Table of Contents
John McLean
Citizen typist patriot.
The University of Otago proudly exhibits this photograph in its digital “Hocken Collections”.
The man staring into space is John Money, “sexologist”. The grey-haired woman is renowned author Janet Frame. The other woman is of course ex-Prime Minister Helen Clark. The photo was taken in 2003, when Helen Clark opened the John Money wing of Gore’s Eastern Southland Art Gallery, which to this day displays artworks donated by Money to that gallery.
To anyone in their right mind, Janet Frame voluntarily appearing in a photo with Money is disconcerting. Because Money blighted Janet’s life, as he did the lives of many others.
As an unhappy 19-year-old, Frame fell into Money’s thrall in 1943 when she started having “therapy” sessions with the 22-year-old academic, and became darkly attracted to Money. He returned Janet’s attraction by convincing her in 1945 to enter Dunedin Hospital’s psychiatric ward where she was misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.
Frame spent the next eight years in psychiatric institutions, where she was subjected to electroshock and insulin shock “treatments”, and narrowly avoided being lobotomized (having her brain’s prefrontal cortex cut in half). Young Janet was an early innocent victim of Money and the industrial “therapy” complex. (I’m not saying benevolent mental hospitals don’t have their place.)
After consigning Frame to New Zealand’s asylums, Money wasn’t about to stick around. In 1947, at the tender age of 26, Money emigrated to the United States to study at Pittsburgh University’s Psychiatric Institute. There he invented theories that every human has a “gender identity” divorced from the person’s biological sex, and that (according to young Money) such gender identity is malleable in the first two years of life.
Money was by this stage giving off powerful Jimmy Savile vibes. Savile was the English pervert whom current British Prime Minister Keir Starmer let off the hook.
Money also began to relentlessly indulge his penchant for the surgical mutilation of children, starting with scalpel “normalization” of the genitalia of intersex infants. Money didn’t wield the knives himself. He got others to do his dirty work.
In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old David Reimer without a penis. On Money’s instruction, David’s testicles were surgically removed and he was put on a concoction of hormones to do the impossible – turn him into a girl.
When David and his twin brother Brian were six years old, Money forced them to simulate copulation, with David playing the female role and Brian the male’s, and to inspect each other’s genitals (despite David not having any). Money got nasty each time the boys didn’t play Money’s game.
With David in terrible psychological distress at age 14 and wondering why, his parents told him the truth. Money continued to falsely claim that David was “successfully” identifying as a woman who was attracted to men, and began to advocate generally for surgical sex “reassignment”. Money had become the root of inordinate evil.
By 1997, Money’s ghoulish game was up and, to anyone with a modicum of commonsense, he’d been exposed as the sadistic, deranged crank he always was. Unfortunately, Money’s notion of a purely socially constructed gender identity has lived on and is now a central tenet of Wokery.
For the criticism directed at this ghastly experiments on children, Money blamed media bias and “the antifeminist movement”. To the day he died, Money continued to extol the merits of forcing children to simulate sex with each other and to celebrate pedophilia as combining, in his words, “devotion, affection, and limerence”, “comradeship with a touch of hero-worship” – “harmless... in most instances”.
In 2002, the year before The Photo was taken, a bereft and miserable Brian Reimer killed himself with an overdose of antidepressants.
Therefore, by the time of The Photo in 2003, Money had been revealed as a monster to every sane person acquainted with his legacy.
Which all begs the question – why would Helen Clark be outwardly delighted to be photographed with the dangerous and discredited Money Man. And why would Janet Frame have allowed herself to be snapped with the man who had committed her, as a troubled but capable 21-year-old, to the horrors of psychiatric hospitalization? Was Clark simply happy to be photographed performing an official function? Was the otherworldly Frame simply still under Money’s spell?
Are there any other societal or ideological factors at play? I think so.
Arch lefties like Helen Clark are inclined to believe there are no such things as immutable truths. Clark-ish Cultural Marxists subscribe to the dogma that all human physiology and psychological traits are malleable products of culture, such that boys can become girls, and vice versa, and so on. Genetics and biology play second fiddle to ideological endeavours. Scalpels and hormones, drugs and electrocution, are all legitimate tools in the quest to perfect lost souls like troubled young Janet Frame and the tragically de-cocked David Reimer, and the human race in general. This is the cult of Transhumanism. The secular religion of human perfectibility.
Wokeists have also become remarkably tolerant of sexual perversion, particularly perverse, sexualised treatment of children. Money viewed children as primally sexual, “sexualizable” and sex-reversible. Conservatives on the other hand, while not necessarily averse to aberrant sexual behaviour, tend to practice their perversions in private, and not with children. I’ve covered these topics before:
PITY THE SEXUALIZED CHILDJohn McLean 26 December 2024
Clark, Money and Frame also share in common something fundamentally significant. None of them had their own children. (In my more pedantic moments, I insist men cannot “have” children. They biologically father them. Biological women do all the hard work and only the fairer sex can bring children into this world.)
A childless person has a concept of a child, but generally less of the instinctual reverence for children and their vital significance that comes from biological parenthood.
Would Money have put Frame in the asylum if she’d been his own biological child? Perhaps (he was very odd). But it seems distinctly less likely.
Would Clark have chosen to be photographed with Money, given what she undoubtedly knew about what he did to kids, if she’d had her own children? Again, much less likely, IMO.
Human birthrates are falling below replacement levels, principally in the Western World (including New Zealand), China, Japan and South Korea. Without enough children being born into the world, the human species is doomed and will become extinct. That’s a simple fact. By ordering Brian’s Reimer’s balls to be removed, Money extinguished Brian’s chance of ever contributing to the survival of his species.
Brian’s twin David blew his own head off with a shotgun in 2004, a year after The Photo was taken. He too left no children. Being forced to simulate sex with his eunuched brother can’t have helped David’s mental health, down the years.
Money died in 2006, without publicly expressing the slightest reservation about anything he’d ever done.
Helen Clark trucks on, battling for significance, without issue.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
