Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

A Stunning Validation //Emotional Tyranny,The Assault on Truth, Psychoanalysis (Page Added May 7, 2013)

with 6 comments

This post has been “sticky” to the top of my blog for a long time. Its contents are primary about the philosophical underpinnings of the entire Family and Conciliation Court system. I decided to make it a page on 5/7/2013. Comments welcome.

July 2019 comments on minor format changes:  (SEE RELATED POST/S WITH SIMILAR NAME):
A Stunning Validation //Emotional Tyranny,The Assault on Truth, Psychoanalysis (Page Added May 7, 2013)(short-link for this 10,400-word page ends “-1AJ”).  Date published in title, page borders, some format changes added July 30, 2019.)

(This page has a comment from a North Carolina mother, who was dealing with the NC “Children’s Rights Council’s” reframing of her as she was attempting to protect a child who’d reported abuse to his/her counselor).//LGH.  End 2019 updates section).

Curiosity and attention to detail paid off this time. Am I obsessive at looking things (and people) up?
Perhaps some are just not curious enough. That act is called gathering data (scanning the horizon) for related information.

Yesterday, it had been my intent simply to present some basic information on the domination of psychology and education as fields of choice for those involved in population management through the courts. BUT — a single woman from Indiana University’s “Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences,” (cf. Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Institute, and there is a connection), well, enough was enough and one thing led to another.

Freud KNEW but he was censored and silenced. It haunted him. Others knew (including Anna Freud) but they also censored. I’m getting tired of all that….

In writing this post, I looked up some personnel. One of them (below), a 2012 AFCC Stanley Cohen awardee, had participated in “The Kinsey Institute.” I looked up one of the other investigators and in a book list ran across: Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: “Against Therapy: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing.” (2012):

In this ground-breaking and highly controversial book, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson attacks the very foundations of modern psychotherapy from Freud to Jung, from Fritz Perls to Carl Rodgers. With passion and clarity, Against Therapy addresses the profession’s core weaknesses, contending that, since therapy’s aim is to change people, and this is achieved according to therapist’s own notions and prejudices, the psychological process is necessarily corrupt. With a foreword by the eminent British psychologist Dorothy Rowe, this cogent and convincing book has shattering implications.


The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory is a 1984 book by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. It argues that Sigmund Freud deliberately suppressed his early hypothesis that hysteria is caused by sexual abuse during infancy, a conclusion that Masson reached while he had access to some of Freud’s unpublished letters as projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives.[1]

“Some of Freud’s unpublished letters” is a major understatement, and dismissive ….   as is even calling it “the seduction theory.”

1990, he came out with: “In the Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst“:

[Book description]: He was the rising star of psychoanalysis, an intimate associate of Anna Freud and Kurt Eissler, a member of the Freudian “inner circle” with unrestricted access to the Freud Archives. And then Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson threw it all away because he dared to break the psychoanalytic community’s deepest taboo: he told the truth in public. As he unmasks the pretensions and abuses of this elite profession, Masson invites us to eavesdrop on the shockingly unorthodox analysis he was subjected to in the course of his analytic training. But the more prestige Masson attained, the more he came to doubt not only the integrity of his colleagues, but the validity of their method. In the end, he blew the whistle–fully aware of the personal and professional consequences.

With wit, wonder, and unflinching candor, Masson brilliantly exposes the cult of psychoanalysis and recounts his own self-propelled fall from grace. A sensation when it first appeared, Final Analysis is even more provocative and engrossing today. Written with passion and humor, this is the book that revealed a revered profession for what it was–and launched Masson on his true career.

Review from The Library Journal :
A former projects director of the Sigmund Freud Archives, Masson claims that he was fired for espousing and publicizing views concerning the sexual abuse of children that radically challenged psychoanalytic theories. Since then, he has been a thorn in the side of mental health professionals with his searing critiques of therapy. Here he abandons his formidable research skills for a personal glimpse into how, in his training and psychoanalytic career, he too became enmeshed in the mystique that psychoanalysis could cure unhappiness and that analysts were all wise and moral. Although Masson describes with great candor his wasted analysis, his rise in the elite inner circle, and his close ties with Kurt Eissler and Anna Freud, this is no autobiography but rather an attempt to knock psychoanalysis from its pedestal once and for all. Recommended.
– Janice Arenofsky, formerly with Arizona State Lib., Phoenix
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.

This material ties DIRECTLY into family court matters, as psychologists, evaluators, GALs, and others to this day, in the course of promoting and expanding their profession, have (in my opinion) the same core defects.  Child sexual abuse and attacks on children and women is a form of violence and traumatizing.  It’s going to affect them.  To fail to address the attacks and then go about to characterize the relationships between the attacked and the attackers is — and this author said so in 1984 — to do violence to their (those attacked) inner souls.  In our day, stealing one’s children in retaliation for reporting prior abuse is also a form of severe violence intended to silence a parent. It is an assault on the truth.

Of course there is a taboo and hardship, difficulty, talking about violent acts by adults upon children unable to resist, who are sometimes dependent on them for care!  I don’t like it, no one likes it — but that’s still no excuse for covering it up and calling it something else, which is simply lying.  

That is exactly how I see it.  The “Hegelian conflict” in these matters are between factual, events, and the need to diagnose minimize the facts and maximize the effects.  The incentive, besides general arrogance and covering up this abuse, is also financial.

The Atlantic Monthly, February 1984, published Masson’s article on how he came to understand that Freud actually believed his patients’ reports of violent sexual assaults upon them as children, how his colleagues in 1895-96  received this report, “The Etiology of Hysteria,” how they responded  and that, while the now-isolated (on this topic) Freud in 1907 rejected this theory, it haunted him for the rest of his life.

How published editions of his letters, or, for example, “The Origins of Psychoanalysis,” including Freud’s daughter, Anna among the editors, sa late as the 1950s CENSORED (excised, omitted) Freud’s continuing pre-occupation with this, and what this means for psychoanalysis itself.

It is both validating and disturbing to read how Freud’s colleagues responded, his subsequent isolation, and, moreover, how this, I’m going to say, courageous 20th century individual J.M. Masson, who saw and cared enough (i.e., had some integrity) to want to undo some of this censorship for the sake of the truth and future clients, he was promptly dismissed from the archives, eventually lampooned in the New Yorker by a journalist, who he then sued (along with The New Yorker), followed by 12 years of lawsuits, finally deciding that as psychiatrists were rejecting the work, he’d write about something else he loved, animals. Perhaps you’ve heard of “When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals“??

Please keep in mind that at about this time (early, mid-1980s) the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts as an organization was picking up speed, supporting, and funders.

 What’s in this material alone (let alone other books by the same person) really does shake the foundations of psychoanalysis to the core.  Connecting the dots, a lot of psychology as practiced today is the development of that field to get around the domination of psychoanalysts, typically the province of those who could afford the treatments.  Nicholas Cummings and his Foundation (formerly head of mental health for Kaiser, creater of American Biodyne, and sponsor of the “Our Broken Courts Family Initiative,” in part) per his own interview (I believe in “psychotherapy

This is heavyweight material; whether it’s true or false, matters. My sense that it’s true parallels similar behaviors in related fields today. Huge efforts are poured into characterizing individuals reporting, truthfully, violence or crimes against them or immediate family members, as having a “problem” or being the problem, and labeling (and/or treating) that problem with therapy, mandated or all but, through court orders. Of course such are a problem — they are a problem to certain professions, and a problem to the coverup of violence, and the extent of violence, towards the most vulnerable in society, which includes children (boys and girls, young and adolescent) and their mothers. Yes, I said “mothers…” which is a subset of the category “women.”  (In the inset, the font changes are of course mine.  No one publishes that many in a single article!)

“Freud and the Seduction Theory:

A challenge to the foundations of psychoanalysis”

by Jeffrey M. Masson.

In 1970, I became interested in the origins of psychoanalysis and in Sigmund Freud’s relationship with Wilhelm Fliess, the nose and throat physician who was his closest friend during the years Freud was formulating his new theories.

For some time, I corresponded with Freud’s daughter, Anna Freud, about the possibility of preparing a complete edition of Freud’s letters to Fliess, an abridged version of which had been published in 1950 in German and in 1954 in English, as The Origins of Psychoanalysis. This edition had been edited by Anna Freud, Ernst Kris, and Marie Bonaparte.

In 1980, I met with Anna Freud and Dr. K. R. Eissler, the head of the Sigmund Freud Archives and Anna Freud’s trusted adviser and friend, in London, and Miss Freud agreed to a new edition of the Freud-Fliess letters. As a result, I was given access to this sealed correspondence (the originals are in the Library of Congress), which constitutes our most important source of information concerning the beginnings of psychoanalysis.

In addition to including all the letters and passages that had previously been omitted (which amounted to more than half the text), I thought it necessary to annotate the book fully. I therefore needed access to other relevant material. Anna Freud offered her complete cooperation, and I was given the freedom of Maresfield Gardens, in London, where Freud spent the last year of his life.

Freud’s magnificent personal library was there, and many of the volumes, especially from the early years, were annotated by Freud. In his desk I discovered a notebook kept by Marie Bonaparte after she purchased Freud’s letters to Fliess, in 1936, in which she comments on Freud’s reactions to these letters, which he had written years before. I also found a series of letters concerned with Sándor Ferenczi, who was in Freud’s later years his closest analytic friend and colleague, and with the last paper Ferenczi delivered, to the 12th International Psycho-Analytic Congress, in Wiesbaden, in 1932. This paper dealt with the sexual seduction of children, a topic that had engrossed Freud during the years of his friendship with Fliess.

As I was reading through the correspondence and preparing the annotations for the first volume of the series, the Freud-Fliess letters, I began to notice what appeared to be a pattern in the omissions made by Anna Freud in the original, abridged edition. In the letters written after September of 1897 (when Freud was supposed to have given up his “seduction” theory), all the case histories dealing with the sexual seduction of children had been excised... . .

Anna Freud urged me to direct my interests elsewhere. In conversations with other analysts close to the Freud family, I was given to understand that I had stumbled upon something that was better left alone. (This was made even more apparent when my connections with the Freud Archives were suddenly terminated.)

If the seduction theory was really only a detour along the road to truth, as so many psychoanalysts believe, it would perhaps have been possible for me to turn my attention to other matters. But the seduction hypothesis, in my opinion, should have been the very cornerstone of psychoanalysis. In 1895 and 1896, Freud, in listening to his women patients, learned that something dreadful and violent lay in their past. The psychiatrists before Freud who had heard seduction stories had accused their patients of being hysterical liars and had dismissed their memories as fantasy. Freud was the first psychiatrist who believed that his patients were telling the truth.

[[“The Etiology of Hysteria paper, 1896”]]

Freud announced his discovery in a paper entitled “The Etiology of Hysteria,” which he gave in April of 1896 to the Society for Psychiatry and Neurology in Vienna—his first major public address to his peers about his new sexual theories. As Freud was later to describe it, he believed that in giving this paper he would become “one of those who had, disturbed the sleep of the world.” The address presented a revolutionary view of mental illness. Its title referred to Freud’s new theory that the origin of hysteria lay in early sexual traumas, which he called “infantile sexual scenes” or “sexual intercourse” in childhood. This is what later came to be the seduction theory—namely, the belief that such early experiences were real, not fantasies, and had a damaging and lasting effect on the later lives of the children who suffered them.

Freud’s patients had the courage to confront what had happened to them in childhood—often this included violent rapes by their fathers—and to communicate their traumas to Freud, no doubt hesitating to believe their own memories and reluctant to remember the deep shame and hurt they had felt. Freud had listened and understood and given them permission to remember and speak of these terrible events. He did not think they were fantasies, as he explained in his paper


Towards the bottom of the paper, Masson talks of the implications of all this censorship to Psychoanalysis itself:

At some time during 1895 or 1896, Freud had become convinced that the persons most often guilty of the sexual abuse of young children (primarily girls) were their fathers. (In the published letter of September 21, 1897, to Fliess, Freud wrote: “Then the surprise that, in all cases, the father [emphasis in original], not excluding my own, had to be accused of being perverse.”)

But Freud did not say this publicly. The taboo against speaking about fathers seducing their children seems to have been handed down through the generations of analysts since Freud. Thus, the editors of The Origins of Psychoanalysis, Ernst Kris and Anna Freud, omitted from the letters several case histories in which a father seduced a child, thereby depriving posterity of the opportunity to judge or even become aware of the evidence Freud was finding in his clinical practice for his belief in the reality of early sexual traumas. This was systematically done for letters written after September 21, 1897 (the date on which Freud supposedly gave up the seduction hypothesis). The reason for these omissions, presumably, is that once Freud had given up this notion as a mistake, it would confuse future analysts to have information dating to a time when Freud had not yet understood the all-powerful nature of fantasy. An important document here is this case history, omitted from the published version of a letter of December 6, 1896:

These two fields are based primarily on theory as practiced on humans (with or without their informed consent) — I have next to zero respect left for these fields of study, although I definitely have a healthy respect for their influence in the wrong hands (where they currently are).

EDUCATION — as a field of study


PSYCHOLOGY — as a field of study


They have the lowest entrance requirements, tend to behave like religions in practice (they are based on theories that are constantly evolving, demand an endless supply of subject matter to practice on, and are marked by gurus. They are also highly political). They can harm people, and do, and widespread, can harm a nation.

Psychology, in particular, has very nasty connections to wartime — i.e., how does one talk an entire nation into going to war to profit private interests? Obviously the ability to persaude massive groups of people to virtually sacrifice their children (in the prime of life) and life energies, resources (for the civilian populations) and produce generations of orphans, and shell-shocked veterans needing after-care or, not getting it, taking the war home to their families and hurting them.

And yet, what are the family and conciliation courts all about? By design…..from what I can tell, they are about the strategized setting up of specialized courts by pre-arrangement of those running them, by which the public can be billed at large for indoctrinating those who are netted by these courts into referral businesses in the fields of counseling, relationship education, and mediation — i.e., the mental, behavioral health framework.

They are about developing the fields of practice at public expense (through fees, and through federal and other grants) with private money, as I have shown in the FUND-a-Mentals post (as the Conciliation Code spells out) to help the very bureaucracy that elicited a “SEC” (Strategic Evaluation Commission) in May 2012 in California for its rapid expansion, bloated staff, and alleged culture of control // fiefdoms, at the top of the courts.

The training programs ARE the vehicles of corruption, per this 1997 review of bank statements AND fronts and backs of cancelled checks…. This particular short article is a “print-and-read” basic primer of getting evidence — let alone, of what’s been going on…
Which I blogged on Jan. 24, 2013 and have been reporting throughout the history of this blog. When “aliases” (corporations, or funds within a county or state, etc.) that literally do not exist, are getting checks made out and deposited (or, money transferred under that guise) — that’s fraud. And that’s what Marv Bryer discovered.

As to the funds that DO exist (without commenting on how they are being handled), these should be discoverable by the public. Go figure, the CAFRs are not publicized to show collective net worth of government (which would put the lie to the need for taxes of almost any sort, at this point, for public services), nor are the major media publicizing the lists of existing funds in any given government, although they can be found often on a comptroller’s site. (I did, once I knew where to look and how to look).

BUT — the pattern of non-reporting, and strategizing to control the public at its expense, abusively so — is hardly new. What’s new every few years, it seems, is mechanisms for doing it, new techniques added to the longstanding ones.

Family Courts really ARE where the Educators and Psychologists are funded to practice on whoever possible, funded at public and private expense. As this can destroy a household in minutes — or months, real estate where owned can go belly-up, as well as businesses. To make rulings of this sort, ideally, one needs judges, courtrooms, and attorneys (“Officers of the Court”). Cast, Characters, Stage, Scenery. The thing is, who wrote the scripts? People tend to resist being robbed, evicted, enslaved, and degraded, which is why it’s also handy to have bailiffs, weapons checks in courtrooms, and outside them law enforcement and prisons (a high-profit industry, it would seem. At least judging by Corrections Corporation of America)….

Anyone who hangs around the personnel cannot but eventually be struck by the prominence given to promoting psychology, and the insistence that the public should pay for professional “educators” and “trainers” (formerly a term used of animals, right?).

In case you still don’t “get” this — go to my Vital Links at the bottom, and carefully read a Vol2#2 1983 Newsletter or two by AFCC (1984, Vol. 3) and note the address!  This organization tends to skip states a lot: In 1984 it moved to Oregon. In 1989, when Stanley Cohen retired, it moved to Wisconsin, where main HQ now is, I think.

(Stanley Cohen, Dept. of Psychiatry, Oregon Health Sciences University)

(Example of Divisions in this Department, current):

Adult Attention Deficit Disorders Clinic
Adult Neuropsychology Clinic
Adult Psychiatry Clinic
Avel Gordly Center for Healing
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic
Clinical Psychology
Complex Neuropsychiatry Clinic
Forensic Psychiatry

Intercultural Psychiatric Program
Obsessive Compulsive Disorders Clinic
Pediatric Neuropsychology Clinic
Psychosomatic Medicine
Sleep Disorders Program
Sleep Medicine

List of AFCC Stanley Cohen Award recipients might be familiar to some of us who are protesting or promoting “parental alienation” stuff.. Many of these people are still around, they have been writing, conferencing, and operating in this field for many years, while children are being affected by the mindset and policies of this “we’ll run the courts” mentality:

Here’s that list. I looked up the 2012 awardee, who was unknown to me:

    Past Recipients

  • 2012 – Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
  • 2011 – Jennifer McIntosh
  • 2010 – Constance R. Ahrons
  • 2009 – Judith Wallerstein
  • 2008 – Nicholas Bala

[[Canada, PAS…]]

  • 2007 – Sanford Braver, Irwin Sandler, Sharlene Wolchik

(Sanford Braver, Arizona State Univ.)

  • 2006 – J. Herbie DiFonzo, Mary E. O’Connell
  • 2005 – Janet Walker
  • 2004 – Marsha Kline Pruett

(Both Pruetts prominent in fatherhood promotion)

  • 2003 – Paul Amato

[[Advisory Council? on Oklahoma Marriage Initiative]]

  • 2002 – Robert Emery
  • 2001 – JoAnne Pedro-Carroll

[[NY Chief Justice (ret’d.) Judith Kaye brought on Ms. Pedro-Carroll to help reform the courts]]

  • 2000 – Janet Johnston

[[California, I DNR if her organization was Wallerstein’s or Kelly’s, both of California)

  • 1999 – Charlene Depner

[[See California Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, CFCC.]]

  • 1998 – Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes

[[Denver, Colorado, some of the originals]]

  • 1997 – Joan B. Kelly

[[Northern California, Mediation]]

For a little more “bio background” on the above, you can also go to the Oregon Family Institute (translation: yet another AFCC-style private nonprofit) and read the glowing descriptions here: The fields this nonprofit “Developing Programs for Families and Courts” so-called institute promotes are 100% aligned with the AFCC agenda, as stated in their materials also: Parent Coordination, Trainings, Parent Education, etc. A former member was Hugh McIsaac (Los Angeles Conciliation Court).

Serendipity Section — from looking up the 2012 Awardee:
An unfortunate, but relevant, side-trip into “The Kinsey Institute”

Dr. Holtzworth-Munroe [link on list above] is at Indiana University studying typologies of batterers, with appropriate nomenclature. She got a BA in Biology from Brown University, and went right into Clinical Psychology up in Washington, and probably has been publishing ever since. Despite the technical language, this is the same policies set in motion in the 1980s, without much change of focus or perspective, by AFCC and friends from the start: Joint Custody no matter what, unless an alienating parent needs to be punished for not getting along well with a former perp, in which case Mandatory Joint Custody ALWAYS cannot be the rule. How would mothers reporting abuse (or fathers) be silenced if contact with their children couldn’t be completely moved, a la the “Dick” Warshak model?

From “The Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences” where Ms. Holtzworth-Munroe is faculty. It appears there are lots of these departments nowadays (search the phrase:   Duke, Dartmouth, John Hopkins, Louisville, USanta Barbara, if you call it “& Neuroscience (instead of “Brain”, that pulls up UColorado Boulder, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, YALE, ….and of course Arizona State U.);

This is what she does:

Dr. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
Professor[[contact info on site, no need to post here.]]Marital violence, divorce mediation, other interventions with high conflict divorcing parents, and studies of the effectiveness of such programsEducational Background
Ph.D., Clinical Psychology, University of Washington, 1988
M.S., Clinical Psychology, University of Washington, 1984
B.A., Magna Cum Laude, Human Biology, Brown University, 1981Areas of Study
Clinical ScienceResearch TopicsIntimate partner violence (particularly husband to wife violence)
Interventions for separating or divorcing couples
Relationship distress and therapy
Research Interests
My research focuses on adult, intimate relationship problems.

In my main line of work, we have studied intimate partner violence (IPV), with a focus on husband to wife violence.

In one set of studies, we applied a social information processing model to the problem of marital violence, conducting a series of studies to pinpoint the social skills deficits of violent husbands. For example, relative to nonviolent husbands, violent husbands tend to assume that their wives are acting with hostile intent (e.g., “she purposefully did that to make me angry”) and to generate incompetent responses to marital conflict situations (i.e., responding in ways likely to escalate the argument and increase the risk of physical aggression). In another study, we identified subtypes of violent husbands (4 subtypes: family only, low level antisocial, dysphoric/borderline, and generally violent/antisocial).

These subgroups differed on distal/historical correlates of violence (e.g., childhood home environment, family of origin violence, and association with deviant peers) and proximal correlates of violence (e.g., attachment and jealousy, impulsivity, social skills in marital and nonmarital situations, and attitudes towards women and violence) that are theoretically related to the etiology of differing types of violence. In a longitudinal component of the study, we found that the identified subtypes continued to differ, in the predicted manner, across a three year period. We are continuing to do research, in collaboration with others, on IPV. For example, working with Jack Bates (in our department), we have been examining childhood and adolescent predictors of adult IPV.

More recently, I have been developing a second line of research. Working with Drs. Brian D”Onofrio and Jack Bates (in the clinical science program in our department) and Amy Applegate (faculty at the IU Law School), we have begun a research program on interventions to help divorcing couples.

The goal of such interventions is to help couples make the transition from being spouses to being co-parents, in a manner (e.g., decreased conflict, good parenting) that minimizes the risk of negative outcomes for their children. This work involves an interdisciplinary research team and we are piloting a series of studies, including screening for IPV among couples seeking divorce mediation, adding components to divorce mediation to increase its efficacy, and testing other programs for divorcing couples.

Related to my research interests, I teach graduate level therapy practicum courses on couples therapy and interventions for divorcing couples. I teach seminars on family violence and relationship distress and therapy. I also teach our clinical science required course on clinical interventions.

Some people would be more interested in actually stopping said violence than analyzing and placing bets on the probability.
The mentality that would rather statistically analyze for professional promotion — than stop, for God’s sake! — is characteristic of this profession. When it comes to professional promotion — versus stopping abuse — the first priority is professional promotion.

Notice that criminal behavior (assault and battery, stalking, kidnapping, homicide, child-rape, molestation, coercion, false imprisonment, child-trafficking, etc.) which has already been identified and which does occur – is baptized into the detached terminology of this language. This is AFCC gone PhD, but it’s still the same agenda.  Linguistic Sanitation through assuming the “detached objective” stance.  Let’s look at where, exactly, this stance and posture comes from:

Quick search shows a Lexis-Nexis article in the AFCC-published “Family Court Review” about a 2009 workshop on — what else? — social science and the law. The ego behind this demonstrating and studying population for furtherance of the field is just too much:

The general idea of AFCC is to institute a “paradigm shift” towards mediation, dispute resolution, and in general, professions its members are involved in.   Nice that this was discussed so “openly” in a private, subscription journal and in private, membership conferences, ad infinitum.

Copyright (c) 2009 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Family Court Review
July, 2009
Family Court Review
47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 493

Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy G. Applegate, and Brian D’Onofrio

On the final half-day of the Indiana University–Bloomington (IU) conference, “For the Sake of the Children: Advances in Family Dispute Resolution,” conference attendees and presenters participated in a working meeting to discuss both the current state of the field and important future directions to pursue. The discussion was wide ranging. It covered a variety of topics (e.g., from policy to legal issues to social science research concerns), at a variety of levels (e.g., from broad national trends to local issues to methodological procedural details). This article attempts to organize and summarize that discussion. As such, this article serves as an appropriate concluding article to this special issue of Family Court Review (FCR); it summarizes important issues and future directions identified by experts to advance research and practice in the field of alternative dispute resolution * * * with couples and families facing divorces, breakups in adult relationships, and reconfigurations of adult relationships with the children (hereinafter referred to as “relationship dissolution”). 1

The majority of the discussion at the working meeting can be classified into five major categories of future directions:**** (1) the need to identify and clarify the differing goals that various disciplines and institutions may have; {{WHAT ABOUT THE INDIVIDUALS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES AND AGENDA??}}
(2) the need to recognize, understand, and assess for heterogeneity among couples and families facing relationship dissolution;
(3) the need to test our assumptions and commonly held beliefs about relationship dissolution and interventions for these families; {{of course testing assumptions doesn’t including rejecting “parental alienation theory” or mandatory mediation.. or joint custody — or the fact that co-parenting is advisable — or that behavioral health language beats the ethical language of the law any day hands down, etc…}} (4) the need to empirically test the efficacy of interventions for families experiencing relationship dissolution …

(****That’s not even good writing — how can it be clear thinking? They just had a half-day meeting and don’t know what the goals of the institutions are??)
{Notice the unwillingness to acknowledge an individual in this paragraph — it’s a “family experiencing relationship dissolution.” “couples and families facing divorces.” Some of halves of said couples, divorce is the least of the issues they have to face, depending on the other half!” Collectivist mentality..)

Apparently she is also a researcher for “The Kinsey Institute” (Indiana FRSP — Faculty Research Support Grant) to get newlyweds to digitally (vs. pen and pencil) report their just-married daily behaviors in a form that will make reporting on it easier. That should help with the “privacy” new couples need and would do well to develop, in their new relationship called marriage!(2010):


This project represents one of the first steps in the development of a new direction in The Kinsey Institute¹s research program and signifies an unprecedented opportunity to integrate the literatures on marriage and sexuality, two conceptually related yet empirically disconnected areas.

{{YEP, the topic of sexuality and marriage as actually related is a real groundbreaking concept, as is — I gather — anyone from Kinsey Institute, famous for studying almost every kind of sexuality BUT within marriage (see below). For example, in infants…. ))

The project consists of two studies.

In a first study, recently married couples answer, for a 30-day period, questions about their daily activities, mood, sexuality, and marital satisfaction. Instead of using paper and pencil questionnaires, couples answer the questions using digital devices (smartphones). The use of digital ‘daily diaries’ represent a technological innovation that allows researchers to address limitations of other methods. For example, missing entries are more easily avoided using digital devices, and it is easier to present questions in a hierarchical or nested fashion. Also, especially when used in couples, paper-and-pencil diaries pose concerns related to privacy and confidentiality. Digital devices allow for the entry of data that can be transmitted and deleted from the device instantaneously. There is growing evidence that people may more accurately report behaviors in sensitive areas such as sexuality using electronic interfaces than on paper-and-pencil measures.

In a second study, newlywed couples are videotaped when talking about sexual and nonsexual issues in order to determine if these interactions could predict marital satisfaction.
Dr. Erick Janssen, Ph.D., The Kinsey Institute

  • Dr. Janssen, MA, PhD from Univ. of Amsterdam in Psychology,1988, 1995, apparently got involved with the Kinsey Institute about then, and by 2010-2011 was presently the President of the International Academy on Sex Research. Per CV, his interests are:

“Sexual psychophysiology, sexual risk taking, sexual compulsivity, sexual aggression, sexuality in close relationships, sexual inhibition and excitation, sexuality mood and emotions.” He’s well-funded for writing about this, i.e., an award from the Ira & Harriet Riess Theory Award (from the Foundation for Scientific of Sexuality). 34 pp. of cites… His 1995 thesis was on provoking penile responses; others from Pfizer, Lilly, NICHD (i.e., from the US Dept. of HHS), plenty, and others. “Detecting Sexual Arousal in Women: A Methodological Evaluation (Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, investigator-initiated),” “Behavioral and Psychophysiological Assessments of Vibr@tion and Pleasure” (Investigator-initiated, Church & Dwight Co., Inc.). On about p. 14, you can see some written with colleagues here that have a vague relationship to the concept of marriage… He was also at one point co-chair of determining who got student research grants at Kinsey. In general, this person appears to have gotten two degrees in the Netherlands, and then moved to Indiana, where money continued to pour in him to research, demonstrate, and write up this wonderful topic. There’s a PBS column on “why people use porn,” and even won an award for the best poster from the “World Congress on Sexology.” I wonder when he sleeps.

What “WONDERFUL” company for our AFCC 2012 Stanley Cohen Awardee to be in, relating to children, some of who are reporting sexual abuse….

Julia R. Heiman, Ph.D., The Kinsey Institute
Stephanie Sanders, Ph.D., The Kinsey Institute
Sarah Hahn, B.A., The Kinsey Institute
Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Ph.D., Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, IUB
Dennis Fortenberry, M.D., Department of Adolescent Medicine, IU School of Medicine

  • [[Coital Diaries, Chlamydia, and predictors of condom use, a 25-yr project to track..Residency seems to be in Oklahoma; also work at Institute for Behavioral Science/Problem Behavior (Boulder), establ. 1957 (you should see the series of grants, overall $48 million “extramural” & on “Violence Prevention” under Problem Behaviors (Center for Violence Prevention started in 1992..) ]]

Eshkol Rafaeli, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Barnard College, Columbia University see also “”

Uzma Rehman, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo

Indiana University FRSP grant

This reminds me of the issues Judith Reisman had with this Kinsey insitute. The Institute’s 2003 responses, her concerns.

Sorry, but I’m with Reisman on this one. She’s done her homework. NB: Institute started 1938 at IU, with Rockefeller funding, it looks like. The obvious question being, where did they get the subjects? Some of this material (sorry) is offensive to read. On the other hand, that it’s taken place is more offensive… War and crimes against children are offensive….

Susan Brinkmann on the “Scientist” and His Research – The Truth Behind Alfred Kinsey

Kinsey’s research and collaborators  {{these are active links on the Reisman page, click on one to get to the others}}

Excerpts from news articles about Fritz von Balluseck, Nazi officer and Kinsey collaborator
Copy of Table 34 showing multiple infant “orgasms” on page 180 of A. Kinsey: “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”
Copy of pages 160-161 of A. Kinsey: “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”, where Kinsey describes 196 children under age 13 who screamed, wept “hysterically,” fought the “partner” (their adult rapist) but all of whom really “enjoyed the experience.”
A copy of Tables 30, 31 & 32 of the Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute Re-issue of “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1998). [Unapologetic Introduction by Kinsey Institute Director, John Bancroft]
Copy of Table 32 on page 178 citing use of stopwatch to time child “orgasm”
Flowchart outlining the consequences of Kinsey’s fraudulent research on modern life

Kinsey paid a man to rape his daughter for research

WASHINGTON – On Oct. 1, the federal government made a high-profile apology for experiments conducted in Guatemala between 1946 and 1948. Without their knowledge or permission, nearly 700 people were inoculated with syphilis and gonorrhea for the purpose of scientific research. Eventually the subjects were treated with penicillin.

During the same time period, however, far more horrendous experiments were being carried out – including the sexual molestation of hundreds of infants and children down to 2 months of age – not in a far-off Central American country, but at the state and federally funded Indiana University. The researchers never treated the victims of this research, and nobody has issued an apology.

Biologist Alfred Kinsey’s research on human sexual behavior is now celebrated as pioneering science, and Kinsey has become known as the father of the sexual revolution. He and the institute named for him are widely acclaimed by news media and in the academic community. Kinsey’s work continues to have a profound impact on American law and culture to this day.

Kinsey’s research is highly controversial for being based disproportionately on hundreds of interviews with prisoners, sex offenders and prostitutes. Kinsey and his colleagues falsely classified these people as normal World War II-era citizens, leaving the validity of his findings open to question.  But the most infamous – indeed, criminal – aspect of Kinsey’s research involved what is first revealed in black and white in Tables 30 to 34 of his landmark 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.”

These tables record how long it took for children to achieve “orgasm” and how many “orgasms” they were able to achieve over a period of minutes or hours.  Hundreds of innocent boys suffered at the hands of pedophiles to compile this data.

Kinsey produced a second book in 1953, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.” To gather data for the book, Kinsey and his researchers allowed innocent girls to be abused by pedophiles. Now one of these victims, “Esther White” (a pseudonym), is telling her story.

Over the years, the Kinsey Institute has consistently denied that Kinsey recruited pedophiles to conduct his research or knew about any ongoing abuse of children. Esther White has stepped forward to tell us that’s not the way it was.

Here, and on “the Family Court Franchise System” (Note:  see the “pages” on this blogspot site).  I have written a lot on the Hegelian Dialectic, the Connection of the Courts to the Rhodes Fund (“The Long and Winding Rhodes” (posts 1,2,3 & 4) and the Rhodes connection to Welfare Reform.  For example, in 1996, welfare reform by famous Rhodes Scholarship graduate, then-President Bill Clinton, also mentored in part by Senator Fullbright (the first Rhodes Scholar to become an American Legislator; and who established Fullbright Scholarships modeled after Rhodes Scholarships, the clear and stated purpose of which was to bring the USA back (in its colonial status) to the British Empire.  it was clearly understood that along these lines control of education (and institution of a dual-track system of it) and history was going to be important.

The Kinsey connection to both Rockefeller Foundation and a Nazi War criminal who reported his experiments on children over a two?-decade period — are very disturbing, to say the least. This article, besides detailing the Fritz Balluseck factor, shows that Kinsey had been at Harvard when it was a hotbed of eugenics….

[[THE LINk is a UK site, however, the many links within the article make it unclear which material are from where..]]
Child Sexual Experiments of Nonce Alfred Kinsey

Quite possibly one of the nastiest individuals to have graced the planet the depravity of Kinsey knew no bounds. His many victims included babies and children, lots of them. He also employed serial paedophiles, child killers and Nazis in his so called research. … Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

Why do no American media expose this history-changing story?  In his 1957 trial, this former high German Nazi and current official was found to have sexually violated children for “over the last three decades” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 22, 1957).

For some time, long-time Nazi party member, Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, mailed his on-going child abuse crimes to Kinsey.  Von Balluseck’s diaries appear to date from 1936 to1956, revealing Balluseck’s regular correspondence with Kinsey.  In fact, Kinsey sent his sympatico Nazi aide books about child sexuality–books that would have supported and encouraged the serial child predator’s incestuous and pedophile crimes.

In the mid 1950s Interpol contacted the Kinsey team for help in locating a child sex killer the team had interviewed. The Kinsey Institute protected their WWII Gestapo agent (as they have always protected all their pedophiles and pederasts). They refused to give his name to Interpol under cover of shielding a possible child murderer from investigation based on “scientific” ethics.

Kinsey studied at the Bussey Institution at Harvard in the 1920s (at the time a hotbed of eugenics research/  under famed entomologist William Morton Wheeler.[2), then moved on to teach at Indiana University, where his work in cultural deconstruction would ultimately succeed in decimating American sexual mores, help to fragment the family, and would leave the population far more vulnerable to reproductive, cultural, familial, and mind programming.  Kinsey, always portrayed in the press as a wholesome “leave it to Beaver” style family man, was “one of the scholarly eugenicists of pre-World War II”, according to biographer James Jones. Kinsey recommended that a portion of the “lower classes” be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.

Among his intimates was Dr. Ewen Cameron, the infamous CIA-funded mind control doctor.

Another of Kinsey’s influences was Dr. Herrmann Muller, one of his colleagues at Indiana University. Muller, who had begun receiving Rockefeller funding from the National Research Council in 1925, received a Guggenheim grant in 1932 to pursue his work in the genetics department of the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Resarch Institute in Berlin.

Muller studied under Ernst Rudin, who was to become the head of the Nazi Racial Hygiene Society.** One of the benefits of Rudin’s policy for the extermination of hereditary undesirables in Germany was that it provided a continual harvesting of fresh brains for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

(**this essay on the topic points out that Rudin replaced the more moderate “Eugen Fischer (1854-1967)” who didn’t sound that moderate to me — see “Shark Island,” which is where he practiced  (warning:  disturbing Wikipedia link; I’ve also blogged this in re: Shark Island, Namibia, about Cecil Rhodes and his legacy))

To grasp the scope of this, read:  Max Planck helped discover quantum physics, resisted Hitler; the Gestapo executed his only surviving son for (purportedly) connection to a plot to execute Hitler.  However his lecture On the Law of the Normal Distribution of Energy (ca. 1900) marked the beginning of quantum physics . . nuclear physics  . . transistor, laser, computer, etc….

Science and Inhumanity:
The Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max Planck Society

First Published in: If Not Now an e-journal Volume 2, Winter 2000

Revised February 18, 2001.

One hundred years ago this past December a German scientist by the name of Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck gave a lecture in Berlin to the German Physical Society. Planck’s lecture would change the world forever. Entitled “On the Law of the Normal Distribution of Energy” the lecture marked the birth of quantum physics. Quantum physics established a basis for the later development of nuclear physics, the laser and the computer. It is the foundation of the modern technological world extending from nuclear energy to the transistor radio.

Max Planck was to become the most influential scientist in Germany. For 26 years (1912-1938) he was permanent secretary of the mathematics and physics sections of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. . . .It was Planck who brought Albert Einstein to Berlin in 1914. Planck, who was awarded the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 1900 discovery, became the president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (1930-1937), the prestigious and influential organization established in 1911 by the German government and industry for the promotion of research. 
After World War II the Kaiser-Wilhelm Society asked the aged Planck to again undertake the presidency of what had become a badly damaged organization. Planck also agreed to allow the Kaiser-Wilhelm Society to take on his name; thus today’s Max Planck Society which assumed its new name in 1948, one year after Planck’s death at age 89.

Planck’s achievements and distinctions and influence did not protect him from tragedy. His first wife died in 1909. His eldest son was killed in World War I. Each of his twin daughters died in childbirth. Erwin, the only surviving child of his first marriage, was executed by the Gestapo for purported links with Hitler’s would be assassins.

Planck was admired not only as a great scientist but also as a moral and courageous individual. He criticized Hitler’s racial policies to Hitler’s face. Rather than flee Germany Planck remained in an attempt to salvage what was left of German physical sciences. And in the 9th decade of his life he agreed to again become president of Germany’s preeminent research organization (1) (2) (3) (4).

While Planck the person is regarded with honor the same cannot be said of the organization that continues to bear his name  …

Is some part of this next section that you do not “get” yet ??– looking at the current obsession the USA HHS has with the same types of fields (slightly different terminology — more into behavioral health, and cataloguing and testing the limits of the human psyche under stress, what precipitates human violence — once this is (if it EVER will be) down to an exact “science” — who would like to lay bets on whether this will be used to STOP violence or INCITE it at will, circumstantially or medically.  In other words, are all these foundations sponsoring this work (Rockefeller, Guggenheim, Carnegie, MacArthur, Wm. T. Grant, Robert Wood Johnson (common ones I found in the Boulder based Institute for Behavioral Health/Problem Behavior section as funders, also common I believe at times supporting AFCC agenda…) — are they doing it for altruistic, philanthropic reasons?  Or is it possible that they type of beneficial outcome desired is a little too close to comfort for Hitler’s generic ideas…

From the same source

Established in 1911, The Kaiser-Wilhelm organization spawned some of the most prestigious and influential scientific and academic institutes in the world. Kaiser Wilhelm institutes encompassed such scientific and academic disciplines as physics, chemistry, biology, cell biology, psychiatry, neuropathology, genetics, anthropology, metallurgy, and law.

Many of the Nobel Laureates of the past century were associated with Kaiser-Wilhelm institutes.

Between its founding in 1911 and 1948 the Kaiser-Wilhelm organization supported 35 institutes in Germany and other countries (5). The international esteem of the Kaiser Wilhelm institutes is reflected in the support it received from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation made major contributions to the construction of the Kaiser Wilhelm institutes of brain research (Berlin-Buch) and psychiatry (Munich). It also provided financial support to other Kaiser-Wilhelm institutes adversely affected by World War I and the ensuing depression (6). In addition to capital funding for construction the Rockefeller Foundation supported research at the Munich psychiatric institute and twin research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Genetics and Eugenics at Berlin-Dahlem (7).

Ironically, the three Kaiser-Wilhelm institutes that were beneficiaries of Rockefeller largesse were to eventually play important roles in the development, implementation and exploitation of the racial programs of the Third Reich including murderous experiments and the exploitation of the dead.

As had already been practiced in many ways in South and German Southwest Africa on a variety of tribes; the model of the concentration camp probably started there…  As well as the exportation of skulls.  This is essentially, sick in the head behavior by those engaged in it — but was normal at the time.

Kaiser-Wilhelm scientists joined with the Nazi state in pursuit of the goal of improving the people’s health (Volksgesundheit), the major emphasis being on eugenic and racial purification. The resulting collaboration between science and the Nazi state not only legitimized the policies and programs of the Hitler regime it resulted in the exploitation and mutilation and murder of untold thousands of innocent victims by physicians and scientists associated with some of the world’s leading universities and research institutes. The participation of scientists associated with the Kaiser-Wilhelm Society enhanced the credibility of the Nazi state’s program of scientific terror and murder (8).

See my post on Atypical Antipsychotics and Kickbacks for Drugging Kids — USA, 2003ff, Whistleblower Suit.  The Courts are being transformed into revolving doors to put people into counseling and therapy (for labeling, sometimes drugging), institutionalization of children, sometimes for minor offences — it is setting up a Psychologically-Based System with judges and courts capable of incarcerating the innocent.IS THERE something that doesn’t register yet about this?

OFF-RAMP Review of Similar Behavior in the USA:  (Manpower Research Development Corporation).

Take a close look at (the revamped website of MDRC _- (hover cursor for brief history) meaning all my links reporting on it previously are probably extinct) and its People (Gordon Berlin,(hover for work background, i.e., in US Gov’t, Welfare Reform, etc.) Jesus M. Amadeo) and who is funding it, what it does.  Berlin’s 49-page 2002 “What Works in Welfare Reform”  references almost exclusively other MDRC work some Brookings, and one piece from Toronto.  It features its own evaluation of “Parents Fair Share” (fatherhood) program, admits it didn’t work, which it says indicates more intensive efforts are to be made. (and not that the idea might have been off to start with). The report was funded by Annie E. Casey foundation, and it lists how many (several) other foundations helped distribute it.
Gordon Berlin (it says) started an SRDC (cf. MDRC) in Canada, same general idea, only started in 1991, plus it’s of course bilingual, French/English: “SRDC was established in December 1991 at the request of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) to develop and implement a long-term, multi-site demonstration project — the Self-Sufficiency Project. Since then, SRDC has completed over 100 projects and studies for various federal and provincial departments, municipalities, as well as other public and non-profit organizations.”  SO, in 1990 GBerlin joined MDRC, and in 1991 he started this Canadian Nonprofit (probably modeled on the 1974-originated MDRC).   Before 1990 he was working in NY Human Resources Administration ($6 billion budget) AND Ford Foundation’s Urban Poverty Program.   (FORD FOUNDATION + Federal Agencies in 1974 = MDRC).
Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor. MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale demonstrations and evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people. We helped pioneer the use of random assignment — the same highly reliable methodology used to test new medicines — in our evaluations. From welfare policy to high school reform, MDRC’s work has helped to shape legislation, program design, and operational practices across the country.
Amadeo (Columbia, Princeton/Woodrow Wilson School — see below) came to MDRC from COO of Planned Parenthood in London, and “He managed five department directors and consultants and led interdisciplinary teams in strategic planning and management interventions. He also developed commercial ventures with affiliates and Fortune 500 companies in segmented and competitive markets; created and supervised internal audit function to monitor value for money in use of resources; and negotiated agreements with governments in developing and developed countries…”

Board of Directors Harvard, Harvard, Harvard, Harvard(Economics, Education x2, “JFK School of Govermt), MIT, Princeton (Woodrow Wilson School of Public and Economic Affairs), The Brookings Institution (x2:  Ron Haskins, responsible I heard for our lovely “access/visitation” policy on welfare reform & Isabel Sawhill (formerly Princeton?); the Urban Institute (those last 3 all big on promoting marriage/fatherhood), Stanford (formerly at a big-ass law firm, Morrison & Foerster, Los Angeles); and a big-ass bank (ret’d. Citigroup) plus “The Grable Foundation” (Family Wealth comes from the Rubbermaid fortunes/Pittsburgh, PA area).

Rockefeller, Ford, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, you name it — and a lot of government funding too.  See “Populations worked with”  Single Parent Families, Children 0-5, Fathers (Noncustodial especially), etc.  I see there’s now an attempt to align it more with the UK (Great Britain), although much of the funding for MDRC, it says clearly, comes from the United States Government (out of our hides!).  As part of a one-world, NWO, it’s important to utilize NON-Government (but Government funded in part) organizations to bypass legislative appropriations (and representative government for actual US Citizens) to achieve the goals of basic socialism for all, a system of global control by income class:  ”

Operated by the British government’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), UK ERA represents one of only a few, and by far the largest, random assignment demonstration projects ever conducted in the United Kingdom. UK ERA services were directed at individuals in three distinct low-income groups known to have difficulty retaining a job or advancing to better positions:

  • The long-term unemployed (mostly men)
  • Lone parents on income support (mostly women)
  • Lone parents working part time and receiving the Working Tax Credit (akin to the Earned Income Tax Credit in the United States)

What I’m showing us is what Psychiatry was used for (and by whom) and who is pushing (or at least funding) it.

(Also blogged, quickly, @ “Ruthless Giants, Magnificent Philanthropists:  Cecil Rhodes, Andrew Carnegie=Our World Today) . . .And John D. Rockefeller  These were not the nice guys then, and what they are doing, basically, isn’t now, either, much as I may appreciate the John D. Rockefeller Plaza, or Carnegie Hall (music), or libraries….  (Standard Oil:   1870s, “The company almost immediately began using a variety of cutthroat techniques to acquire or destroy competitors and thereby “consolidate” the industry. They included: (hover cursor for the list, or see link)

(Back to quoting from:

Science and Inhumanity:
The Kaiser-Wilhelm/Max Planck Society…)

The Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute of Psychiatry, Munich

The Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute of Psychiatry in Munich had been established in 1917 as the German Institute for Psychiatric Research by the eminent psychiatrist, Prof. Emil Kraepelin. A major benefactor of the Munich institute was the American-born Jewish philanthropist, and at one time a patient of Kraepelin’s, James Loeb (9). The Munich psychiatric institute became the first and foremost psychiatric research institute in the world. In 1924 the institute joined with the Kaiser-Wilhelm research organization. The building of the new institute, which opened in 1928, was the first major construction project of the KWG to be financed by a grant from the medical division of the Rockefeller Foundation (6).

Kraepelin, who had been professor of psychiatry at the University of Heidelberg, had assembled a stellar group of clinicians and researchers including the psychiatrist/neurologist Alois Alzheimer and the neurohistologist, Franz Nissl (10). They were subsequently joined by the Swiss-born psychiatrist/geneticist Ernst Rüdin. Alzheimer, Nissl and Rüdin joined Kraepelin when he moved from Heidelberg to Munich in 1903. In 1909 Rüdin succeeded Alzheimer as senior physician at the Munich psychiatric hospital.

In Munich, Rüdin led the Genealogical/Demographic research department of the Kraepelin Institute. The focus of Rüdin’s research was on the inheritance of psychiatric disorders. His 1916 paper on that subject is considered a classic that continues to be cited in the literature on the genetics of schizophrenia (11).

In 1928 Rüdin became director of a “greatly expanded” genealogical department of what had become the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute of Psychiatry. In 1931 he ascended to the leadership of the world’s preeminent psychiatric research institute (12). Rüdin built on Kraepelin’s relationship with the Rockefeller Foundation and James Loeb. His research was well endowed with funding from Rockefeller and the Loeb estate. Loeb, who died in 1933, had been a generous supporter of the institute from its inception. As his final gift, Loeb bequeathed $1,000,000 to the Munich institute (13)

Getting back to our topic which (I’ll just remind us) began when I discovered a recent AFCC awardee involved with a Kinsey Institute Project; I was quoting from this article, which reminded us of the Kinsey/Kaiser Connection.

THE LINk is a UK site, however, the many links within the article make it unclear which material are from where..]]
Child Sexual Experiments of Nonce Alfred Kinsey

“Quite possibly one of the nastiest individuals to have graced the planet the depravity of Kinsey knew no bounds. His many victims included babies and children, lots of them. He also employed serial paedophiles, child killers and Nazis in his so called research. … Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” 

. . .  (reviewing from above, again):

“...  Kinsey, always portrayed in the press as a wholesome “leave it to Beaver” style family man, was “one of the scholarly eugenicists of pre-World War II”, according to biographer James Jones. Kinsey recommended that a portion of the “lower classes” be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.

“Among his intimates was Dr. Ewen Cameron, the infamous CIA-funded mind control doctor.

“Another of Kinsey’s influences was Dr. Herrmann Muller, one of his colleagues at Indiana University. Muller, who had begun receiving Rockefeller funding from the National Research Council in 1925, received a Guggenheim grant in 1932 to pursue his work in the genetics department of the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Resarch Institute in Berlin.

“Muller studied under Ernst Rudin, who was to become the head of the Nazi Racial Hygiene Society.** One of the benefits of Rudin’s policy for the extermination of hereditary undesirables in Germany was that it provided a continual harvesting of fresh brains for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

OK, so Herrmann Muller was over at Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Research Institute, but then came to Indiana Univ. with Kinsey (who’d also spent time at Harvard), nice American Midwest (although INDIANA/Indianapolis in the early 1900s was also center of one of the largest chapters of the KKK outside the south…).  I saw a similar pattern in Kinsey person Erick Janssen, Sexologist from the git-go, degree in the Netherlands (Amsterdam) then goes right to the Kinsey Institute here….

Here’s the reality of Kinsey’s research. Kinsey cruised gay bars, prisons, brothels and other less salubrious locations to find suitable interviewees for his sexual behaviour study, because most eligible American men were overseas fighting in World War 2. Unsurprisingly, his published research then purported to have discovered that between 10 and 37% of American males were gay or bisexual. As studies in the past decade have established, the real incidence of homosexuality in the wider community is less than 1%, but Kinsey used his false data to assert that homosexuality was entirely normal in the human species. Similarly, he published extensive data on adults having sex with children, and likewise determined that this was a “natural” process because children were “naturally” sexual creatures.

SO o o o . . . If I can summarize here…

At the heart of this issue of the Family and Conciliation Courts seems to be these two issues, family violence and sexual abuse of children.

I believe the tiebacks to eugenicists should be sufficient to tell us — quit psychologizing criminal behavior, and yes, those two categories of behavior are indeed criminal — they are violent, dominate and oppress others, cause injury (sometimes death) and trauma, etc.

Rather than having generation after generation of renowned (or recent) Ph.D.s being funded by us — and private foundations —  to study these things and publish their findings where the victims and their parents are unlikely to (1) hear the accounts and (2) have input into the assessments — I suggest we remember the origins of the field.

There HAS to be a better response to this than appealing to the better side of this type of sociopathic leadership.  And as multiple forms of warfare on the average citizen (i’m talking in the US especially) are now being waged :::

Psychological, educational, and economic (in particular), plus of course working towards getting us to lay down our arms (Newtown, Connecticut) and train our young in the art of the lockdown — while conditioning parents to keep sending them off to institutions where they have been, and will continue to be no doubt, sometimes molested by their teachers (or peers), dumbed down, treated like animals (including being caste and race-sorted), NOT learn much productive about the history of their own country (whether at the top or the bottom of the rankings, as to public schools anyhow) — and their parents will be billed for this

It’s time to
Just Say No to Warshak” (and friends). It’s time to start telling this story and reminding those who think there are different kinds of people, as if these were genetically or racially defined (inherently) — “LOW_INCOME” and “MIDDLE CLASS” and the “PROFESSIONALS” whose job it is to coach, train, and lecture the Lower and Middle (while being upper-middle by many definitions) while they eat off the Queen’s table, so to speak. They are very talented, magnificently so in some case, hired hands. Who need to be reminded of the truth of the histories (individual and collective) they have been degreed and privileged to re-write and re-vise.

ALL of this ties into the economic system, and it’s that economic system (investment banker sorts) + government + corporations in collusion to run the Educational, Psychological, Psychiatric, Medical (Rx), SOCIAL and INSTITUTIONAL environment we are born into, grow up, give birth (or father children), get educated (perhaps) or have our children educated in, and eventually we die in this system. Some die overseas in war, some in institutions (sometimes prematurely so in institutions, including under public guardianship, etc.), some of old age nicely with a family, or having outlived a spouse… We all die sooner or later, so to me the question is, what use is going to be made of the time we are still alive.

I know that I did not complete college, develop a work life (a good one), have children, raise those children, leave a violent marriage the LEGAL way, and even then acted honorably towards my ex-batterer (also a deadbeat Dad by choice; Some are not by choice; this one had some….) and managed not to commit felonies along the way. In return, my children were stolen overnight, I was hauled repeatedly into this Archipelago on frivolous lawsuits, staged (it eventually became obvious) hearings, and eventually was driven out of my profession, and then out of a work life — only to THEN find out what had been concealed (deliberately) from me and others like me, by those funneling and herding us into the courts — the sheer existence of the intent to keep some people IN poverty and turmoil for the purposes of studying them until they are spent.

That is not acceptable for anyone. But, to make it different, we need to do our homework and get the account straight. I think the primary area to focus on is not arguing with the psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychologists, or people obsessed with the psychophysiology of arousal and getting research grants, lots of them, to write it up.

I THINK we need to figure out a different way to survive economically (become financially independent as possible), for the sake of our children, remove certain nonprofit privileges, stop a slush fund or two (just for the fun and skill of it) and in general, start solving our own problems. COMPLETELY.

Pardon me for the 10,000 word post (I could’ve removed that section on MDRC, I suppose) and please comment if you have a better idea….. By the way, acquiescence is not a better idea.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

May 6, 2013 at 8:17 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Feb. 2013 post is now also a page> — see sidebar to the right. It answers many questions, the main one, being — what's the real […]

  2. I have been so hungry for the truth,but its been very hard to find. The truth of this post were both disturbing and depressing. My son was taken from me in Family Court when I went there because of the abuse that he was reporting to his counselor.

    The “best interest of my son” was nurtured in an alienation accusation in court. This unfounded syndrome was used by the Family Court system in Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, NC.

    The Council for Children’s Rights which operates in my area not only believed this accusation, but they also placed me in a VERY defensive stance. I had gone to court because I was trying to protect my son from the abuse he was telling his counselor. Basically my judgment/sanity, was questioned because I believed my child.

    Via email, a representative for The Council for Children’s Rights specifically stated that my disability and psychological issues were the primary reason used to determine custody. I am not just someone who has lost custody of my child. I have lost my leg, my confidence, my trust, my independence, and my financial security.

    I am now on disability and getting ready to file bankruptcy. The pompous attitude of the Council was unnerving. No one should believe so adamantly that they know what is best for a child that they really don’t know. When we don’t continue to examine our beliefs and philosophies, then we stop growing and our interference becomes ineffective and bias.

    Where can I turn for help?

    Heather Morales

    June 6, 2013 at 9:17 pm

  3. […] is now also a page. For many (if not most) posts I wanted to keep the economic focus. I was looking up some board member and ran across the book, looked up the man, and realized it’s time to re-address this issue. […]

  4. […] This is a must-read, in my opinion.  Whatever kind of person this author was, or wasn’t, I&#8… […]

  5. […] A Stunning Validation //Emotional Tyranny,The Assault on Truth, Psychoanalysis […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: