Mature Content Warning:
One Winged Parrots Can't Fly
This a a lot of bad information in the system taken to be real historical and scientific fact. The information gets repeated by uncritical minds who claim documentation itself is evidence in spite of the obvious fact that such data is often highly manipulated and unverifiable. It is not logical to accept unverifiable claims as solid evidence for anything.
MONEY MONEY MONEY: Talk about "F-ology"!
"Dr." John Money perverts reason and recommends wrong choices based on his own bias and psychotic agenda. Arbitrary fashion choices and natural gender, and natural tendencies, become weapons of mass destruction.
Don't Tell Money But Socially Conditioned Fashions Are Arbitrary: The Founding Fathers Wore Powdered Wigs & Make Up
Kilts look an awful lot like skirts. Fashion choices are socially conditioned as is the rest of the socially enforced identities we are supposed to be conditioned to think really define us. How men act and how women act, whether one wears make up or plays with dolls, and all the rest of the rainbow of behavioral choices, are all the result of social conditioning and are somewhat arbitrary. These are choices and choices do not define who we are. People like Mr. Money confuse obvious and natural gender distinction with the artifacts of arbitrary culture and this is a mistake. Gender means generation as in making more of the species as in procreation. We are naturally inclined and "designed" to be creators in this creation. Dr. Money is also a creator and his creation is pedophilia based propaganda.
"Pervert or sexual libertarian?: Meet John Money, “the father of f***ology” "
"A trailblazing scientist and sexual libertarian, John Money's work was filled with contradictions and insight..."
Money Makes The Head Spin: Professional Pedophile & Pervert, Dr. John Money
John Money wants you to "xerox" his behavior and copy the money.
John Money source: Ashley M
Dow Corning Got To Eat: Someone had to figure out a way to market fake breasts to men.
TLC: THE MYTHOLOGY OF MONEY
Whatever the truth is or is not. Money's work is absurd and perverted nonsense and is based on unverifiable assumptions. He was interested in studying hermaphrodites. How many real cases are there of this phenomena and how many are just the stuff of legend?
MONEY IS THE INCENTIVE:
John Money's "Great Work" is meant to get us humans to "human see human do".
"John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a psychologist, sexologist and author, specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender. He was one of the first scientists to study the psychology of sexual fluidity and how the societal constructs of "gender" affect an individual. His work has been both celebrated for its innovation and criticized, particularly in regard to his involvement with the discredited sex-reassignment of David Reimer and his eventual suicide."
"Money published around 2,000 articles, books, chapters and reviews. His writing has been translated into many languages. Money has received around 65 world-wide honors, awards, and degrees."
"Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University from 1951 until his death. He also established the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965 along with Claude Migeon who was the head of plastic surgery at Johns Hopkins."
"Money introduced numerous definitions related to gender in journal articles in the 1950s, many of them as a result of his studies of Hermaphroditism."
What were the real sources for his "theories", his imagination? How appropriate is Money's use of hermaphroditism as evidence for his perverted concepts. Children do not need to be sexualized and prepubescent youth have little to no real interest in adult behavior. John Money believes otherwise. He is Harvard educated so his illogical belief system must be correct. He wrote a bunch of books, after all. This research might be valid for the few who actually are hermaphrodites but it obviously does not apply to most of us human beings. In fact it is illogical to redefine gender as anything but the natural and obvious thing that it is. The rest is meant as identity product for us to self identify with.
A Transglobal Reach Around:
"The New Zealand-born, U.S.-based psychologist John Money (1921–2006) has had a singular influence on the diagnosis and treatment of (to use Money’s terms) “hermaphroditism,” “transsexualism,” and “paraphilia.” The reception of his more than five hundred articles and over forty books, as well as hundreds of neologisms including “gender” itself, has been both exceptionally significant and strikingly uneven. Whereas “gender” is now a ubiquitous, everyday term in the English-speaking world, and “lovemap” has entered the lexicon of popular psychology, some of his more outlandish coinages, concepts, and recommendations have entered neither popular nor medical currency.
Money’s widespread yet disparate uptake is explained partly by the fact that his stylistically bizarre texts were aimed at multiple audiences, most often physicians, psychiatrists, and sexologists, but sometimes anthropologists, historians, psychoanalysts, and lay readers. Money’s career was also beset by ethical controversy, exemplified by the internationally publicized case of David Reimer. Following sex reassignment in infancy under Money’s guidance, in response to a circumcision accident, Reimer’s story was held variously to show Money as humane and barbaric, naive and deceitful, a social constructionist and an anatomical determinist. Just as Money’s ideas have been characterized as either pathologizing or liberating, so too has Money’s flamboyant persona been beatified or damned. These tendencies to polarize Money and his work are both productive and symptomatic of a failure to interrogate the complexities, contradictions, and tensions in Money’s oeuvre. Therefore, a careful cross-disciplinary, multiauthored engagement with Money’s work and its deployment is overdue.
For example, sufficiently close attention has not hitherto been paid to Money’s fears (which were probably understandable given the historico-political context of his work during the 1950s) that sexology could be dismissed as a prurient, if not altogether “perverse” practice, much as its forerunners in the nineteenth century had been demonized by many doctors and clerics. It is in this light that we understand Money’s constant demand that his field, for which his predecessors “could not find a name,” should be considered both a legitimate science and the natural home of taboo-busting “sex research.” The conception of a unique (nameless) scientific field—which Money argues complements other sciences such as urology, gynecology, endocrinology, and so on, and for which he suggested the name “fuckology”—functions hand in hand with Money’s fascination with a “Linnaean” taxonomic approach to human experience. A passion for creating taxonomies is evident in his coining of a plethora of diagnostic and technical terms, including “Adam Principle,” “exigency theory,” “gynemimesis,” “mindbrain,” “neurocognitional,” “normophilia,” “phylism,” “troopbondance,” and a whole range of paraphilias, such as “apotemnophilia,” “autassassinophilia,” and “autonepiophilia,” to give only a sample of those at the beginning of the alphabet. It is, then, somewhat ironic that Money claimed inspiration from Willa Cather and Ernest Hemingway for their “economy of words and uncluttered style.”
Connecting Money’s aspiration to scientificity and his tendency to taxonomic invention is his view of both “gender” and the “lovemap” as kinds of “native language.” In one paper from 1982, Money wrote: “For sexological research the development of . . . an analytic vocabulary is not simply an ideal, but an absolute necessity, for without it erotosexual practice cannot be properly subdivided and reduced to identifiable units for investigation in research.” And, in the same paper, he could not resist adding, after a mention of “every behavioral unit,” a parenthetical nascent term for this concept: “(behavioron).” For Money then, as we will explore in this book, the acquisition of a language about sex was an object of study, a scientific method, and a master metaphor, all at once."
John Money makes believe there is good and bad pedophilia. Does this really make sense? If you think so, you might need some help. Do I really have to explain that a 9 or 11 year old is too young and immature to be in any kind of "adult" relationship with someone a decade older. Even a sixteen year old is too immature (or should be) for a twenty one year old. Emotional maturity matters and children are conditioned to uncritically trust adults. This puts the adult in an unfair position of power. This nonsense is just sick power based pedophilia and nothing more. This is what a perverse mind concocts and dreams about.
"John Money was critical in debates on chronophilias, especially pedophilia. He stated that both sexual researchers and the public do not make distinctions between affectional pedophilia and sadistic pedophilia. Money asserted that affectional pedophilia was about love and not sex.
If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual ... then I would not call it pathological in any way.
Money held the view that affectional pedophilia is caused by a surplus of parental love that became erotic, and is not a behavioral disorder. Rather, he took the position that heterosexuality is another example of a societal and therefore superficial, ideological concept."
The Professional Pedophile & Pervert, Dr. Money Uses Language To Craft His Agenda Into Socially Palatable Form
"The title of this book, Fuckology, is a reappropriation of a neologism that Money proposed for introduction into scholarly, clinical, and lay discourse. He wrote in 1988 of the need for “a word like fuckology, used in everyday, vernacular English to signify the science of what it is that people actually do under the cover of polite expressions like making love or having sex.” Although this book’s critical remit is wider than Money’s contribution to the study of sexual orientations and practices, and while the book certainly does not seek to further Money’s agenda by using “fuckology” as a candid descriptor in the way that he suggests is possible, the term “fuckology,” used against the grain, strikes us as extraordinarily appropriate shorthand to describe a method of queering—or fucking with—sexology, and with the logic of scientificity in which it is invested. In particular, we are aware of, and seek precisely to exploit, the readerly discomfort and uncertainty potentially engendered by the use of this nonacademic vocabulary (the sort of vocabulary that Money himself might have called “the terminology of the barnyard”). Money often used sexualized rather than clinical terms for sexual activities, such as the verbs “to quim” and “to swive,” which he derived from vernacular seventeenth century terms for genitalia, and which were intended by Money to describe “the active-assertive practice of the female and the male, respectively, in penovaginal copulation.” He seems to have understood such linguistic misdemeanors as acts of daring resistance to an imagined censorious “sex police,” albeit in a gesture that risked undermining his claims made elsewhere for the scientific seriousness of this work; Money was aware as early as 1955 that neologisms could be regarded as “perverse technical jargon.” Putting aside our various reservations about Money’s intentions in introducing neologisms such as these, we find the term “fuckology” productive insofar as it suggests resistance to a unified theory of Money. Further, “fuckology” disrupts the domestication of Money’s peculiar oeuvre as a transient moment along a path to ever more scientific and humane knowledge of “hermaphroditism,” “transsexualism,” and “paraphilia.”"
SOCIAL ENGINEERING 101
SOCIAL ENGINEERING 101 source: https://www.corbettreport.com
Get Them When They Are Young & Impressionable
"The term chronophilia was used by John Money to describe a form of paraphilia in which an individual experiences sexual attraction limited to individuals of particular age ranges. The term has not been widely adopted by sexologists, who instead use terms that refer to the specific age range in question. An arguable historical precursor was Richard von Krafft-Ebing's concept of "age fetishism"."
Submit To The University Life
EXTREME MATRUE CONTENT WANRING:
What Goes On During Sorority & Fraternity Hazing: The Art of Creating Internet Pornography
This is a form of social conditioning. This is about socially enforced submission to an inhuman system of needless sexualized nonsense. Sexual submissive behavior seems to be actively encouraged by too many sororities.
Highly erotic XXX style content is easily available for viewing online. I do not recommend viewing it, but the truth is there are too many examples of what seems to be very real amateur video of highly sexualized sorority hazing rituals. Cultural manipulation is carried out in many ways and we get conditioned to do it to each other. The internet provides a unique tool for some very real anthropological studies of the current culture.
Social Engineering Projects Tend To Focus On The Young & Impressionable Minds,
Crafting The Artificial Product Known As Identity In The Process
"Numerous colleges in the deep south have a ritual from which many anonymous complaints have come about. Why anonymous? Well, girls are threatened with retaliation and open themselves up for attacks if they squeal about these abusive hazing techniques. Well, a bunch of complaints have come in concerning an oral test given to pledges. The complaints, from varied college campuses, all state that pledges must perform oral sex on the sorority sisters.
Not only must they go down on the sisters, but if they aren’t thorough enough and good enough at the act, they are bounced from pledging. That’s right, these pledges must take a trying oral exam that is tantamount to sexual abuse in order to get into the sorority. I doubt the fraternities are going to adopt this one anytime in the near future for their pledges."
"Rutgers makes a second appearance on the list. Go New Jersey! For these incidents, sorority girls were forced to strip down naked. The pledges had to sit down on paper towels. Then they had to watch a lesbian adult film movie. After watching movie, if the paper towels got too wet, they would later be bounced from the sorority.
The underlining reason was to catch potential lesbians trying to get into their sorority. It was alleged that the pledge who had the wettest paper towel had to eat all the other paper towels. If this sounds disturbing, gross and inappropriate, its because it is. Nobody should ever have to eat a paper towel unless it was first dipped in sugar."
"A tiny college in northern Georgia, Young Harris College, has become a bastion of some sexually-charged, aggressive hazing, and this time it’s the sororities coming in hot. Fraternities have some answering to do, as well, but the ladies are the center of this campus chaos. YHC Greek life is largely comprised of local chapters, resulting in an environment free of higher-up, regulatory, watchful eyes. This has created some unfortunate free rein involving sorority and fraternity hazing customs. Although sexual in nature, and even featuring some nudity, it’s not the type to get the pants twitching.
There is some seriously messed up stuff going out there. One current sophomore, Jo Hannah Burch, a former Gamma Psi pledge, is exploring all avenues to ensure the abusive nature of the Greek culture comes to a halt. She has filed a lawsuit against the college.
Fem blog Jezebel, being the dedicated do-gooders that they are, was able to obtain a list of “highly disturbing” allegations after the conclusion of an investigation. Here they are:
• Forcing female pledges to take part in a “panty run,” in which they are required to run across campus in their underwear as other students, including male students, look on;
• Forcing “sweethearts” (female members of male fraternities) to stand naked and be judged by the fraternity members;
• Forcing “sweethearts” to hump the ground and moan as if having sex, as the fraternity members look on;
• Forcing both female and male pledges to stand in a pool of water in which the older pledges have urinated or defecated in;
• Forcing male pledges to engage in “elephant crawls” through a creek, during which the pledges crawl one behind another, with each pledge’s face planted between the buttocks of the pledge in front of him;
• Forcing female pledges to sit unclothed on running washing machines while members of the sorority use a permanent marker to mark areas of their bodies that jiggle;
• Interrogating students who are believed to have “ratted” on fellow Greeks and making derogatory and sexually explicit personal insults. In one particular instance during the Spring semester, a female student was screamed at to the point of tears in front of an entire sorority and called sex-specific insults such as “cunt” and “whore.”
“Forcing male pledges to engage in “elephant crawls” through a creek, during which the pledges crawl one behind another, with each pledge’s face planted between the buttocks of the pledge in front of him.”
"What I mean is an actual effort to police yourselves and rid the fraternity world of one of its worst stigmas. Because really, if your house practices “sexual in nature” hazing, or “gayzing” as it is also known, you fucking suck, and you and all of your friends are creeps.
If you want to be friends with a bunch of dudes and do weird sexual things with them, join a bathhouse, not a fraternity."
"This isn’t an attack on homosexuality, nor is it a call to end hazing, don’t mistake this as either. This is purely an attack on gayzing, which is essentially sexual assault, by the way.
To a non-Greek school administrator, someone who would use broad definitions to define “sexual hazing,” something as simple as paddling could be classified as such. Obviously any fraternity man knows that paddling does not come close to actually fitting this definition, even if the pledge gets hard while you’re paddling, THAT’S ON HIM."
"Elephant walks, ripping the underwear off pledges, whatever…it’s fucking weird, this shit needs to stop. It’s also generally not very creative, entertaining, or effective to begin with, so what’s the point? Police yourselves, guys. If one day you find yourself standing in a room with your brothers, and across that room are thirty exposed, swinging, 18-year-old dicks, maybe take a step back and ask yourself, “Hey, why am I in a room with thirty exposed, swinging, 18-year-old dicks?” I’m guessing that will turn into a real self loathing moment of clarity.
It might be hard for some people to gauge what is and isn’t gayzing, because really it almost all falls into a gray area. But truthfully, most guys know deep down what is and isn’t gayzing. Things like paddling and a pledge class streaking run aren’t the same as making all the pledges jack off right before a serenade so that they’re all hard. The former are lighthearted shenanigans. The latter is the first eight minutes of a gay porno.
If someone is really that conflicted, my suggestion for a gayzing barometer would be to do this: If it’s something you wouldn’t tell a good buddy who isn’t in your fraternity as a “funny story” because you think they might be weirded out by it, then it’s probably gayzing, and you should cease doing it immediately. It’s not perfect, but I think it works for most cases.
End gayzing once and for all. When you’re in a fraternity you should be blacking out drunk, not blacking out molestation"
Even So-Called "Innocent" Hazing is Submissive Ritual & Not Something Any Self Respecting Human Being Would Engage In
The numerous x-rated (seemingly) amateur videos easily viewed online would seem to support these sexually charged claims.
Get A Doctorate While Being Indoctrinated
The college educated mind is a literally indoctrinated one. The college educated person does not realize how they do not actually sound like they know anything when they pontificate about their beliefs. These people simply do not think that they have to question underlying assumptions. They repeat college taught mantras like any good religious follower is supposed to.
An auto mechanic who can't take an engine part and put it back together again is kind of useless, no?
Modern science is a faith and "Science" is the God worshipped. The $ dollar sign $ is the Holy Symbol™.
The university educated mind is conditioned to obey external authority in an unquestioning manner.
College educated minds tend to be conditioned to parrot and echo assumptions they are not very interested in questioning. This is how very bad and highly illogically premised ideas become enshrined "settled science".
The specialized and compartmentalized university trained mind is taught what to think not how to think.
Scientists and "science" are phrases used like like mythical magical words, yet the scientists themselves are so specialized and compartmentalized that they are very ignorant of anything outside of their fields of research. Too many scientists never seem interested in questioning any underlying assumptions, assuming that the so-called "settled science" that is foundational to their field (and by illogical extension, other fields) is as settled as claimed.
These scientists end up as technicians following instructions.
Real experts can actually demonstrate their ideas without resorting to mathematical model, massaged and fictionalized studies or highly edited Hollywood product as "evidence". The university trained mind is conditioned to uncritically accept the catechisms of "science".
Orwellian Colleges Socially Engineering Students with Fake Pronouns source:Truthstream Media