Judith Reisman: Understand, destroying children is the end game ! Update

 

The spiral of desensitization, decivilization and dehumanization of the contemporary world

The Other Side of the Moon. A Possible Explanation for the Explosion of Pedophilia, the "Lolita Express" Race, the Epstein Files, and Donald Trump's Behavior

 

Currently, the international community is witnessing live and passively everything that was previously avoided and later presented in a stylized form, starting with aggressions, attacks, invasions, wars, war crimes, atrocities, tortures, etc. and going up to genocide. The new rule, in fact a fierce competition, is that all of this be captured and presented “live” (“these facts can affect you emotionally”). 

Underneath this catastrophe that has engulfed the entire international media space, a much more tragic one against innocence is silently unfolding, namely a crusade against the most fragile earthly beings, children.

7 years ago, the American conservative author Judith Reisman (since deceased), known for her criticism of the work and legacy of modern sexologist Alfred Kinsey, gave an interview to a Romanian newspaper. This interview remains a reference for comparing two diametrically opposed perspectives on the spiral of decivilization and dehumanization of contemporary civilization.

The soul, human feelings and their purest expression, children, have taken a back seat to desensitization, the exacerbation of instincts and the offensive of pornography and obscenity.

The interview is a plea for a return to decency, sensitivity, feelings and humanity.

Judith Reisman

Reisman is a professor at Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the United States. Prof. Reisman's studies focused on dismantling the "work" of the father of modern sexology, Alfred Kinsey, who scientifically legitimized the postwar sexual chaos.

These studies exposed the massive fraud that underpinned Kinsey's research, as well as the sexual abuse of minors included in the studies. Kinsey's research – a pedophile and a controversial bisexual for whom there is only one sexual abnormality, abstinence – was the cornerstone of LGBTQ ideology and agenda. Important decisions were made based on it, which changed the face of American society, the most recent being, without a doubt, the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Kinsey's influence also spilled over into American popular culture, with successful pornographic magazines, as well as feminist magazines like "Cosmopolitan," being the result of Kinsey's revolution. As Dr. Judith Reisman states in an exclusive interview with "România liberă," the cultural war sparked by these illegitimate and immoral sexual studies aims to destroy the traditional family, an institution older and more important than any Constitution in the world.




RL: What's wrong with gay "marriages"? What's the difference between gay and straight "marriages"?

Dr. Judith Reisman: The study you received about comparing straight and gay people looks at the characteristics that distinguish straight people from gay people and what they are interested in in a partner. Interest in partners who have any kind of long-term connection is virtually nonexistent, as you can see in the table.



What are the cultural, political, and social consequences of legalizing gay marriage? What can you tell us from your experience in America?

Typically, a homosexual has experienced traumatic events in his past; in the case of women, this was often incest; in the case of men, this may be older men who usually abused the victim when he was a child or teenager. Subsequently, the homosexual spends much of his adolescence and adulthood searching for answers within himself and relying, as a young man, on his attractiveness to win “friends” (we are referring to men in this discussion). Unfortunately, the victim no longer enjoys sexual acceptance after he leaves adolescence and loses his youthful appearance. So he will do what women so often do: he will engage in a lifelong campaign to gain acceptance, with his peers and in society. For society, this involves claiming the “right” to marriage, for which he has limited or no capacity. All of this cannot be solved, neither in the case of men nor in the case of women, as long as they continue on the same sterile and sexually dangerous path (diseases, violence).

Now the biggest problem is the mass recruitment in schools, because of course this has changed the nature of the problem. Textbooks, movies, novels, courses and especially the depraved sex education are certainly designed to get more and more children to adopt a homosexual transgender lifestyle. This brings the young man into a larger group and then he becomes part of a massive political structure. We have seen what happens in churches. When homosexuals dominate an organization, there is always the possibility of blackmail, which puts them in a position to control the institutions. Although being homosexual is not such a big problem anymore, the violence and promiscuity associated with this lifestyle is a major problem.



What are the origins of this latest trend in the sexual revolution?

As I said above, the latest trend is the control of the school system, exercised by sexual revolutionaries, by perverted heterosexuals, by homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, etc. However, this revolution was planned and conceived over a period of four generations, so it is not so new. Since Kinsey, in 1948, the results we see today are the consequences of developments that began then. The change was started by Kinsey, who was homosexual, addicted to masturbation, a sadomasochist, as can be seen in his tables about children. Hugh Hefner, a virgin student at 22 (which was normal in those years, but unusual today), read Kinsey and became, in his own words, "an author of pamphlets about (his theories) Kinsey". Thus Kinsey's pernicious tendencies were spread to the public—indeed, masturbation to pornography was one of his earliest inclinations—and he later filmed himself, both alone and with his crew, and forced everyone to take part in his sadomasochistic activities. Kinsey died of trauma to his sexual organs from masturbation, orchitis, and probably venereal diseases contracted from his multiple male partners. This is the "scientist" from whom the world learned about sexual behavior! This is a depraved "scientist" who sought to change sexual laws to suit his needs and to absolve himself of his crimes.



What can we expect in the future from this front of the sexual revolution?

The attempt to lower the age of consent or eliminate it, as has already happened in France, is part of the agenda. You see, the destruction of children is the end game, the enslavement, the control of society, the complete destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization through laws – this is what is being pursued, without a doubt.



Not many people have heard of Kinsey (although Hollywood made a movie about him), but many people around the world, especially teenagers, read “Playboy” or “Cosmopolitan.” You have examined this important but little-known connection in your articles. Would you like to comment?

Yes, of course. The sexual activities recommended, promoted, depicted in images in “Cosmopolitan”, in “Playboy” prepare children to accept and often practice these activities. All this, along with depraved sex education and pornography (“Playboy” and “Cosmo”) – and pornography promotes promiscuity, bi/homosexuality. This, of course, will be the end of our civilization as we know it, which we fought so hard to build.



Do you see any connection between Alfred Kinsey and the members of the Frankfurt School, who also had a substantial academic, cultural, and social influence in the US?

Yes, of course. Kinsey became the formal leader of the Frankfurt School. In this school, everyone was an elite outsider. To destroy the country and the Western Judeo-Christian world, a white, bow-tie-wearing Anglo-Saxon American was needed. The Rockefeller Foundation found the right man in Alfred Kinsey. He could draft the “Sexual Offenses” section of the Model Penal Code published in 1955, while the elite postmodern German “escapees” could not have such influence until about 10-15 years later. Then, following in Kinsey’s footsteps, they could exert their destructive influence in our faculties. We saved them, and they betrayed us, abolishing our entire worldview.



Here in Romania, we are, fortunately, a little behind, but we can hear a lot of noise about transgenderism and how children can be insecure about their sexual identity. How do you explain this phenomenon?

As I said, it took four generations for the new postmodern sexuality to be imposed, and the teachers were trained by perverted and ignorant people. How can they provide any better teaching? They are learning what they have learned from those who came before them. When I was doing my research for “Child Images, Crime, and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler” (1986) at American University, the dean of the Department of Education said that he got rid of all the traditionalist teachers “because the old-style teachers know and will teach about the old American values.”



What are the consequences of this constant and aggressive exposure of children and adolescents to pornography and images with sexual content?

Everyone knows the consequences of such exposure, we see them all around us, people see them in their children and in themselves. It is a tragedy. But since the media has stopped presenting the truth and has started to prohibit any speech that tells the truth, people believe that they are the only ones who notice these things and, out of human weakness, deny what they know. But we all understand the consequences of promoting pornography and images with sexual content. We all hear about rape, abuse, divorce, people no longer know what a normal emotional and sexual experience means, imitating pornography is a real fact.



Is sex education a solution to teenagers' problems? Does sex education provide good preparation for life?

How funny! It took them about three generations (starting in the 1960s) to give our children a depraved sex education, and they will do even more. If we were to measure sex education by the yardstick of success, we can say that it has been successful – in destroying marriages, of women and men, in increasing the number of sexual assaults committed on children as well as adults, in developing old and new sexual diseases in massive numbers. If this is the measure of the success of depraved sex education, then they have been successful! If we want something even worse than that, let's give sex education to people who will continue to misguide our children, confuse them even more, and turn them into victims (see gender uncertainty). And everyone knows it.



What are “deviations from pornography laws”?

In the United States, for a long time, there have been laws protecting children from pornography (the “Harmful to Minors” laws, the Children’s Health Act). Pornography was also absolutely illegal, in any form. However, working behind the scenes, deviants have introduced into the law the possibility of an exemption for the police and doctors, since they work with the results in criminal cases. However, as I said, these unknown people have introduced legislation that allows obscene materials to be shown to children of any age in schools and libraries. Supposedly, this is allowed for educational purposes. Well, that’s how it is: they are educated by the obscene materials they see, hear, read, and are traumatized, perverted, and harmed by them.



Do you have any recommendations for those parents who want to raise healthy, good, and moral children?

Yes, I would say that parents need to be extremely active in the legislative, political and cultural spheres around them, seeking to influence any media content distributed to the public. They should be on school boards, be in the media, where they can determine the necessary changes, and they know what changes are needed, they should run for office promoting moral values. And if moral and correct principles are not taught in schools, they should take their children out of those schools. I don't know what the laws are in your country in this regard. Here, children can be taken out of schools and educated at home, although it is somewhat difficult. You have to be careful of social workers who often have another agenda (trained in the third generation). Children have been taken from their parents and placed in children's homes, while the parents are fighting in court to get their children back home. I think Germany is the worst in this regard. But it is not surprising.



What is the ultimate goal of the sexual revolution?

Of course, the annihilation of independent thought, which means a nation enslaved by technology, which naturally contributes to this enslavement. Because we have not learned history, or we have been taught an insufficient or false history, as is the case with us. Immersion in a world of movies, computers, social networks, etc., what is called "bread and circuses". [This world] is here. We see it. We know it. We deny it. It is difficult to face these things. Of course, it is not known, but this is the reason why it is desired to get rid of the Church and any kind of religious system. Belief in God gives man a greater power to oppose. Religion practiced seriously is a huge obstacle to the Brave New World.



Ninel Ganea
Free Romania
03/10/2018


Source : https://romanialibera.ro/la-zi/judith-reisman-intelegeti-distrugerea-copiilor-este-sfarsitul-jocului-755156/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

First publication 

miercuri, 28 mai 2025

Bruce Springsteen - Streets Of Minneapolis (Official Lyric Video)

 

An extraordinary song with documentary images, a song written from the heart, which destroys a regime. Minneapolis is Donald Trump's fatal mistake !

The international community between the "Nuremberg Trial" ("Never Again") and Donald Trump's "Peace Council"

The lesson of the Second World War that horrified humanity and the "Nuremberg Trial" that generated the emergence of the UN, the Security Council, the UN Charter and the international institutions and organizations that condemn aggressive war, war crimes, torture, rape and plunder have been forgotten.
With all the inefficiency and corruption of the UN, this was the only court that morally condemned the actions of state actors that violated the principles of the UN Charter.Instead of reforming the UN and the Security Council so that all the states of the world decide the direction of evolution of the human community, not just a few states that, by invoking the right of force, defy political, legal and moral laws and norms and apply the principle "all are equal, but some are more equal than others" (Orwell), a "Council" is proposed that annihilates all state and institutional efforts that after 1945 generated a political and moral order at the level of the international community.
If the value system of human civilization and the moral code of humanity defined in the "Nuremberg Trial" are not defended, the evolution of human civilization is stopped and the international community becomes a prison in which the criminals of the international community have taken over its leadership.

Mark Carney - Read the full transcript of Carney’s speech to World Economic Forum

 

Thank you very much, Larry. I’m going to start in French, and then I’ll switch back to English.

It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry — that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.

And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along, get along to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.

Well, it won’t. So what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called “The Power of the Powerless,” and in it he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer.

Every morning, the shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world unite.” He doesn’t believe in it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists — not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this living within a lie. The system’s power comes not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source. When even one person stops performing, when the greengrocer removes his sign, the illusion begins to crack

Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false, that the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient, that trade rules were enforced asymmetrically, and we knew that international law applied with varied rigour, depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration. But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

.The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP, the very architecture of collective problem-solving — are under threat. As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains. And this impulse is understandable.

A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.

And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.

Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum.

The question for middle powers like Canada is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must.

The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls, or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Now, Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture. Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is no longer valid. And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, has termed value-based realism.

Or, to put it another way, we aim to be both principled and pragmatic. Principled in our commitment to fundamental values, sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.

And pragmatic in recognizing that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner will share all of our values.

So we’re engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.

We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we’re prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.

And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home. Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, on capital gains and business investment. We have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade. We are fast-tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We’re doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we’re doing so in ways that build our domestic industries. And we are rapidly diversifying abroad.

We’ve agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.

In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

We’re doing something else: to help solve global problems, we’re pursuing variable geometry. In other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So on Ukraine, we’re a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.

On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future.

Our commitment to NATO’s Article 5 is unwavering, so we’re working with our NATO allies, including the Nordic-Baltic Eight, to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, in submarines, in aircraft, and boots on the ground — boots on the ice.

Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve our shared objectives of security and prosperity in the Arctic.

On plurilateral trade, we’re championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people.

On critical minerals, we’re forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so the world can diversify away from concentrated supply. And on AI, we’re co-operating with like-minded democracies to ensure that we won’t ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naïve multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It’s building coalitions that work issue by issue with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations. What it’s doing is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.

Which brings me back to Havel. What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?

First, it means naming reality. Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.

It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.

That’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority.

And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy, because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. In other words, we have capital talent. We also have a government with immense fiscal capacity to act decisively. And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability. We are a stable and reliable partner in a world that is anything but, a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

And we have something else: we have a recognition of what’s happening and determination to act accordingly. We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking a sign out of the window.

We know the old order is not coming back. We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just. This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine co-operation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.

That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently, and it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us.

Thank you very much.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11620877/carney-davos-wef-speech-transcript/

Brave New World. The New International Political Order Trump Style

140 Lawmakers Vote to Impeach Trump AGAIN | Al Green’s Bold Countdown to 2026 Chaos

 

Brave New World. The new international order after Hurricane Trump

“I don’t need international law. Only my own morality limits my power.”

Donald Trump
U.S President

"We should get our goals straight. The time for games is over. To hell with international law and the global order […] If it was necessary for us to start a [special military operation] on the territory of Ukraine for our national security, why, based on the same considerations, we cannot start a [special military operation] in other points of our zone of influence?".

Vladimir Solovyov

one of the Kremlin’s most prominent propagandists

LITMUS PAPER

 

The last drop violated human laws and filled the glass. Trump will lose the election.

 

Trump: "I could shoot somebody and not lose voters".

January, 23 2016

Sioux Center, Iowa

 

Renee Good
The Look Before Death 

So sad, she has a premonition of death in her eyes... How can a guy with a gun kill such a defenseless being in broad daylight and with witnesses?! I remember the Ukrainian woman stabbed to death in a train station in Charlotte, North Carolina. This tragedy justified by Donald Trump will make him lose the next election, even if he imposes martial law.

 

 

Putin, 2016 versus Trump, 2026. Handing over the baton and the grenade

The annexation of Greenland is not just about Greenland, it never was.