “nine” adult male subjects for Kinsey’s human experiments:[xix]

Kinsey relied upon [King, a pedophile] for the chapter on childhood sexuality in the male volume … Many of his victims were infants and Kinsey in that chapter himself gives pretty graphic descriptions of their response to what he calls sexual stimulation. If you read those words, what he’s talking about is kids who are screaming. Kids who are protesting in every way they can the fact that their bodies or their persons are being violated.[xx]

Until 1998, when the Yorkshire investigators located the criminal trial records and news reports in Berlin, only a few in Kinsey’s inner circle knew about the Kinsey Institute’s collaboration with Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck.  Von Balluseck was a Nazi pedophile who contributed his child abuse data (from roughly 1936-1956) to Kinsey’s research database.[xxi]  German news accounts during the trial reported:

The Nazis knew and gave him the opportunity to practice his abnormal tendencies in occupied Poland on Polish children, who had to choose between Balluseck and the gas ovens. After the war, the children were dead, but Balluseck lived. [National-Zeitung, May 15, 1957].

Balluseck… corresponded with the American Kinsey Institute for some time, and had also got books from them which dealt with child sexuality. [Tagespiegel, October 1, 1957].

The connection with Kinsey, towards whom he’d showed off his crimes, had a disastrous effect on [von Balluseck]… [I]n his diaries he’d stuck in the letters from the sex researcher, Kinsey in which he’d been encouraged to continue his research…. He had also started relationships … to expand his researches. One shivers to think of the lengths he went to. [TSP, May 17, 1957]

Kinsey included these criminally-derived “child sexuality” data in his Male volume, cloaked in scientific respectability:

Better data on preadolescent climax come from the histories of adult males who have had sexual contacts with younger boys and who, with their adult backgrounds, are able to recognize and interpret the boys’ experiences . . . 9 of our adult male subjects have observed such orgasm . . .we have secured information on 317 preadolescents who were either observed in self masturbation, or who were observed in contacts with other boys or other adults.[xxii]

Kinsey’s “Junk Science” Enters Education

Few people realize that the great library collection of…the Kinsey Institute…was formed very specifically with one major field omitted: sex education. “[I]t seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill.  Thus we applied and were approved for a highly important grant from the National Institute for Mental Health that was designed to implement a planned role for SIECUS to become the primary data base for the area of education for sexuality.

SIECUS Report, May-July 1982, p. 6.

The ALEC Education Task Force passed a unanimous resolution declaring what has been ALEC’s policy for years; that all teaching must honestly promote accuracy of information including verifiable scientific findings.  Washington, Arizona and New Jersey were among the states introducing legislation in 2001 demanding medically accurate information in sex education.  The new K-12 sex education is grounded in the fraudulent scientific foundation of the Kinsey Reports.  

Since 1964, the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States (SIECUS) has provided sex education materials to public schools.  SIECUS, a private entity, received initial seed money from the Playboy Foundation.[xxiii] It was founded via the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University as its outreach.  SIECUS is dependent upon Indiana University’s Kinsey Reports, including the “scientific” tables documenting the Kinsey protocol of ongoing molestation of infants and children by pedophiles, including at least one former Gestapo officer.[xxiv]  These criminal acts provided the “proof,” Kinsey said, of sexual desire and erotic capacity in infants and children.

Therefore, according to Kinsey,  “science” requires teaching kindergarten children about their sexuality.  In the April 14, 1980 issue of Time Magazine, SIECUS was described as part of the “pro-incest lobby,” and in 1996, SIECUS issued a position statement advocating the use of “sexually explicit materials” to teach school children:

When sensitively used in a manner appropriate to the viewer’s age and developmental level, sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line materials can be valuable educational personal aids helping to reduce ignorance and confusion and contributing to a wholesome concept of sexuality.[xxv]

Just as SIECUS was founded to promote Kinseyan sex education to school children in 1964, the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) was created in 1967 to train and accredit educators, health personnel and other “helping” professionals in the area of human sexuality based on the Kinsey “findings.”  Patricia Schiller was AASECT’s first executive director.  Mrs. Schiller writes,

AASECT at its national and regional sex workshops and institutes, includes sensitivity sessions….Attitudes toward nudity, adolescent pregnancy, masturbation, abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce, group sex and extramarital sex relations are of major significance in the effectiveness of the sex education and counseling process. These are the realities of human sexuality.[xxvi]

A new study refuting the claims of the Kaiser Family Foundation and SIECUS reports that when parents are presented with the actual statements of comprehensive sex education curriculum, 61% are opposed to having their children exposed to such information.  The curricula promoted by the Centers for Disease Control tallied a whopping 75.3% opposition from parents.  The study was conducted by Zogby International on a random sample of 1,245 adult parents of children aged 5 to 18.  The Zogby poll reports that former surveys by Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and Advocates for Youth have been seriously flawed by vague, deceptive, and leading questions, with a clearly biased agenda to convince parents that such “expert” sex education is needed for their children’s health and well being.  Examples of outrageously biased questioning by SIECUS and Planned Parenthood are given in the February 13, 2003 Zogby Study analysis entitled, “Deception Uncovered.”[xxvii]

Since Kinseyan findings within sex education materials entered schools, rates of sexual disease and dysfunction have increased.  Condoms are now ubiquitous and are widely promoted in schools by public school and health authorities to prevent pregnancy and sexual disease.  Yet, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on condom effectiveness (June 2000), condoms do not prevent a stunning 98% of STD transmissions.[xxviii]  Condoms never protect against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) which is spread by skin contact, not by fluids[xxix] and is the cause of cervical cancer, which kills 5,000 women per year in the United States. The prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, suggests that “increased condom use will increase the number of AIDS transmissions that result from condom failures.[xxx]  There is a 24% pregnancy rate for teens who use condoms.  

As for condoms and AIDS, according to the December 1999 Center for Disease Control reports, heterosexual contact has accounted for a miniscule 4% of AIDS in males, and a total of 10% of all AIDS cases in men, since reporting began in 1981.  AIDS in the U.S. remains overwhelmingly a homosexual sodomy/drug user disease.[xxxi]

Dr. Meg Meeker[xxxii] in her 2002 book, Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids has estimated the sexual revolution harvest:

• Nearly 1 in 5 adolescents is living with an STD, p. 13.

• The CDC considers the STD epidemic a “multiple” epidemic of at least 25 separate diseases (nearly 50 if you count the various strains of virus groups.), p. 14.

• Over 80% of STD-infected teens are unaware they have a STD; therefore they don’t get medical attention and may continue to infect others. p. 35.

• False claims are asserted by sex educators who under inform or mislead kids about STDs and condoms that offer little or no protection from disease. pp. 104-5.

• The anatomic and immunological differences make the adolescent body – particularly the female’s – more susceptible to STDs than the adult body. pp. 175-6.

• The idea of maintaining sexual freedom rather than preventing disease remains the driving force and primary focus of national sex education and the STD epidemic continues to worsen as long as it does. pp. 26-29

Sex education in public education was promoted to teachers and parents in the early 1950’s as sex crime “prevention.”  Guided directly by Kinsey, who served on the Illinois commission’s workgroup to devise the “Framework for Sex Offender Laws,” Illinois blamed poor parenting and lack of education for high levels of sex crimes in the early 1950s.  These rates seem miniscule in comparison with those today.  The Report of the Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders stated:

Children oftimes are inadequately trained to live in a free society.  The inability of some parents to rear children in a democratic atmosphere and, at the same time, to observe the conventions of society is a fact that needs consideration.  Too often indulgence on the one hand or oppression on the other result in emotional maladjustment that may lead to sexual offense.  Methods of educating adults, who deal with children must be considered also.  Prevention through mental hygiene and sex education for both adults and children may prove to be effective.[xxxiii]  

Kinseyan legal reformers testified before legislatures and in professional literature that sex education would reduce violent sex crimes and high rates of sex offender (rapists and child molesters) recidivism.[xxxiv]  And AASECT dealt with “educating adults, who deal with children.” Carol Cassell (currently the director of the Center for Disease Control’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program) describes ASSECT’s use of the Kinsey Reports as the root of their professional authority:

Look how we’ve used the Kinsey data.  We’ve used it for everything from assessing the stability of marriage to raising children to trying to understand human growth and development — not just sexual but also psychological growth and changes over time.[xxxv]

Taught by AASECT trained teachers, the SIECUS sex education programs were guided by The Kinsey Report’s assertion that human beings are sexual actors from birth.[xxxvi]  At law, this meant that four or five year old children could be considered “provocateurs.”[xxxvii] Redefining children as sexual beings resulted in lowered penalties for rape and child molestation reflecting the new science’s claim that there is no harm unless “serious force is used.”  In public education, after state laws were changed, SIECUS expanded “the talk” about sexuality from a total of thirteen minutes to sex education covering thirteen school years with the theme that any and all imaginable sexual behaviors, at any age, are simply “responding to a wide human need.”[xxxviii]  

Between 1994 and 2000, SIECUS received over one million tax dollars from the publicly funded Center for Disease Control.  The CDC materials promote sodomy as “normal” and as equally fulfilling and desirable as marital coitus. In the SIECUS 1991 Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education:  Kindergarten-12th Grade, a family is redefined as any grouping of people who care for each other (Key Concept 2).  Kindergarten children are told that marriage is a mere option some people choose (“Some couples who love each other live together in the same home without getting married” Topic 5, level 1).  

The sex “experts” and the Kinseyan sex education monopoly are well entrenched in higher education.  For example, Tennessee legislators passed Abstinence legislation to promote “Marriage.”  However, the Lifetime Wellness Curriculum Framework produced by the Tennessee Department of Education treats Marriage as merely a parenting and economic option chosen by some.  School children are guided in graphic games about oral and anal sodomy and about death.  Tax supported teaching programs are required to be accurate in order to be funded.  There is no doubt, after reviewing pre-Kinsey levels of sexual disease and dysfunction, the SIECUS sex education programs post 1964 have seen STD rates skyrocket.  Abstinence programs calling for modesty and saving sex until marriage guarantee taxpayers a major reduction in costly post-Kinsey disease and dysfunction.

Kinsey’s Junk Science Enters the Law

The Professional Call for “Science-based” Legal Reform

In a 1952 article in the Harvard Law Review Columbia Law Professor Herbert Weschler advocated for revision of “ineffective, inhumane and thoroughly unscientific” state criminal laws that its author claimed, were not based on the truth now available through “objective” scientific pursuit.[xxxix]  Attorney Morris Ernst, a few months after the appearance of the 1948 Kinsey Report, published one of five books that would be published advocating penal reform based on the “science” of the Kinsey Reports, stating:

[V]irtually every page of the Kinsey Report touches on some section of the legal code . . . a reminder that the law, like our social pattern, falls lamentably short of being based on a knowledge of facts.[xl]

Based upon what has been previously shown in this study to be Kinsey’s biased and seriously flawed data, the “Sexual Offenses” Article 207 of the 1955 Model Penal Code was constructed. For example, Section 207.5, titled “Sodomy and Related Offenses,” proposed that consensual sodomy with an “actor” 10 years or older be classified a misdemeanor. Appendix A to section 207.5 is titled “Frequency of Sexual Deviation,” and of 21 quotations, 19 are taken from Kinsey’s book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948).

ALI Reporter Morris Ploscowe parroted Kinsey’s “scientific” findings:

These pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual and animal contacts, we are told, are eventually indulged in by 95 per cent of the population in violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, then it is obvious that our sex crime legislation is completely out of touch with the realities of individual living and is just as inherently unenforceable as legislation that prohibits . . . an activity that responds to a wide human need.[xli]

In addition to this book by Albert Deutsch (Ed.), to which Ploscowe contributed, three of the four other 1948 releases called for “science-based” law reform based on the new “science” of the Kinsey Reports.  These three books presented collections of essays by luminaries in education, law, psychiatry, psychology, and medicine.[xlii]

Kinsey’s data “permeate all present thinking on this subject.”[xliii]

The ALI began a campaign[xliv] to secure enactment of its provisions as state law, beginning in Illinois which adopted the Code in 1961. Frank Horack, Jr., acting Dean of Indiana University, writing in support of the Kinsey Reports’ impact on law, predicted:

The principal impact of the Kinsey Report will be at the level of the administration of the law. It will provide the statistical support which police officers, prosecutors, judges, probation officers and superintendents of penal institutions need for judging individual cases . . . Officials will read it. Defense counsel will cite it. Even when it is not offered into evidence, it will condition official action. Psychiatrists, psychologists, penologists, juvenile and probation officers all participate in modern penal procedures – they will use the data and their professional advice will be heeded by the judge. Here the Report will control many decisions and dictate the disposition and treatment of many offenders.[xlv]

Concurrent with the publication of Indiana University’s and the Kinsey Institute’s Male and Female volumes, a number of states conducted “fact-finding” commissions to study sex crime problems. Kinsey Report co-author Wardell Pomeroy states that Kinsey personally worked on “the revision of sex laws” with the Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Wyoming, and Oregon commissions.[xlvi]  In December 1949, Kinsey testified for an entire day before the “California Subcommittee on Sex Crimes.”  Kinsey told the committee:

For the last 11 years we have had a research project, as you know, underway at the university on human sexual behavior . . . we find that 95 percent of the [male] population has in actuality engaged in sexual activities, which are contrary to the law.[xlvii]

Kinsey presented the California legislature with the wildly false claim, “[Our research] has the advantage of having a background of the picture typical in the population as a whole…”[xlviii]  

In 1951, the Illinois legislature funded a commission to study the sex offender. Francis Allen chaired the committee that drafted the report submitted to the Illinois legislature. Under Section II, “Scientific Findings,” Allen writes: “No specific reference to the Kinsey findings is made here since these permeate all present thinking on this subject.” Allen also chaired the workgroup “Framework for Sex Offender Laws” to which Alfred C. Kinsey and Co-author Wardell Pomeroy served as consultants.[xlix]

A similar commission was conducted in New Jersey.  The report was facilitated by Paul W. Tappan, who later would be a Reporter for the ALI Committee that drafted the Model Penal Code. Section II of the New Jersey report is titled: “Sex Deviation: Its Extent and Treatment.” It begins with quotations from Kinsey’s Male volume. The New Jersey Commission expressed its gratitude to Dr. Kinsey and Morris Ploscowe for their “frequent and extended consultations.” [l]

The New Jersey Commission’s report stated:

[T]here can be no real doubt that a very large number of the male population of New Jersey has engaged in practices coming within the enumerations of our present abnormal sex offender law, on the basis of which they might be committed to one of our state mental hospitals.[li]

Louis B. Schwartz, author of the “Sex Offense” section of the Model Penal Code, reviewed Kinsey’s Male Volume in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in 1948. His article provided the new language for the American bench and bar that was used to normalize formerly proscribed sexual conduct. Schwartz wrote:

To reveal that certain behavior patterns are widespread, that they are a product of environment, opportunity, age and other factors over which the individual has little control, that they are not objectively harmful except as a result of society’s efforts at repression (Kinsey, pp. 385-86) to point out that similar behavior is encountered among other animals than man, to suggest that the law ought not to punish and that psychiatrists might better devote themselves to reassuring the sexual deviate rather than attention to “redirect behavior” (Kinsey p. 660) – all these add up to a denial that sexual “perversion” is an evil.[lii]

Schwartz then pictures “the distant day when Americans cease to regard minority morals as a legitimate object of social coercion,” and suggests a covert and undemocratic method for elites to change state criminal codes:

Eventually, such distinctions ease themselves into the written law, especially if it can be done in the course of a general revision of the penal code. This avoids the appearance of outright repudiation of conservative moral standards, by presenting the changes in a context of merely technical improvements.[liii]

State Law Journals Advocate for Penal Reform using Kinsey as authority
The ALI penal reform campaign appealed to the bench and bar via states’ Law Journals.  These cited to the Kinsey Reports as the “scientific” authority to define normal and therefore non-criminal behavior.  The North Carolina Law Review testifies to its readers:

More than two decades have passed since the publication of Alfred Kinsey’s study on human sexual behavior that made clear the wide disparity between conservative sexual behavior permitted by law and the liberal sexual practices that Kinsey found actually to occur in society.  Dr. Kinsey stated that “[s]ex laws are so far at variance with general sex practices that they could not conceivably be rigorously enforced” (Citing to 23 New York University Law Quarterly Rev. 540, 541 (1948), quoting Kinsey’s Male volume).[liv]  

Other states Law Journals cite the Kinsey Report data to advocate legalizing prostitution (Maine, 1976); harmlessness of boy prostitution (Duke University, 1960); lightening sex crime penalties (Ohio, 1959); legalizing homosexuality (South Dakota, 1968); the need for “beneficent concern for pedophiles” (Georgia, 1969); and for general sex law revisions (Oklahoma, 1970).  The journals commonly cited the “fact” that 95% of males are sex offenders (Oregon, 1972); that young children are seducers (Missouri, 1973, Tennessee, 1965); and that judicial bias is the cause of “severe condemnation of sex offenders” (Pennsylvania, 1952).[lv]  Finally, the Colorado Law Review ridicules American standards of virtue, honor and chastity by publishing “The Legal Enforcement of Morality” authored by none other than Playboy’s, Hugh Hefner.  Claiming to be Kinsey’s “pamphleteer,” Hefner writes to his legal audience:

Kinsey reports that in some groups among lower social levels, it is virtually impossible to find a single male who has not had sexual intercourse by the time he reaches his mid-teens.[lvi]

Revision Commissions reported to state legislatures.  The Model Penal Code was their blueprint for complete sex crime revisions. Such liberalized sex laws were enacted nationwide–generally occurring for the first time since statehood.[lvii]

In the rush to “science-based legal reform,” not all state commissions accepted the sweeping revisions as an assumed improvement in the “clarification of law.”  In 1970 the Michigan Journal of Law Reform published the report of the director of the Criminal Law Revision Commission in California describing the advisory board’s reaction to its “revision” suggestions:  

[I]ts product at first inspection struck most of the members of the Board, unfamiliar with the Model Penal Code or another contemporary criminal law revision, as a strange and baffling departure from all of the familiar landmarks of conventional law.  The style of the Model Penal Code, its rigorously logical order and its general abandonment of common law terminology does pose difficulties for anyone whose entire educational and professional experience has been circumscribed by the eighteenth century common law concepts still preserved in the criminal law of California.  The staff, of course, was greatly influenced by the Model Penal Code.”[lviii]

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF ALI’s Model Penal Code

The stated purpose of the ALI MPC was to reduce crime, recidivism and to modernize the law in accord with scientific advances.  In his 1952 Harvard Law Review article, chief author Columbia University Law Professor Herbert Wechsler argued for a Model Penal Code on the grounds that the current crime rate was too high.  He said this high rate proved the common law then in effect, was “ineffective” and “unscientific.”[lix]  By the late 1970s, most local and state bar associations had heeded Wechsler’s call and promoted the passage of a revised penal code based on the ALI MPC.
In the wake of modernity, naturalistic science emerged preeminent over the nation’s guidance by the fixed moral standards of the Declaration of Independence.  The MPC portrayed fixed law with moral supports as inadequate and antiquated.  Unhinged from the divine, evolving law with scientific support became the standard.[lx]

Model Penal Code authors called for laws using the aid that modern science can afford.”  This created a crisis in American law. Modern evolving law, apparently based on science, appeared to conflict with America’s long settled (and protective) common law, and the common law was being portrayed as inconsistent, ambiguous, outmoded, and redundant.[lxi]  Law, by definition, to be “law” must be fixed.  However, state revision commissions revised state penal codes according to the new ALI MPC understanding that  law is always evolving and requires constant change.  

The American Law Institute transformed corrections by revising the definition of criminal responsibility.  This dramatic change occurred under the guidance of three psychiatrists: Lawrence Z. Freedman, Winfred Overholser, and Manfred Guttmacher.  Though there was not complete agreement, Wechsler reports the ALI authors “were totally responsive to the psychiatric points, while advancing a fresh solution.”[lxii]  By applying the modifications of the Model Penal Code, criminal responsibility was redefined to include; 1) knowledge of right and wrong, and 2) the capacity to conform to the law.  There was an important new element to which only a qualified “expert” could testify.  The M’Naughten Rule that originated in 1843, required the cognitive ability of the offender to know right from wrong in order to be guilty of crime.  The drafters of the Model Penal Code thought that in addition to knowledge, it was important to determine the offender’s capacity for self-control.  

Benjamin Karpman–who is quoted as the primary psychiatric authority in the Model Penal Code–claimed that criminal behavior could be compared to tonsillitis:

Criminal behavior is an unconsciously conditional psychic reaction over which [the criminals] have no conscious control.  We have to treat them as psychically sick people, which in every respect they are.  It is no more reasonable to punish these individuals…than it is to punish an individual for breathing through his mouth because of enlarged adenoids, when a simple operation will do the trick.[lxiii]

Karpman held little regard for a common law that had provided safety and security for the law-abiding citizen, while punishing criminal behavior. As a psychiatrist, he claimed the medical profession is the “vanguard of human progress.”

Experiment is viewed as superior to precedent; old methods are readily abandoned, to give way to newer methods.  It is therefore a matter of great wonderment, and disappointment as well, that with so many physicians on the staff of prisons… medicine has thus far contributed so little of positive value toward a more scientific and more humane understanding of crime.[lxiv]

The influence of Guttmacher’s Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) on law reform is evidenced by states’ adoption of a therapeutic approach to criminology despite therapy’s experimental and unproven track record.  The South Carolina Law Review reported in 1968 that:

There are no data indicating the amount of success of correctional efforts to date.  There is a large body of literature reporting numerous research findings and number of plausible theories concerning treatment of the offender.  However, the knowledge that is available has not been translated into feasible action programs or the programs have not been successfully implemented or if they have been implemented they have lacked evaluation.  If they have been evaluated, the results have usually been negative, and in the few cases where there were positive results reported there have been no replications to support these findings.[lxv]

A further consequence of therapeutic influence has been to strip the authority of the jury, replacing it with expert testimony. The ALI MPC authors held that a judge did not have the expertise to judge offenders. Moreover, a jury of one’s peers was too likely to mete out tough punishments to criminals. Wechsler wrote,

It is widely urged that the responsibility for the determination of the treatment of offenders should not, in any case, be vested in the courts; that judges have no special expertise or insight in this area that warrants giving them decisive voice; and that they should be superseded by a dispositions board that might include the judge but would draw personnel of equal weight from social work, psychiatry, penology and education.[lxvi]

In view of the new offender sympathies and the desire to therapeutically manage criminals in the ALI’s MPC, the power of the uniquely American jury “of one’s peers” system was significantly curbed.  This was accomplished in state after state through the expert’s classification and sub-classification of crimes and the assignment of multi levels of penalties for once simply understood crimes and punishments.

If psychiatric experts were now needed to determine criminal responsibility under the new law system, they would also determine the remedy.  Wechsler said that the common law “employs unsound psychological premises such as ‘freedom of will’ or the belief that punishment deters.”[lxvii]  Criminals under the MPC were often cast in neutral terms such as “actors” and victims as “complainants.” Terms such as “rapist” or “sodomist” are too harsh according to the new penal revisions.[lxviii]  And based on the Model Penal Code, an individual may have been so impaired mentally that he was unable to follow the law. Therefore, argued the MPC, the convicted sex crime offender is more likely to be rehabilitated through treatment and counseling by mental health experts than by incarceration.  After fifty years of experience and research producing no evidence that therapy reduces recidivism,[lxix] former Attorney General Janet Reno acknowledged in her acceptance speech for the “Brandeis Medal for commitment to individual liberty, concern for the disadvantaged, and public service,” that punishment is indeed necessary to control crime.[lxx]

The principal sex offenses of rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, and indecent exposure were redefined. In the ALI MPC the simplicity of common law punishments were made complex by grading them[lxxi] according to the use of “forcible compulsion,” the capacity or incapacity of the victim to consent, the age of the victim, and the age of the sexual predator.

ALI MODEL PENAL CODE FAILED

As we have seen, the purpose of the Model Penal Code, according to Professor Wechsler, was to reduce crime.  In this regard, the data are clear:  the ALI MPC has been a total failure. Women and children are far less safe today than they were before the changes brought in by the MPC.

Wechsler declared the MPC authors’ intentions in 1955: “We mean to act as if we were a legislative commission, charged with construction of an ideal penal code.”[lxxii]  Wechsler wrote in the Columbia Law Review when the project was over, “Viewing these words in retrospect, I am content with their description of the effort.”[lxxiii]  By the late 1970s, most state legislatures had heeded Wechsler’s call and had passed revised penal codes.[lxxiv]  These revisions were supposed to have been guided by a new scientific understanding of sex, sex crime and sex criminals.  However, the results suggest a lessening of understanding rather than an enhancement of it.  

As the chart shows, violent crime increased 993% from 1951 to 1997. There was a 2.1% increase in the child population (the number of people under age 20) from 1970 to 2000.[lxxv]  This clearly does not account for the skyrocketing levels of sex crimes. According to the MPC vision, comprehensive sex education graphically presented in elementary and secondary grades should have reduced crime.  Instead, during the same period, we see pandemic rates of venereal diseases,[lxxvi] rape, illegitimacy and abortions in teenage populations with the elimination of fornication as a crime, and the trivializing of penalties for statutory rape, rape, prostitution and other sex crimes.

The radical ALI MPC reforms that reduced state sex crime penalties are a window into how America came to this sociosexual malaise.  Studies confirm a correlation between greater punishment and less crime.[lxxvii]  The rise in crime that is making America a less-safe environment for women and children has followed the changes in law that occurred as states abandoned the common law and adopted the guidance of the ALI Model Penal Code.

CONCLUSION

Alfred Kinsey was a moral revolutionary in scientist’s clothing.  The science was bad, even bogus; the man himself may now be forgotten; but the revolution came to stay, with a vengeance.  Kinsey’s message  -fornicate early, fornicate often, fornicate in every possible way – became the mantra of a sex-ridden age, our age, now desperate for a reformation of its own.[lxxviii]

The Kinsey Reports, well known to sexual and legal revolutionaries, are all but unknown to the current bench and bar. Kinsey’s once taunt “official mystique” sags with many troubling revelations, especially since 1997. However, Kinsey’s reputation still must be maintained because his Reports are the foundation of evolutionary sexuality worldwide. Sexual anarchists everywhere need “Dr. Kinsey.” This need resulted in an image reconstruction effort mounted by PBSTV’s “The American Experience,” and by Hollywood, PBS and FoxSearchlight films, Myriad Pictures and Coppola’s American Zoetrope studios. Reinventing Kinsey as a “sexual pioneer” may continue to cover up the ugly reality of the Indiana University zoologist, eugenicist, evolutionist, pedophile collaborator Kinsey and his assault on law and justice, and maybe not.  

The manufactured statistics of The Kinsey Reports transformed America’s institutions of medicine, education and law.  “Normal” human sexuality was metamorphosed into another image, which became indelible, when the American Law Institute delivered The Kinsey Reports junk science (in 1955 Draft #4, “Sexual Offenses,” Section 207 of the Model Penal Code) to the bench and bar in every state.  Soon, based on the ALI MPC and the Kinsey Reports, the states’ long-settled and fixed common law sexual and reproductive standards were abolished via misinformed legislation and judicial decisions.  After the laws were changed, the SIECUS brand of sex education entered schoolrooms to permanently alter Marriage, and the American family.  

Prior to 1950 American Law largely prohibited any sexual acts outside of marriage.  Marriage was a public contract, both civil and religious.  Society had an interest in the security and solvency of every marriage.  Marriage was to provide for the progeny of the union, secure the orderly passage of property to the next generation and prevent any burden to the State wrought by divorce, promiscuity, perversion and “unnatural” acts.[lxxix]  

Marriage served the “public interest.” However, the “experts” of the ALI MPC dismantled the institution, based on the Kinsey Reports.  By recommending the legalization of fornication, cohabitation, adultery, sodomy, etc., the MPC transformed what were known as “Public Morals” or “vice” laws into private sexual behaviors between “consenting” individuals. The new freedom, “Privacy,” would allow one to be left alone to pursue one’s one sexual “tastes,” according to Judge Learned Hand.[lxxx]

The “junk science” based on the debunked and discredited Kinsey Reports today serves as the foundation of publicly funded sex education. In addition, the ALI Model Penal Code has been adopted, all or in part, in every state. The harmful results can be seen over the past 50 years, especially as these changes negatively affect the lives of American women and children. The case is strong for real fact-based reform to remove the fraudulent findings of the Kinsey Reports from publicly funded programs, policies, and laws beginning with sex education and criminal law.

How Should Legislators Respond?

State judiciary and education committees, legislators or activists may want to make presentations to clarify and inform leadership of the history and scope of Kinsey’s fraudulent “science-based reforms.” Undoing harmful changes to sex education curricula and sex offense laws since each state’s penal code revision would be prudent.  Bar Associations and state legislatures can initiate a restoration effort for legal protections once enjoyed by women and children.  

The legal reforms that have been enacted since 1960 must be examined.  First of all, legislators must be aware of the scientific authorities that were used to justify sex law changes.  Next, legislators should determine what benefit or detriment these sex law changes have brought to America’s law-abiding citizens, especially our vulnerable children.  Finally, legislators must directly address a working system for protecting women and children.  The current system provides overwhelming proofs that it is moving society in the wrong direction.  

Law must refocus on illegal acts and their consequences.  Criminal behavior must once again be met with criminal sanctions that depend on the act of the aggressor—not the age of the victim, or the personality of the offender.  

State legislatures must require accountability for programs involving rehabilitation.  Programs should reduce recidivism or meet other measurable criteria established by the legislature in order to receive taxpayer support.

State legislators should continue the call for accurate science in children’s education.  A review board could monitor textbooks purchased by the state Department of Education, and investigate parent’s concerns.  Political ideologies should never be represented as science to vulnerable school children.

Possible Objections to Legal Reformation

Legislators, activists and concerned citizens who seek to restore legal protections to women and children may be met with the objection that “you can’t legislate morality or that culture drives law, anyway.

A report in the Wall Street Journal confirms that law can shape behavior.  According to the Journal, in response to rampant AIDS in Tanzania, laws and severe penalties against illicit sexual conduct were established, and this in a culture that historically has been free of limits on sexual behavior. The Journal reports, within two years teachers report a decrease in schoolgirl pregnancy. The national AIDS committee chairman states, We’re penalizing people less often because almost everyone is behaving better. [lxxxi] Just as Tanzania’s experience demonstrates that law shapes behavior, we can expect positive change here in the United States as well.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis said;

“…the conduct of life is to so large an extent determined by the existing legal institutions, that an understanding of the legal system must give you a clearer view of human affairs in their manifold relations, and must aid you in comprehending the conditions, and institutions by which you are surrounded.”[lxxxii]

People often point to the influence of music and media upon our youth to explain massive changes in society.  But these are outgrowths of what Brandeis explained drives our “conduct of life.”  If understanding the legal system gives you a “clearer view of human affairs” and aids in “comprehending conditions…by which you are surrounded,” as Justice Brandeis declared, then the question to be answered is evident:  What, within American “legal institutions,” changed to account for the significant changes in “the conduct of life” in America regarding illegitimacy, rape, and sexual violence?  On the evidence, those changes occurred primarily as a result of twentieth century law reform based on the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, whose authority for defining normal human intimate behavior was the Kinsey Reports.

Executive Summary

Prior to the adoption of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code by the states, men who raped and preyed on children were deemed criminals, not simply “actors” as they often are today.  Abused and violated women and children were victims, not “complainants.”  Justice was meted out by a jury of one’s peers, not by social science “experts,” and predators received penalties, not legal protections.  

With regard to sex offense crimes in the ALI MPC: A rash of state sex offense commissions convened just prior to the ALI MPC publication, providing findings to MPC authors. These commissions also relied heavily upon Alfred Kinsey and the fraudulent Kinsey Reports’ view of “normal” human sexuality.  Sexual activities are presented by the ALI MPC authors as “wide human need” and necessary from womb to tomb for health and happiness.  Language and terms are changed to neutralize crimes against women and children.  Rape and child abuse are redefined and de-stigmatized; the definition of “adult” tends to include children for purposes of sex.  Creation of multiple degrees of a sex crime negates the felony penalty.  And sex education in public schools is recommended as the primary crime prevention measure.

As in law, terms were changed in sex education to dissociate it from the eugenics movement.  The Birth Control Federation of America became Planned Parenthood, which was necessary “to neutralize the highly negative image offered to the public by the term “birth control” (Alan Guttmacher writing in the preface of Margaret Sanger’s autobiography, 1970).  The new term “family planning” did not convey prejudice against large families, and linked contraceptives with marriage and babies instead of with prostitutes and illicit sexual alliances.  Sex education became “family life education” which SIECUS founder Lester Kirkendall said would be “less threatening to parents and teachers and, in the end, “would lead to more not less sex education.”[lxxxiii]

The plans legal revolutionaries made and acted upon overturned or trivialized 52 designated laws protective of women and children,[lxxxiv] aided and enabled by the indispensable sex “science” of the Kinsey Reports. Over the past fifty years, our sex and reproduction laws have been deconstructed on the basis of a fraudulent set of data.  

Law, by definition, is fixed or settled.  But in the second half of the twentieth century Law entered an ever- evolving “stream,” based on so-called scientific innovation.  Billed as “science” based law reform, the Model Penal Code was promoted as a simple revision of the law based on new scientific discoveries in the social sciences.  This effort was undertaken because of the high rates of violent crime.  However, over the ensuing 50 years, the ALI MPC has failed to reduce crime and specifically failed to provide protections for women and children.  It is time for state lawmakers to jettison bad policy based on bad science, and to restore legal protections for American women and children.    

Fifty years have passed since the advent of the ALI MPC into the American stream of law. Now is the time for state legislatures to review the performance of the science-based criminal law reform that according to its chief author in 1952, was expected to lower crime. Wechsler declared common law penal codes were ineffective. It is time to review many of the radical changes brought about by the enactment of the Model Penal Code and to restore the safety and security lost for our most vulnerable citizens.

FOOTNOTES

——————————————————————————–

[i] Joseph Epstein, Commentary, January 1998.  At www.Britannica.com, downloaded March 31, 2001

[ii] Human Nature, October 1978, pp. 92-95.

[iii] James Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life at 619 (NY: W.W. Norton, 1997).

[iv] “This is one of the startling observations of the Kinsey group … When a total clean-up of sex offenders is demanded, it is in effect a proposal to put 95% of the male population in jail.” Albert Deutsch, Sex Habits of American Men, at 121.

[v] J. A. Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (2nd ed.), (Crestwood:  Institute for Media Education, 2000).

[vi] Really Dr. Kinsey? 337 The Lancet at 547 (March 2, 1991).

[vii] J. A. Reisman, supra., at 50-53. See also Arno Karlen, Sexuality and Homosexuality at 456 (1971).

[viii] Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, and Christenson, Sex Offenders at 31-33 (1965).

[ix] Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, Alfred C. Kinsey:  Sex the Measure of All Things at 130-131, 144, (1998).

[x] Id. At 144, see also Reisman, supra. at 40.

[xi] Warren Weaver, Desk Diary, May 7, 1951, pp. 4-5, Rockefeller Archive Center.  

[xii] Testimony of Alfred C. Kinsey before the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System and Judicial Process of the California Legislature, 1949, p. 133.  Recorded in the Assembly Journal, March 8, 1950.

[xiii] NIMH Grant The Kinsey Data; Marginal Tabulations, 1979, p. 3. -6 Gebhard and Johnson claim theirs is a 5,460 White Male Sample.  

[xiv] Abraham Maslow, Test for Dominance-Feeling (Self-Esteem) in college Women, The Journal of Social Psychology at 255, 270 (1940); See also Abraham Maslow, Self-esteem, Dominance, Feeling and Sexuality in Women, 16 The Journal of Social Psychology at 259, 294 (1942)

[xv] James H. Jones, Dr. Yes, The New Yorker at 100-101 (September 1, 1997).

[xvi] James H. Jones, interview in Tim Tate, Secret Histories:  Kinsey’s Paedophiles. (Yorkshire Television (Channel 4), United Kingdom, aired August 10, 1998.

[xvii] James H. Jones, Annals of Sexology, Dr. Yes.  The New Yorker at 101 (August 25 and September 1, 1997).

[xviii] James H. Jones, Alfred C. Kinsey:  A Private/Public Life at 809, footnote 78 (1997).

[xix] Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, at 144 (W. B. Saunders, 1948).

[xx] “Secret Histories, Kinsey Paedophiles, supra.  See also Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, at 161 (noting “violent convulsions, groaning, sobbing, violent cries, with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children.)”).

[xxi] J. A. Reisman, supra. note 5, at 165-170.

[xxii] Kinsey, et al, supra. Note 19, at 144.

[xxiii] Reisman, J. A.  Supra. note 5, at 177.

[xxiv] Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, page 180, Table 34.

[xxv] SIECUS Report, February/March 1996, “Position Statement” on “Sexually Explicit Materials.”

[xxvi] Herbert Otto, (Ed.), The New Sex Education, at 171. (Chicago:  Association press/Follett Publishers, 1978).

[xxvii] Survey results and analysis are available at www.whatparentsthink.com

[xxviii] The panel of researchers found effectiveness in the heterosexual transmission of HIV and the female to male transmission of gonorrhea.  These two areas represent 2% of all STDs occurring annually in the U.S.  See the Response of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse to the NIH Condom Report; American Social Health Association, Sexually Transmitted Diseases in America:  How Many Cases and at What Cost?  Kaiser Family Foundation, December 1998; and CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1999.

[xxix] Dr. John Diggs, WebMD, http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1700.50173

[xxx] Justin Torres, “Condom crazy:  The UN Pushes Contraception to fight AIDS.” World Magazine, Vol. 15, September 9, 2000

[xxxi] Center for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.  Dec. 1999.  Vol. 11, No. 2, Table 5.

[xxxii] Meg Meeker, Epidemic:  How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2002).

[xxxiii] Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, p. 36.

[xxxiv] Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code.  65 Harvard Law Review at 1103 (1952).

[xxxv]  Carol Cassell, Contemporary Sexuality, The American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT), (October, 1991).

[xxxvi] The Illinois Commission cites this as a “scientific finding” on p. 9.  See also, Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C.E.  Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. at 181 (W. B. Saunders, 1948).

[xxxvii] A term used by Psychiatrist and Law Professor Ralph Slovenko to describe a four or five year old girl.  See R. Slovenko & C. Phillips, Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law. 15 Vanderbilt Law Review, at 809 (1962). “The sometimes extreme seductiveness of a young female is a factor which has no place in the law, but it certainly affects motivation.  Even at the age of four or five, this seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense.  The affair is therefore not always the result of the adult’s aggression; often the young female is the initiator and seducer.” (Emphasis added).

[xxxviii] Albert Deutsch (Ed.), Sex Habits of American Men, A Symposium on the Kinsey Reports at 126-128, (New York:  Prentice Hall, 1948).

[xxxix] Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1103 (1952) .

[xl] Morris Ernst and David Loth, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, n. 28, at 132 (Graystone Press, 1948).

[xli] Morris Ploscowe, Sexual Patterns and the Law, in Albert Deutsch, Sex Habits of American Men:  A Symposium on the Kinsey Report at 126 (1948).

[xlii] Rene Guyon, The Ethics of Sexual Acts (1948); Morris Ernst, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, (1948); Donald Porter Geddes and Enid Curie, Eds. About the Kinsey Report, (1948); Jerome Himelhoch and Sylvia Fava, Eds. Sexual Behavior in American Society, (1948).

[xliii] Report of the Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, at 9.

[xliv] Linda Jeffrey and Ronald D. Ray. 2003.  A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code:  The Kinsey Reports’ Influence on “Science-based” Legal Reform 1923-2003.  (Crestwood, KY:  First Principles Press).

[xlv] Frank E. Horack, Jr. Sex Offenses and Scientific Investigation.  44 Illinois Law Review, at 156, 158 (1950).

[xlvi] Wardell Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, at 210-11 (1972).

[xlvii] Preliminary Report of the Subcommittee on Sex Crimes of the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System and Judicial Process, California Assembly, March 8, 1950, reported in foreword, unnumbered.

[xlviii] Testimony of Alfred C. Kinsey, Id., p. 133.

[xlix] Report of the Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, at 9.  

[l] Report and Recommendations of the Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender as Formulated by Paul W. Tappan, Technical Consultant, February 1, 1950 at 12.

[li] Id., at 18.

[lii] Louis B. Schwartz, Book Reviews: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 96 University of Pennsylvania Law Review at 917 (1948).

[liii] Id.

[liv] John Parker Huggard, Criminal Law—North Carolina’s Sodomy Statute:  A Need for Revision, 53 North Carolina Law Review at 1037 (1975).

[lv] Judy Potter, Sex Offenses. 28 Maine Law Review 78 (1976); Albert J. Reiss, Sex Offenses:  The marginal status of the adolescent. 25 Law and Contemporary Problems 311-312 (1960); Phillip E. Stebbins, Sexual Deviation and the Laws of Ohio 20 Ohio State Law Journal 347 (1959); Ronald P. Johnsen, Sodomy Statutes—A Need for Change, South Dakota Law Review 395-396 (Spring, 1968); B. E. C., Jr. Pedophilia, Exhibitionism, and Voyeurism:  Legal Problems in the Deviant Society 4 Georgia Law Review 152 (1969); Larry E. Joplin, Criminal Law:  An Examination of the Oklahoma Laws Concerning Sexual Behavior , 23Oklahoma Law Review 459 (1970); Edward N. Fadeley.  Sex Crime in the New Code, 51 Oregon Law Review 517 (1972); Orville Richardson, Sexual Offenses Under the Proposed Missouri Criminal Code, 38 Missouri Law Review 383 (1973); Ralph Slovenko and Cyril Phillips, Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law, 15 Vanderbilt Law Review 809 (1962); Jerome Hall, Science and Reform in Criminal Law, 100 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 733 (1952).

[lvi] Hugh Hefner.  The Legal Enforcement of Morality.  40 University of Colorado Law Review 200 (1967).

[lvii] See for example, The New Jersey Penal Code, Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, October, 1971, at x; Morgan S. Bragg, Victimless Sex Crimes:  To the Devil, Not the Dungeon, 25 University of Florida Law Review 140 (1973); John S. Eldred, Classification and Degrees of Offenses—An Approach to Modernity, 57 Kentucky Law Journal, 81 (1968-69); John C. Danforth, The Modern Criminal Code for Missouri (Tentative Draft)—A Challenge Fulfilled and the Challenge Presented, 38 Missouri Law Review, 362 (1973); Paul E. Wilson, New Bottles for Old Wine:  Criminal Law Revision in Kansas, 16 Kansas Law Review, 588 (1968).

[lviii] Arthur H. Sherry, Criminal Law Revision in California, 4 Journal of Law Reform 433 (1971).

[lix] Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code.  65 Harvard Law Review at 1103 (1952).

[lx] Herbert W. Titus, God, Man, and Law:  The Biblical Principles at 3-14.  (Oak Brook, IL: Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1994).  

[lxi] Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, October 1971, p. v.

[lxii] Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the Criminal Law in the United States:  The Model Penal Code.  68 Columbia Law Review at 1442 (1968).

[lxiii] Benjamin Karpman, Criminality, Insanity and the Law, 1949.  Quoted in 52 Columbia Law Review at 749 (1952).

[lxiv] Benjamin Karpman, Sex Life in Prison, 38 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at 476 (1948).

[lxv] C. W. Dean, Treatment Concepts and Penology:  A Sociologists’s View.  21 South Carolina Law Review at 51 (1968).

[lxvi] Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 Harvard Law Review at 1128.

[lxvii] Id., at 1103.

[lxviii] Orville Richardson, Sex Offenses under the Proposed Missouri Criminal Code, 38 Missouri Law Review, at 372 (1973).

[lxix] Sex Offender Treatment:  Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce Recidivism.  Government Accounting Office, GGD-96-137, June 21, 1996.  

[lxx] Reno Receives Highest Law School Award.  The Louisville Cardinal, Independent Student Newspaper of the University of Louisville, February 12, 2002, p. 1-2.

[lxxi] Richardson, supra. Note 69, at 377, 392.

[lxxii] Herbert Wechsler, A Thoughtful Code of Substantive Law, 45 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, at 524-535 (1955).

[lxxiii] Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the Criminal Law in the United States:  The Model Penal Code, 68 Columbia Law Review at 1427(1968).

[lxxiv] Wechsler cites to drafting committees in Minnesota, 1964; New Mexico, 1964; New York, 1967; Pennsylvania, 1967; and Michigan, 1967.  Other early revisions include Illinois, 1962; Georgia, 1969; Kansas, 1970; Maryland, 1970; New Jersey, 1971; Massachusetts, 1972; Colorado, 1972; and Kentucky, 1974.

[lxxv] U.S. Child Population, Bureau of Census, International Data Base reports 76.97 million under 20 in 1970, and 78.60 million under 20 in 2000.

[lxxvi] $17 billion spent on major STDs and their preventable complications, including HIV infections in 1994.  Data from the National Institutes of Health NIAID, Fact Sheet, December 1998.

[lxxvii] A study last year by the Manhattan Institute demonstrated that enforcing penalties against minor crimes prevented over 60,000 violent crimes in New York City from 1989 to 1998.  The tough-on-crime stance some call “broken-windows policing,” was “significantly and consistently linked to declines in violent crime.”  See George Kelling & William Sousa, Jr.  Do Police Matter?  An Analysis of the Impact of New York City’s Police Reforms.  Civic Report No. 22, December 2001.  The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

[lxxviii] Joseph Epstein, Commentary, January 1998.  At www.Britannica.com, downloaded March 31, 2001

[lxxix] Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, (1828), “The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them.  Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”

[lxxx] David Allyn, Private Acts/Public Policy:  Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality.  30 Journal of American Studies at 426 (1996).   

[lxxxi] Michael Phillips, To Help Fight AIDS, Tanzanian Villages Ban Risky Traditions, The Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2001, at 1.

[lxxxii]Leonard Baker, Brandeis and Frankfurter:  A Dual Biography at 29 (Washington Square, NY:  New York University Press, 1986).

[lxxxiii] Lester Kirkendall, Education for Family Living, in Ellis and Abarbanel (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior at 700 (1967).

[lxxxiv] Morris Ernst and David Loth, American Sexual Behavior and The Kinsey Report,  (NY:  Graystone Press, 1948).

The ALEC Education Task Force members who served on the Subcommittee on Junk Science are:  

      Senator Kay O’Connor (KS) Chair                                 Rep. Keith King (CO)

                Senator Laurie Bleaker (KS)                                        Del. Janet Greenip (MD)

                Rep. Carolyn Coleman (OK)                                         Rep. Andre Martel (NH)

                Del. John Reid (VA)                                                   Senator Jack Westwood (KY)

                Dr. Judith A. Reisman,

Scientific Advisor to the Subcommittee on Junk Science.

Dr. Linda Jeffrey was the State Factor’s Chief Author for Restoring Legal Protections for Women and Children:  A Historical Analysis Of The States Criminal Codes.

For further information on changes to state law codes, please see the detailed monograph, A History of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code: The Kinsey Reports’ Influence on “Science-based” Legal Reform1923-2003, available at www.firstprinciplespress.org.

Drs. Reisman (jareisman@surewest.net) and Jeffrey (drjeff@aye.net) are available for questions or to brief legislators and other state leaders or for consultation and expert testimony if required.

G. B. CHISHOLM’s deliberations have been published in PSYCHIATRY – JOURNAL OF THE BIOLOGY AND THE PATHOLOGY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS, Vol.9, February 1946. There were given also some further details about the political support for his proposals: “This is the second series of William Alanson White Memorial Lectures. The first of these two lectures was given in Washington, D. C., at the Auditorium of the New Interior Department Building, 23 October. The Honorables, the Secretary of Commerce, the Federal Security Administrator, and the Deputy Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion, participated in panel discussion with Drs. Chisholm, Ross McClure Chapman, Samuel W. Hamilton, and Daniel Blain, at the same place the succeeding evening. The second lecture was given in New York City at the Academy of Medicine, 29 October 1945, 1 – Honorable Jerome N. Frank, U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge, spoke in discussion”)
All emphasis by GEP

The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society
The Responsibility of Psychiatry

WILLIAM ALANSON WHITE’S teachings and writings from his Outlines in 1907 to the last days of his life provided much of the impetus in the development of psy-chiatry which occurred during those years. His vision and humanity, honest thinking and devotion would have been of great value to the world in the troublous times ahead of us now. It would not however be a fitting memorial to William Alanson White to spend our time on this occasion looking backward at his work and be-moaning his absence and the loss to psychiatry. He would not have us at any me-morial of his, talk about William Alanson White. The most sincere way we can honor him is to try to look forward, in the spirit of honesty, devotion and service which characterized his whole life, to face and deal with the vast problems which lie ahead.

He would recognize that there is much for psychiatry to do and we should be get-ting on with the job as he would be doing if he were here. He would recognize, as we must, that this is a sick world, with an old chronic but ever more extensive and serious sickness. Its sickness the future is uncertain indeed.

Man, again, and on a wider and more highly organized scale than ever before, has been indulging in one of his most consistent behavior patterns, war. Though it seems that, among the people of the world, relatively few want or enjoy wars, and very many suffer in many ways during wars, man persists in this senseless behav-ior century after century. Until recent years wars could take place locally without necessarily affecting or causing concern on the part of peoples in other parts of the world, but that time is past. Every war is now a threat to all the people in the world, either directly or has recently become acutely dangerous and through deprivation of materials or loss of trade.

This situation is widely recognized and no nation will ever again be able to formulate its policies on the basis of isolationism. The interdependence of all the people in this shrunken world is obvious. Fast air transport and the atomic bomb are only the latest steps in that process, which has been going on for a long time, of break-ing down the geographical barriers between groups of peoples. We are all now, perforce, citizens of the world, whether we are sufficiently mature adequately to carry that responsibility or not.

In the face of this new status as world citizens we must accept the uncomfortable fact that we are the kind of people who fight wars every fifteen or twenty years. We always have, for as far back as we know anything of the race, and if we go on be-ing the same kinds of people it is to be supposed that we will continue to fight each other.

Now that the latest war has just finished we must take one of several possible courses. First we can return to the kind of life and society we had before the war, go back to our peaceful pursuit of a living, or local social betterment, or political importance, or psychotherapy as the case may be. We could probably count with luck on fifteen years, or even twenty, of peace if we do that, but those occupations would be completely futile as we would be taken over and enslaved, literally, and our comfortable social developments thrown into the discard by a “Master Race” to whom we would appear weak and unrealistic and not fit to run our own lives. Every present indication is that the next time any self-styled master race is allowed to prepare and make such an attempt it will succeed. If our future concern is just the reestablishment of the pre-war society, slavery is absolutely inevitable. We were before the war the kind of people who allowed the Germans, Italians and Japanese to prepare openly for war for years and to pick their own time and place to attack us. If we go on being that same kind of people we are indeed not fit to survive. We will have proven clearly our lack of ability to learn from even the most painful ex-perience – biologically intolerable condition.

The second possible course is to prepare earnestly for the next war, recognizing its inevitability, training our children from infancy to live dangerously, to be able to fight effectively with ever more efficient, ruthless and terrible weapons. They must be trained to strike first because there may be no second blow in the wars of the future. Constant alertness and ruthless killing of all potential enemies will be the price of survival if we go on as we always have.

The third possible course is to find and take sure steps to prevent wars in the fu-ture. While this possibility seems obviously preferable it is something that has never yet been undertaken successfully. Perhaps it can be said that such a course has never been undertaken at all. Perhaps there is no way of preventing wars; if so we must decide whether to be slaves or ruthless killers, but before accepting either of those uncomfortable alternatives let us at least explore possible ways of prevent-ing war.

Before exploring such possibilities however, we should first consider war in relation to the human race so that we may be assured that it would indeed be good for the race to prevent future wars. It would seem to be true that, whatever the destiny of the race, the killing off of large numbers of its physically fit, intelligent and socially minded younger men can hardly be advantageous. A case might be made for wars if they could be fought by the old men and the mental defectives but that does not seem to be even a remote possibility as wars become ever more technical and demanding of all the fittest men. While the atomic bomb has been a dramatic weapon in the closing phases of the recent war, other possible weapons may be still more terrible. What of the introduction into major water supplies of a chemical which will prevent pregnancy in all females? What of the infinite capacity for killing in the hands of biologists and chemists all over the world? Any country could be paralyzed and destroyed at leisure by a well organized attack of any one of various new types – and without any development of heavy industries. In fact then the tendency is to involve not only fit young men, but every sign points to the killing in any future wars of large numbers of unselected whole populations, including women and children. This can hardly possibly be a useful procedure from a racial point of view unless conceivably it could serve to reduce population pressures in some parts of the world. This end could surely be attained, however, in less painful ways and with better selection, if such reduction of population should become necessary to the human race.

Some aspects of war are undoubtedly attractive to many people, but these advantages are clearly so far outweighed by the sufferings of others that no case can be made for continuing to wage wars on that score. Wars affect the economic status of millions of people, many of them for the better. Business booms, money flows freely, prosperity is widespread, but only where the war is not actually being fought. In the future, war may well be fought everywhere throughout the world with-out immediately compensating prosperity for anybody. Furthermore it ought to be possible for us to produce the same prosperity without killing, starving or enslaving millions of people.

Look as we may we cannot find a sensible reason, from the point of view of the welfare of the human race, for continuing to fight wars or for not preventing them. Then why do we go on doing it? Let me repeat-we are the kind of people who fight wars every fifteen or twenty years. Why? Shall we only throw up our hands in resignation and reply “human nature”? Surely other expressions of human nature are subject to extensive changes. Why not this one? We may not change nature but surely its expression in behavior patterns can be modified very extensively.

The responsibility for charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychia-trists, sociologists, economists and politicians must face this responsibility. It cannot be avoided. Even a decision not to interfere is still a decision and carries no less responsibility. We must earnestly consider what can be done to save the race from itself, from its insatiable desire for its own blood. Can this old habitual pattern of the race be eradicated by strong combinations of powerful nations, or by legislation, or by pretending that now everyone will love everyone else and there will be no more wars, or by prayer and fasting, or by control of enemy industries?

These have all been tried repeatedly and uniformly unsuccessfully. There is noth-ing to suggest that any of them can be successful though they are all seriously be-ing recommended again by many interested people. We are even being told we can prevent wars by controlling our potential enemies’ heavy industries. I am re-minded that when the Romans were concerned to keep the Britons from fighting them they cut down all the yew trees in England so the Britons could not make long bows. The Britons took to cross bows instead, which were much better weapons. Surely we have learned something in 2000 years! Or have we? We might as well forbid the Germans to make spears or breed horses for cavalry as control their heavy industries. Every lesson of history and of common sense would suggest the futility of these methods. It is clear that something new is needed – but what?

Can we identify the reasons, why we fight wars or even enough of them to perceive a pattern? Many of them are easy to list-prejudice, isolationism, the abil-ity emotionally and uncritically to believe unreasonable things, excessive desire for material or power, excessive fear of others, belief in a destiny to control others, vengeance, ability to avoid seeing and facing unpleasant facts and taking appropriate action. These are probably the main reasons we find ourselves involved in wars. They are all well known and recognized neurotic symptoms. The only normal motive is self defense, to protect ourselves from aggression, but surely we should be able to see the aggression coming long before it breaks out in warfare and take appropriate action to satisfy or suppress it. Even self defense may involve a neu-rotic reaction when it means defending one’s own excessive material wealth from others who are in great need. This type of defense is short sighted, ineffective and inevitably leads to more wars.

When we see neurotic patients showing these same reactions in their private af-fairs we may also throw up our hands and say “human nature” or “psychopathic personality of this or that type” or we may go to work to try to help the person in trouble to grow up over again more successfully than his parents were able to do. This can be done frequently but it would have been still better if his parents had been able to help him to grow up successfully in the first place.

It would appear that at least three requirements are basic to any hope of perma-nent world peace:

First – security, elimination of the occasion for valid fear of aggression. This is at-tainable, at least temporarily and as a stopgap until something better can be ar-ranged, by legislation backed by immediately available combined force prepared to suppress ruthlessly any appeal to force by any peoples in the world. The admini-stration and command of such a force is a delicate problem but can be devised if and when the great powers really want it. A less effective substitute for this method but one which may work well enough for long enough is for the great powers to assume this function themselves. To work even well enough it will be necessary that all disputes between nations be submitted to arbitration by a world court of the highest integrity.

Second – opportunity to live reasonably comfortably for all the people in the world on economic levels which do not vary too widely either geographically or by groups within a population. This is a simple matter of redistribution of material, of which there is plenty in the world for everybody, or of which plenty can easily be made. This can easily be attained whenever enough people see its necessity for their own and their children’s safety if for no more mature reason.

It is probable that these first two requirements would make wars unnecessary for mature normal people without neurotic necessities, but their attainment depends on the ability of enough people in the right places to want to implement them, and few people are mature and without neurotic necessities. So far in the history of the world there have never been enough mature people in the right places. We have never had enough people anywhere who have been able to see and accept these facts and who are sufficiently well developed and responsible to tackle these problems.

It follows inevitably then that the third requirement, on which the attainment and the effectiveness of the others depend, is that there should be enough people in the world, in all countries, who are not as we are and always have been, and will not show the neurotic necessities which we and every generation of our ancestors have shown. We have never had enough people anywhere who are sufficiently free of these neurotic symptoms which make wars inevitable.

All psychiatrists know where these symptoms come from. The burden of inferior-ity, guilt, and fear we have all carried lies at the root of this failure to mature successfully. Psychotherapy is predominantly, by any of a variety of methods, the reduction of the weight of this load. Therefore the question we must ask ourselves is why the human race is so loaded down with these incubi and what can be done about it.

Strecker and Appel have recently defined maturity in terms of abilities which, if at-tained by enough people, could ensure the continuity and continued development of the race along the lines of its inherent destiny without wars. To quote, “Maturity is a quality of personality that is made up of a number of elements. It is stick-to-it-iveness, the ability to stick to a job, to work on it, and to struggle through until it is finished, or until one has given all one has in the endeavor. It is the quality or ca-pacity of giving more than is asked or required in a given situation. It is this charac-teristic that enables others to count on one; thus it is reliability. Persistence is an aspect of maturity: persistence to carry out a goal in the face of difficulties. Endur-ance of difficulties, unpleasantness, discomfort, frustration, hardship. The ability to size things up, make one’s own decision, is a characteristic of maturity. This implies a considerable amount of independence. A mature person is not dependent unless ill. Maturity includes determination, a will to achieve and succeed, a will to life. Of course, maturity represents the capacity to cooperate: to work with others, to work in an organization and under authority. The mature person is flexible, can defer to time, persons, circumstances. He can show tolerance, he can be patient, and above all he has the qualities of adapt ability and compromise. Basically, maturity represents a wholesome amalgamation of two things: 1-dissatisfaction with the status quo, which calls forth aggressive, constructive effort, and 2 – social concern and devotion. It is morale in the individual.”

Let me repeat parts of this “The ability to size things up, make one’s own decisions, is a characteristic of maturity,” “A mature person . . . above all he has the qualities of adaptability and compromise.” Can anyone doubt that enough people reaching maturity in these terms would not want to start wars themselves and would prevent other people starting them. It would appear that this quality of maturity, this growing up successfully, is what is lacking in the human race generally, in ourselves and in our legislators and governments, which can only represent the people.

This fact puts the problem squarely up to psychiatry. The necessity to fight wars, whether as aggressor or as a defender who could have, but has not, taken steps to prevent war occurring, is as much a pathological psychiatric symptom as is a pho-bia or the antisocial behavior of a criminal who has been dominated by a stern and unreasonable father. They are alike irrational behavior patterns resulting from un-successful development and failure to reach emotional maturity. It is evident that this failure is usual in the whole human race and has been so throughout historical time.

For a cause we must seek some consistent thread running through the weave of all civilizations we have known and preventing the development of all or almost all the people to a state of true maturity. What basic psychological distortion can he found in every civilization of which we know anything? It must be a force which dis-courages the ability to see and acknowledge patent facts, which prevents the ra-tional use of intelligence, which teaches or encourages the ability to dissociate and to believe contrary to and in spite of clear evidence, which produces inferiority, guilt and fear, which makes controlling other people’s personal behavior emotionally necessary, which encourages prejudice and the inability to see, understand and sympathize with other people’s points of view. Is there any force so potent and so persuasive that it can do all these things in all civilizations? There is – just one. The only lowest common denominator of all civilizations and the only psychological force capable of producing these perversions is morality, the concept of right and wrong, the poison long ago described and warned against as “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

In the old Hebrew story God warns the first man and woman to have nothing to do with good and evil. It is interesting to note that as long ago as that, “good” is recognized as just as great a menace as “evil.” They are the fruit of the one tree and are different aspects of the same thing.

We have been very slow to rediscover this truth and to recognize the unnecessary and artificially imposed inferiority, guilt and fear, commonly known as sin, under which we have almost all labored and which produces so much of the social malad-justment and unhappiness in the world. For many generations we have bowed our necks to the yoke of the conviction of sin. We have swallowed all manner of poi-sonous certainties fed us by our parents, our Sunday and day school teachers, our politicians, our priests, our newspapers and others with a vested interest in control-ling us. “Thou shalt become as gods, knowing good and evil,” good and evil with which to keep children under control, with which to prevent free thinking, with which to impose local and familial and national loyalties and with which to blind children to their glorious intellectual heritage. Misguided by authoritarian dogma, bound by exclusive faith, stunted by inculcated loyalty, torn by frantic heresy, bedevilled by insistent schism, drugged by ecstatic experience, confused by conflicting certainty, bewildered by invented mystery, and loaded down by the weight of guilt and fear engendered by its own original promises, the unfortunate human race, deprived by these incubi of its only defences and its only reasons for striving, its reasoning power and its natural capacity to enjoy the satisfaction of its natural urges, strug-gles along under its ghastly self-imposed burden. The results, the inevitable results, are frustration, inferiority, neurosis and inability to enjoy living, to reason clearly or to make a world fit to live in.

The crippling of intelligence by these bandages of belief, in the name of virtue and security for the soul, is as recognizable as that of the feet of the Chinese girl who was sacrificed to the local concept of beauty. The result is, in both cases, not beauty of character or of feet, but distortion and crippling and loss of natural func-tion. Intelligence, ability to observe and to reason clearly and to reach and imple-ment decisions appropriate to the real situation in which he finds himself, are man’s only specific methods of survival. His unique equipment is entirely in the superior lobes of his brain. His destiny must lie in the direction indicated by his equipment. Whatever hampers or distorts man’s clear true thinking works against man’s mani-fest destiny and tends to destroy him.

Man’s freedom to observe and to think freely is as essential to his survival as are the specific methods of survival of the other species to them. Birds must fly, fish must swim, herbivorous animals must eat grasses and cereals, and man must ob-serve and think freely. That freedom, present in all children and ,known as inno-cence, has been destroyed or crippled by local certainties, by gods of local morali-ties, of local loyalty, of personal salvation, of prejudice and hate and intolerance-frequently masquerading as love-gods of everything that would destroy freedom to observe and to think and would keep each generation under the control of the old people, the elders, the shamans, and the priests.

Let us go back to Strecker and Appel’s definition of maturity. “The ability to size things up, make one’s own decisions is a characteristic of maturity.” “A mature per-son . . . has the qualities of adaptability and compromise.” Were you and I brought up in that direction? No; we were taught to be absolutely loyal and obedient to the local concept of virtue whatever that happened to be. We were taught that Moslems or Hindus or Jews, or Democrats or Republicans (with us in Canada, Grits or Tories) or capitalists or trade union-ists, or socialists or communists, or Roman Catholics or Methodists or any of all other hu-man groups are wrong or even wicked. It almost always happened that among all the peo-ple in the world only our own parents, and perhaps a few pe le they selected, were right about everything. We could refuse to accept their rightness only at the price of a load of guilt and fear, and peril to our immortal souls. This training has been practically universal in the human race. Variations in content have had almost no importance. The fruit is poisonous no matter, how it is prepared or disguised.

“The mature person is flexible, can defer to time, persons and circumstances. He can show tolerance, he can be patient, and above all he has the qualities of adaptability and compromise” say Strecker and Appel. Is family or school or church teaching in that direction? Almost never, and yet it is surely true that helping their children to reach this state of maturity successfully is the first responsibility of each generation. Only when this has been done successfully can we hope to have enough people able to see and think clearly and freely enough to be able to pre-vent the race going on as we have gone, from slaughter to bigger and better slaughter.

Psychiatrists everywhere have spent their lives trying, more and more successfully with a variety of methods, to help individuals who are in trouble to approach near enough to this state of maturity to be able to live comfortably for themselves and for the group; but surely it would be more advantageous to the world for psy-chiatrists to go into the preventive field where the big job needs to be done. The training of children is making a thousand neurotics for every one that psychiatrists can hope to help with psychotherapy. To produce a generation of mature citizens is the biggest and most necessary job any country could undertake, and the reward in saving of misery and suffering would be colossal.

The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. Would they not be legitimate objectives of original education? Would it not be sensi-ble to stop imposing our local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that in their own good time they may have the ability to size things up, and make their own decisions.

The suggestion that we should stop teaching children moralities and rights and wrongs and instead protect their original intellectual integrity has of course to be met by an outcry of heretic or iconoclast, such as was raised against Galileo for finding another planet, and against those who claimed the world was round, and against the truths of evolution, and against Christ’s re-interpretation of the Hebrew God, and against any attempt to change the mistaken old ways or ideas. The pretense is made, as it has been made in relation to the finding of any extension of truth, that to do away with right and wrong would produce uncivilized people, immorality, lawlessness and social chaos: The fact is that most psychiatrists and psychologists and many other respectable people have escaped from these moral chains and are able to observe and think freely. Most of the patients they have treated successfully have done the same and yet they show no signs of social or personal degeneration, no lack of social responsibility, no tendency toward social anarchy. This bugbear has no basis in fact whatever. We all recog-nize these reactions as those of the immature, the inferior, the guilty, which are not found in the mature, integrated personality. Freedom from moralities means freedom to observe, to think and behave sensibly to the advantage of the person and of t group, free from outmoded types of loyalties and from the magic fears of our ancestors.

If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psy-chiatrists who take the original responsibility. This is a challenge which must be met. If psychiatrists decide to do nothing about it but continue in the futility of psy-chotherapy only, that too is a decision and the responsibility for the results is still theirs. What the world needs from psychiatry is honest, simple and clear thinking, talking and writing. It needs the same from psychology, sociology, economics and politics. Clear and honest thinking can almost always be expressed in simple words which are understandable by the people who matter in a democracy. The people who matter are the teachers, the young mothers and fathers, the parent-teacher associations, youth groups, service clubs, schools and colleges, the churches and Sunday schools – everyone who can be reached and given help toward intellectual freedom and honesty for themselves and for the children whose future depends on them. Can we psychiatrists give up our protective device of hiding behind a spe-cific, difficult and variable vocabulary to avoid our obvious responsibility?

The battle, if it is to be undertaken, will be long and difficult but truth will prevail – whenever enough people want it to. With luck we have perhaps fifteen or even twenty years before the outbreak of the next world war if we remain as we are, twenty years in which to change the dearest certainties of enough of the human race, twenty years in which to root out and destroy the oldest and most flour-ishing parasitical growth in the world, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that man may learn to preserve his most precious heritage, his innocence and intellectual freedom, twenty years in which to remove the necessity for the per-verse satisfactions to be found in warfare, and to ensure that enough people eve-rywhere do not close their eyes to the awful threats facing them as we did from 1910 to 1914 and 1917, and from 1933 to 1939 and 1941.We are the horrible ex-ample. We are the people who fight wars every fifteen or twenty years. We must at whatever cost prevent our children and their children from being as we have been, but freedom from the tyranny of these faiths and fears is not to be gained in one generation. It is therefore necessary that, for so long as it may take to change the bringing up of children in enough of the world, our close watch on each other and everyone in the world should not be relaxed for a moment.

Let us all be prepared, not for another like the last war with navies and armies and air forces, but for the next war with rockets and atomic bombs and all the mobi-lized power of our laboratories. These are the weapons of the future and with them the whole world can be reached from any place on the earth in some minutes. The people who definitely do not want to fight any more wars must promise anni-hilation to any nation which starts to fight and must be prepared immediately and ruthlessly to carry out that promise without parley or negotiation. This involves the continual upkeep of widely dispersed atomic rocket stations covering the whole world and a continual high pressure research program to discover ever more efficient methods of killing to keep ahead of any possible competition. This must go on until we, all the people, are re-educated to be able to live in peace together, until we are free to observe clearly and to think and behave sensibly. The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children. It is not a job for economic or emotional misfits, for frightened, inferiority-ridden men and women seeking a safe, respectable and quickly attainable social and emotional status, nor for girls filling in their time before marriage. Fortunately there are recent signs of intellectual stirrings amongst teachers which give some hope. To be allowed to teach children should be the sign of the final approval of society. represent scale of values is clearly ~ disparity between teachers’ salaries and those movie actresses or football coaches.

I am reminded of a group whose responsibility was the reclamation, training and rehabilitation of all the unmarried mothers in a certain community. The procedure was to have an “I.Q.” done and then to train the girl according to a simple chart. The upper levels rated various types of useful training. Those at the bottom, not fit for anything else, were trained as nursemaids, to bring up children. Thus, hundreds of defenseless children in that large community have been brought up by moronic unmarried mothers. Because these are psychopathological matters, psychiatrists simply have to take the responsibility of interpretation and initiative. Can such a program of re-education or of a new kind of education be charted? I would not presume to go so far, except to suggest that psychology and sociology and simple psychopathology, the sciences of living, should be made available to all the people by being taught to all children in primary and secondary schools, while the study of such things as trigonometry, Latin, religions and others of specialist concern should be left to universities.

Only so, I think, can we help our children to carry their responsibilities as world citizens as we have not been able to do. Only so can we prevent their having to live in a world of fear and chaos and cruelty and death, far more horrible than we can know. We have never had a really peaceful society in the world, but only short interludes of forgetting and then frantic preparation between wars. Can the world learn to live at peace? I think so, but only if individual psychiatrists and psycholo-gists can live up to Strecker and Appel’s definition, – “Basically maturity represents a wholesome amalgamation of two things, one, dissatisfaction with the status quo, which calls forth aggressive, constructive effort, and two, social concern and devo-tion.” If we cannot, the job will be left to what survivors there may be after the next war, or to intellectually more honest and braver people who may get a chance some generations later. With the other human sciences, psychiatry must now de-cide what is to be the immediate future of the human race. No one else can. And this is the prime responsibility of psychiatry.

Here some credentials of G.B. Chishom as reported in the original: M.D. University of Toronto 24; (…) Director General Medical Services 42-44, Deputy Minister of National Health Dept. National Health and welfare November 44-, Chairman Dominion Council of Health; President National Comm. Mental Hygiene Canada; Chairman Health Comm. Canadian Youth Commission). And later a director of a precursor organisation of the WHO and in 1956 president of World Federation for Mental Health.

  Chisholm’s deliberations of 1945 obviously contain the essence of American psychiatry which according to its president Rich Harding M.D. is the “world leader in psychiatric publications, research and classification.” They also contain the essence of the radical 1960s neo-Marxist cultural revolution. Does the abolition of “good” and “evil”, “right” and “wrong” as suggested by Dr. Chisholm not deprive man of all base of civilisation? His considerations, however, have been supported by the highest political levels from the very beginning! This support seemingly is the reason why Freudianism has gained its “scientific acknowledgement” in Western countries some recent criticisms not withstanding. We also get an idea how Chisholm’s ideas could become the basis of “psychiatric reform”, “social engineering” and, eventually, the base of “politically correct” thinking in “post-modern” societies all over the world. In advocating peace Dr. Chisholm, a representative of the Washington School of Psychiatry, later a director of a precursor organisation of the WHO and in 1956 a president of World Federation for Mental Health, had good reasons in 1945. The slaughters of Nazi-Terror and World War II had just ended. As far as we know, however, since 1945 there have been only two years without wars .