…by Jonas E. Alexis
Examining an ideology takes mental exertion because an ideology always delivers both political and intellectual consequences. For example, Freudian psychoanalysis promises freedom from sexual suppression, yet delivers incest and sexual bondage.
Feminism, which was a largely Jewish movement and which still has a sizable number of Jewish intellectuals, promises to empower women and free them from “male domination,” but ends up denigrating them and alienating them from true reality by largely promoting pornography as an alternative to traditional family values.
This became very clear when Betty Friedan (born Bettye Naomi Goldstein), the leading figure who energized the Feminist movement in the twentieth century, declared, “Suppressing pornography is extremely dangerous to women.”
It couldn’t get any more obvious. Women who thought that Friedan was going to liberate them from “male domination” inevitably and indirectly ended up embracing Friedan’s pornographic ideology, which got morphed into sexual politics in the 1960s and beyond with the publication of Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique.
But by 1979, radical Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin stirred the feminist establishment by showing a striking link between Marquis de Sade and pornography and by implicitly arguing that pornography, Marquis the Sade, and sexual violence are concentric circles.
Instead of empowering women, argues Dworkin, pornography humiliates them and treats them like, well, whores and cunts and sluts and bitches. Dworkin even goes to the Greek etymological definition of pornography, which means “whores,” or “sexual slaves,” and “specifically and exclusively the lowest class of whore, which in ancient Greece was the brothel slut available to all male citizens.” Dworkin—who was raped as a child, became a prostitute for a while and then an academic—writes in Pornography: Men Possessing Women,
“The word pornography does not mean ‘writing about sex’ or ‘depictions of the erotic’ or ‘depictions of sexual acts’ or ‘depictions of nude bodies’ or ‘sexual presentations’ or any other such euphemism. It means the graphic depiction of women as vile whores…
“Contemporary pornography strictly and literally conforms to the word’s root meaning: the graphic depiction of vile whores, or, in our language, sluts, cows (as in: sexual cattle, sexual chattel), cunts.”
“In pornography,” Dworkin previously writes, “the object is slut,” and “As one goes through the pictures of the tortured and maimed, reads the stories of gang rape and bondage, what emerges most clearly is a portrait of men who need to believe in their own absolute, unchangeable, omnipresent, eternal, limitless power over others.”
But because she was duped by the feminist ideology which would not allow her to think clearly and establish a consistent and coherent argument throughout her book, Dworkin irresponsibly argued that rape and marriage are also two sides of the same coin. As a corollary, Dworkin added, “The metaphysics of male sexual domination is that women are whores.”
Though Dworkin was not consistent, she implicitly did make one point which the feminist movement could not logically answer: by defending pornography, feminist apologists were inexorably defending Marquis de Sade’s blatant pornography, which he articulated in oeuvres such as Philosophy in the Bedroom. Keep in mind that in the Sadean world, there are no morals, and you should seek pleasure—most specifically pornographic pleasure—even at the expense of everyone else. Sade put it so beautifully when he stated,
“The philosopher sates his appetites without inquiring to know what his enjoyments may cost others, and without remorse.”
If moral principles are abandoned and Enlightenment ideology is substituted, then women, by deduction, are just disposable pleasure machines. Sade once again declared,
“A pretty girl ought simply to concern herself with fu$king, and never with engendering. No need to touch at greater length on what pertains to the dull business of population, from now on we shall address ourselves principally, nay, uniquely to those libertine lecheries whose spirit is in no wise reproductive.”
Sade, as we saw in a previous article, got his sexual ideology from the Enlightenment philosophes, most specifically de la Mettrie and d’Holbach. It was de la Mettrie who wrote Man: a Machine. That idea had widespread consequences and it was even picked up by Ernst Haeckel in Germany in order to forge arguments for abortion. Haeckel wrote,
“The ovum is part of the mother’s body over which she has full right of control and that the embryo that develops from it, as well as the new-born child, is quite unconscious, or is a purely ‘reflex machine,’ like any other vertebrate.”
A “reflex machine” does not have a will of its own or a conscience, does not have the capacity to understand good and evil, and does not even act by instinct. So, according to Haeckel, it is perfectly legitimate to smash that “reflex machine” and make a better one. In other words, he reduces an unborn child to a piece of metal or plastic or wood.
This was indeed the ideological framework upon which many intellectuals based their subsequent premises, and this largely came out of the Enlightenment period in France in particular. Sade wrote,
“Women, who are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness, who ought to be nothing but the targets of lust, are untrustworthy authorities whenever one has got to construct an authentic doctrine upon this kind of pleasure.”
E. Michael Jones comments,
“This and other passages indicate that sexual liberation is a system in which behavior dictates reason, and once reason is no longer the light according to which man acts, force takes its place, and force…means sexual exploitation of women.
“As Sade makes perfectly clear, the inner logic of sexual liberation is always might makes right. The truth is the opinion of the powerful. The good is the desires of the powerful. Sexual liberation is, therefore, of its essence a form of control.”
In a nutshell, Sade was implicitly laying the groundwork for contraception and abortion, two social and political engines which were picked up by the WASP ruling class and Jewish revolutionaries in America in the twentieth century, and black feminists such as Barbara Smith didn’t seem to have enough historical and intellectual insight to grasp the political implications of both contraception and abortion. If they did understand those systems, they would have fled from them as fast as they could.
Smith and others like herself could not realize that they were being treated as experimentations in a political laboratory. The recent release of the movie 12 Years as a Slave is a classic example.
The producer behind the movie is none other than Arnon Milchan, an Israeli former agent for the Mossad. Milchan also had closed ties with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Robert de Niro, Russell Crowe, and Ben Affleck. De Niro admitted that he knew Milchan lived a double life. As an Israeli double agent, Milchan said that “I did it for my country and I’m proud of it.”
What, then, did Milchan do? Well, both Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu used him for espionage work against the U.S. Peres bragged,
“Arnon is a special man. It was I who recruited him. Working secretly, from outside the official system, he brought extraordinary ideas and a level of creativity that greatly contributed to our country.”
What is the message that Milchan is promoting? Well, it is the same message that he proposed more than twenty years ago in the movie The Power of One. Milchan wants to remind blacks that Europeans are their enemies.
In short, Jewish revolutionaries want to recruit others in the ideological war—but those people must be in their favor. Perhaps people like Smith should start reading Harold Cruse’s The Crisis of Negro Intellectual, in which he argues that Jewish revolutionaries and organizations placed blacks in revolutionary cells so that they could fight “anti-Semitism.”
It could easily be argued that contraception and abortion are sanitized versions of eugenics, an ideology which started by a sizable number of British intellectuals and which quickly got spread like a virus in America with serious political consequences. Margaret Sanger took all those ideas and translated them into one unifying theme: birth control. This is the weltanschauung of Planned Parenthood.
Throughout much of her life, Sanger sought to find a black minister who would understand the sterilization process. She wrote,
“What I wish to see is the employment of an up and doing modern minister, colored, and up and doing modern colored medical man, both to come to New York and train at the Clinic [her clinic] and at the [International Planned Parenthood] Federation until they are oozing with birth control as well as population.” This black minister would spread her ideology “as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach.”
Sanger got what she was looking for in 1929 when a black social worker by the name of James H. Hubert, executive secretary of New York’s Urban League, answered Sanger’s call. Historian Cathy Moran Hajo writes,
“Opened in February 1930 with the backing of Harlem’s elite, the branch clinic had its own fifteen-member advisory board of African American doctors, clergymen, nurses, journalists, and social workers who advised and promoted the clinic.
“The clinic was publicized in the African American press, in the pulpits of some of Harlem’s most respected churches, and through medical channels.
“Sanger funded the clinic through grants from the Chicago-based Julius Rosenwald Fund and the donations of other white donors.
“The Harlem Branch treated 1,737 patients in its first year, about half of them African Americans. Sanger continued funding the branch, asking its advisory council to focus on ways of increasing black attendance.”
Keep in mind that eugenic principles and applications were widespread in the early part of the twentieth century in Europe, and that proved detrimental.
If you sterilize people, that means that you are only left with the so-called “well-born,” and the “well-born” like Francis Galton did not want to populate the earth (Galton never had children).
Some “well-born” like Charles Darwin did not produce “well-born” children, an issue which caused Darwin to reject Christianity altogether (it was not science that led Darwin to reject Christianity; it was the problem of evil).
What would you do with a minority of people who did not buy into the sterilization project? Well, you try to convert the educated ones into your ideology and sterilize the “unfit” among them as well. This was Margaret Sanger’s solution to what she called “the Negro Project.” She wrote in 1938,
“The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.”
Does that by itself make Sanger a racist? Absolutely not! Was her plan wicked? Absolutely. How does that work? Well, Sanger was proposing the same thing among Europeans—the elimination of the “unfit.” In fact, before she died, Sanger received a medal “from the Emperor of Japan for her birth-control work in his country.” Keep also in mind that Sanger was also a flaming feminist.
As it turned out, Sanger was unsurprisingly also a sexual liberationist. Let us hear from Sanger herself in her classic text The Pivot of Civilization:
“Psychology is now recognizing the forces concealed in the human organism. In the long process of adaptation to social life, men have had to harness the wishes and desires born of these inner energies, the greatest and most imperative of which are Sex and Hunger…
“Slowly but surely we are breaking down the taboos that surround sex; but we are breaking them down out of sheer necessity. The codes that have surrounded sexual behavior in the so-called Christian communities, the teachings of the churches concerning chastity and sexual purity, the prohibitions of the laws, and the hypocritical conventions of society, have all demonstrated their failure as safeguards against the chaos produced and the havoc wrought by the failure to recognize sex as a driving force in human nature—as great as, if indeed not greater than, hunger.
“Its dynamic energy is indestructible. It may be transmuted, refined, directed, even sublimated, but to ignore, to neglect, to refuse to recognize this great elemental force is nothing less than foolhardy.”
“We must teach men the overwhelming power of this radiant force…Through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise. So must we necessarily and inevitably conceive of sex-expression?”
After she was deeply “enlightened” by the ideas of Rousseau, Lenin, and others, Sanger told her husband that she wanted to divorce herself from
“the strict bonds of the marriage bed. She even suggested to him that they seriously consider experimenting with various trysts, infidelities, fornications, and adulteries.
“Because of her careful tutoring in socialist dogma, she had undergone a sexual liberation—at least intellectually—and she was now ready to test it authentically and physically.”
Sanger quickly got involved in a sexual relationship with Havelock Ellis, who was a sort of precursor to Alfred Kinsey. But Ellis was hardly Sanger’s only sexual machine:
“Anarchist Lorenzo Portet, Jonah Goldstein, Hugh de Selincourt, Three-in-One oil magnate J. Noah Slee (whom she later married for his money and made sign a marriage agreement that allowed her complete freedom, no questions asked), H. G. Wells, Herbert Simonds, Harold Child, Angus MacDonald, Hobson Pitman, and many others…all, in turn, became her lovers. Such was the pattern of her entire life.”
Biographer Madeline Gray writes that “Margaret was seeking poise and surcease from her recurrent depression through astrology, numerology, sex, religious cults, and friends. No wonder, despite all the talk of her twinkling laughter, most of the pictures of her taken after 1925 reveal her as sad.”
About children, Sanger wrote: “The most merciful thing a large family can do
to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Sanger was born into a large family, as “one of eleven children, four girls and seven boys. In addition, Margaret’s mother had seven miscarriages.”
Suppose Sanger’s large family had put her dogma into practice? Would she even have been born, to write such foolishness? What would the history of Planned Parenthood be like, or even the history of abortion itself, if Sanger happened to be one of the babies her mother miscarried? It is one thing to hold an intellectual belief, but quite another to apply it realistically to oneself.
Like James H. Hubert, Jesse Jackson would probably have been another perfect choice for Sanger. Given the right price, Jackson can say just about anything. In 1977, he wrote an “Open Letter to Congress” declaring in part, “as a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants. What happens…to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience.” So far, so good.
But a few years later, when the good Reverend was spreading his political horizon and accumulating a large sum of money from various sources, Jackson declared,
“Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather, they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore can be justified.”
John D. Rockefeller III was particularly interested in population control as far back as 1965 and even sent letters to Rome asking that the Catholic Church change its position on birth control. The letter read:
“As I see it, if the Church does not supply this leadership, there will be two consequences: one, the present accelerating pace toward population stabilization will proceed, country by country, without over-all guidance or direction, particularly on the moral side: one the other, if I may speak perfectly frankly, the church will bypassed on an issue of fundamental importance to its people and to the well-being of all mankind.
“The flooding tide cannot be stopped or even slowed, but it can be guided. Because I believe so keenly in the importance of the role which your church has to play in our troubled world of today, I am deeply concerned to see a situation developing which in the long run, it seems to me, inevitably will be harmful to the Church’s position around the world.”
By that time, John D. Rockefeller III was already steeped in funding abortion advocacy throughout the U.S. In fact, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, wife of John D. Rockefeller, “was a liberal Republican who supported Planned Parenthood, the United Jewish Appeal, and the League of Nations.”
The Rockefeller Foundation and Sanger even supported birth-control movements in Germany. But after decades of experimentations and flirting with Jewish ideologies, the WASP ruling class suddenly woke and realized that they don’t have enough babies for the next generation.
As it turned out, the Rockefellers had their own agendas to fulfill. David Rockefeller, the only survival grandchild of John D. Rockefeller, scornfully admits in his Memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”
Friedan ended up articulating a false dichotomy which can only be congruent in the mind of an intellectual Talmudist like herself. She opposed the Pornography Victims’ Compensation Act by saying,
“To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong. Even some blue-jean ads are insulting and denigrating. I’m not adverse to a boycott, but I don’t think they should be suppressed.”
In other words, pornography means freedom and is compatible with free speech, and to suppress pornography is, well, “dangerous and wrong.”
This ridiculous logic and double standard holds true only when intellectual Talmudists like Friedan are not in charge of the academia and politics. When they take over, freedom ceases to exist and people are persecuted for challenging Jewish control over history, the media, academic integrity, and intellectual honesty.
If you doubt this, take a look at what happened to David Irving and others, or go to Europe and try to challenge the Holocaust Establishment. Challenging the powers that be is illegal in countries such as Belgium, Austria, Bosnia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Israel, etc.
If this is still questionable, see what happens to Edward Snowden. In the Jewish Century, working with despotic states such as Saudi Arabia and spying on virtually the entire world, including allies, is compatible with freedom and “fighting terrorism,” even though many Americans tried to join terrorist groups such as the Syrian rebels with no repercussions, and even thou the NSA “poses a serious threat to our economy.”
But spying on the Jewish oligarchs is a forbidden territory. Not only that, ordinary Americans, according to government officials, “have no right to challenge NSA phone surveillance.”
This Zionist argument—which has currently been propounded in various ways in Ari Shavit’s book My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel—is certainly getting boring, so boring in fact that some officials are now having a second thought about Netanyahu’s stupid claims such as Iran is capable of making five nuclear bombs.
The American people overwhelmingly “support an Iran nuclear deal 2 to 1.” Last year, a University of Maryland poll reported that 70 percent of Americans “preferred diplomacy with Iran to military strikes.”
That means that the vast majority of Americans are getting tired of perpetual wars. This is not without good reason, for virtually everyone knows that Netanyahu is obviously a political charlatan. Without batting an eye, Netanyahu declared just a few days before the West had an agreement with Iran,
“The Iranians already have five bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium,” and the bombs could be built, according to Netanyahu’s estimate, within a matter of weeks—not years!
While Netanyahu and neoconservative hawks such as Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz have been regurgitating old lies, policy analyst and former CIA official Paul R. Pillar has repeatedly said that diplomacy, not aggression, is the key to dealing with Iran.
Things did not go well for Netanyahu and the Israeli regime when the international community reached an agreement with Iran, and both parties are pleased with the deal. Keep in mind that Iran has been reaching out to the West since 9/11.
Were the Israelis and neo-Bolsheviks and Zionists and Saudi Arabia happy? Of course not.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal basically said that Obama was weak. Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary declared that the deal
“will reward [Iran] for a decade of lies and deceptions and effectively normalize a rogue regime that continues to sponsor international terrorism and spew anti-Semitism while also starting the process of unraveling sanctions.”
Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks called Obama “naïve” and added,
“No matter what the specific provisions of the deal are, President Obama’s diplomacy is giving sheer Tehran’s rogue regime and causing alarm among our friends in the region…Congress and the American people need to speak out against this flawed deal.”
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard quickly got to the point: “The Geneva Agreement is a defeat for the United States and the West.” After the agreement, Kristol said that he went back to read some of Winston Churchill writings about “unmitigated defeat…”
I wish Kristol would also pick up Churchill’s popular essay “Zionism vs. Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.” I’d personally send him a copy if he is interested. I think he would immediately stop misreading Churchill and would instantly start calling him an anti-Semite (even though Churchill was a flaming Zionist).
Netanyahu called the deal “a historic mistake” because “the world became a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world made a significant step in obtaining the most dangerous weapons in the world.”
One Netanyahu’s official declared,
“This is a bad deal. It grants Iran exactly what it wanted – both a significant easing in sanctions and preservation of the most significant parts of its nuclear program.”
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon declared that a “surrender to the Iranian charm and smiles offensive, and to Iranian fraud, which is aimed at gaining time, without the Iranian nuclear program being substantially harmed.”
Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid was even more upset:
“You stand and shout out until you’re blue in the face, and you try to understand why they’re not listening. The world wanted an agreement.” But one sentence later, Lapid contradicted himself by saying,
“We also said that a diplomatic accord would be good. A diplomatic accord is certainly better than war, a diplomatic accord is better than a situation of permanent confrontation – just not this agreement.”
So which is it? He lambasted the international community for reaching a diplomatic agreement, but Lapid wanted “diplomatic accord”!
Israeli Civil Defense Minister Gilad Erdan seemed to suggest that Israel would have been happy with a military option. He said that the deal “makes it much more difficult, in the diplomatic sphere, to talk about a military option.” Oops. Sorry, Erdan. The West is just tired of military menace. In fact, with the new deal, Europe sees economic relationship.
Netanyahu himself declared,
“Israel is not committed by this agreement. The regime in Iran is committed to destroying Israel. And Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself from any threat.”
Now think about this for a moment. The Western world agrees to strike a deal with Iran, but Netanyahu “is not committed by this agreement.” In other words, Netanyahu does not represent the West. As British journalist Robert Fisk puts it, the deal actually isolates Israel and Netanyahu is alone. Netanyahu only hypocritically applauds the West when the West follows him. If the West deviates from his official Zionist/Talmudic doctrine, then the West becomes his enemy.
What if the West actually listened to Netanyahu and aggressively pushed Iran to the edge? Even after the deal was reached, the Jerusalem Post didn’t stop propagating nonsense, such as the following: “Iran planning to build 2 new nuclear power plants, official says.”
Iran just stroke a deal with the international community and the same Iran is planning to build 2 new nuclear plants in order to upset the international community! This foolish argument can only work in the mind of the intellectual Talmudist.
In the end, Friedan ended up admitting the obvious:
“You know, some pornography certainly does degrade women. It also degrades men and it degrades sex. The pornography that pushes violence is particularly deplorable. But the forces that want to suppress pornography are not in favor of suppressing guns.”
But pornography, under the umbrella of democratic freedom, has been articulated indirectly by many Jewish writers. One of the leading Jewish writers and journalists who ended up proving this point is Elizabeth Wurtzel, a Harvard and Yale graduate and author of Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women, a book which has been cited approvingly by feminist apologists such as Bell Hooks.
Having followed the sexual liberation which inexorably flowed from Wilhelm Reich’s promiscuous ideology and which got mutated into feminism, Wurtzel ended up admitting,
“I am completely free, and as far as my life goes, I have all the power. In fact, I have turned thirty in an era when for the first time in history a woman can feel as unencumbered and unbound as I do. And yet, for all the power I command in not being some man’s dependent appendage, I generally walk around through life feeling pretty powerless.”
Wurtzel knew very well that sexual ideology is powerful and can be used as a weapon to control people. Wurtzel called this “pussy power.” Wurtzel, of course, got that “pussy power” from primarily two sources. One of those sources is the story of Samson and Delilah. Wurtzel told us that Samson and Delilah “offer the first example of what we now call sexual politics.”
According to Wurtzel, Samson was so enthralled by this sexual politics that he became “enslaved to his dick” and, eventually, the undefeated Samson was defeated through sexual lusts which eventually and literally blinded him and cost him his life.
Another indirect source is Wilhelm Reich, who postulated that
“sexual life is not a private affair. The sexual restructuring of man, for the establishment of the capacity for full sexual pleasure, cannot be left to individual initiative but is a cardinal problem of all social existence….
“The whole population must acquire the secure feeling that the revolutionary leadership is doing everything it can to guarantee sexual pleasure, without reservation, without any ifs and buts.”
What Reich did not explicitly point out was that “the revolutionary leadership” which ended up controlling people through sexual politics was largely a Jewish project.
The same “revolutionary leadership” ended up changing the intellectual and academic landscape in America, particularly when it came to the humanities. As Jewish feminist scholar Laura Levitt herself writes,
“By reading western canonical texts and writing about them, American Jewish intellectuals in the humanities reinvented Jewish study as a secular practice.”
Wurtzel ended up admitting in 2010, “As a people, we are hopeless Talmudists, we examine all the arguments and try to sort out an answer.” In a similar vein, Jewish writer Sidney Blumenthal declared that the neoconservative movement found its political and intellectual ideology “in the disputatious heritage of the Talmud.”
Here Wurtzel and Blumenthal indirectly bring an essential point: Jewish intellectuals (particularly revolutionaries), so long as they remain outside the moral order, will always end up in Talmudic discourse, which is another way of saying that they will always find themselves in conflict with the West. Levitt is another classic example. She writes in Jews and Feminism,
“I try to locate my physical homes in Atlanta and Philadelphia, my liberal Jewish home in America, and my academic homes within and between the disciplines of Jewish studies, feminist studies, and religion…
“Although throughout this book I am critical of these legacies, I do not abandon them, for I do not believe that that is possible….my parent’s home, rabbinic, liberal Jewish, and liberal Jewish feminist Judaisms [still] remain part of the landscape I call home…the ideology of liberalism, and feminist study.”