“Sexual potency and physical vigor and beauty must become the permanent ideals of the revolutionary freedom movement.”—Wilhelm Reich
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Facts are still piling up against the Israeli-run NSA. The Washington Post finally came out and admitted a few days ago that the NSA is not just monitoring the major countries around the world, but is “tracking cell phone locations worldwide.”
The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other news outlets reported the same thing. The Los Angeles Times said: “Well, whaddaya know: ‘NSA [is] tracking cell phone locations worldwide…”
The agency actually tracks the location of almost 5 billion cell phones every single day overseas. The New York Times went so far as to say that nearly all the major online communications companies are under the supervision of the NSA. Forbes has declared that the NSA literally damaged over 50,000 computer networks with malware already.
How long has this program been monitoring Americans? Since the Bush aministration. In fact, the New York Times was going to break that story back in 2005, but the administration told them not to publish anything relating to the NSA.
But what if you live in the jungle? It doesn’t matter. As long as you have a cell phone, the NSA still can track you down. What if you live in places like Australia, Canada, or even in a small country with more sheep than people such as New Zealand? Still, the NSA has enough spy agencies and technological advantage in those countries to know your whereabouts.
“Analysts can find cell-phones anywhere in the world, retrace their movements and expose hidden relationships among the people using them.”
The agency also has the ability to know whether Muslim radicals are having sex or watching pornography. In fact, preying on human weaknesses has been a central goal of the Israeli Mossad. Sex, in that context, inexorably plays a major role.
But this was not the first time the political process used sex as a weapon. And to do justice to the issue here, we must go back to the French Revolution (which was essentially Masonic in ideology). Then we will see how sexual politics and revolutionary or covert activity go hand and hand.
Leading Enlightenment figures such as Diderot provided “philosophical” justifications for sexual liberation in eighteenth-century France, and those justifications largely became the weltanschauung of that entire culture.
When sexual liberation is supreme, genuine love between man and woman is out of the equation, and sexual lust, unbridled passion, and uncontrolled promiscuity take over.
As an alternative to Western monogamy—and for Diderot monogamy was clearly imbedded in Christianity—Diderot presented Tahiti’s sexual mores, where permanent fidelity was a relic of the past.
“Tahitian marriage consists only of ‘a mutual consent to live in the same hut and to share the same bed, for as long as we find it good to do so.’ Thus, as soon as spouses grow bored of each other, they simply separate amicably, pursuing new sexual liaisons…With no expectations to fidelity, Tahitians happily pursue numerous sexual relationships.”
Tahitians “welcome not only fornication and adultery but also incest.” For Diderot, Tahiti was a utopian sexual paradise. But according to Scholar Sharon A. Stanley, Tahiti
“utterly fails to live up to these expectations. We find shame, guilt, envy, secrecy, and deceit on Tahiti, just as in Europe. We find lawbreakers and miserable Tahitians who struggle to suppress their sexual desires. We also find…undesirable things…disease, war, hunger, and slavery.”
Diderot could not solve the sexual calculus without appealing to sexual liberation, which includes things like incest. Marquis de Sade understood people like Diderot very well and read their works avidly. Sade took off where Diderot left off. But Sade’s sexual ideology lay dormant for centuries until other philosophers began to articulate similar principles.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Friedrich Nietzsche captured that Enlightenment principle and spiced things up a little by calling on a transvaluation of all values—be they sexual, political, or intellectual—at all cost. Nietzsche was not simply positing those sexual claims. He got syphilis because of his own sexual liberation.
Nietzsche, like Diderot before him, thought that Christianity largely holds the West together and if sexual liberation is to take place, then Christian morals with respect to sexuality has to go. As he put it, “the fight against Christianity is merely a special case.” Nietzsche elaborated further:
“This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found…I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough—I call [it] the one immoral blemish upon the human race…
“And mankind reckons time from the [evil day] when this fatality befell—from the first day of Christianity!—Why not rather from its last?—From today?—The transvaluation of all values.”
Nietzsche, an original astute philologist and metaphysician who was well versed in pagan Greek cults and who later had a strong and abiding influence in writers such as D. H. Lawrence, wrote in The Birth of Tragedy:
“Almost everywhere an excess of sexual indiscipline, which flooded in waves over all family life and its vulnerable statutes, lay at the heart of such [Dionysian] festivals. Here the very wildest of nature’s beats were unleashed, up to an including that repulsive mixture of sensuality and cruelty which has always struck me as the true ‘witches’ brew’.”
Here Nietzsche aspired that Western culture would return to the Dionysian cult with all its sexual burst unbridled passion. Lawrence was right in line with Nietzsche when he said, “We are tempted, like Nietzsche, to return to the old pagan Infinite.”
Years after Nietzsche, Jewish cultist Antorn Lavey made it quite clear:
“Free love, in the Satanic concept, means exactly that—freedom…to indulge your sexual desires with as many others as you feel is necessary to satisfy your particular needs.
“Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic belief is: Indulgence instead of abstinence.”
In short, sexual liberation and Enlightenment doctrines were two sides of the same coin. Scholar Caroline Weber, who reviews Michel Delon’s new book The Libertine: The Art of Love in Eighteenth-Century France, puts it this way:
“According to the playwright Pierre de Marivaux, ‘one still said to a woman: ‘I love you,’ but this was a polite way of saying: ‘I desire you…’ [This] infused every genre from fiction to poetry, theater to philosophy, memoir to popular song (all well represented in short, artfully selected excerpts). It also preoccupied Frenchmen and women from every walk of life…”
Libertine culture simply means “the sexually free behavior and norms of upper-class men, and in particular, of the French aristocracy during the decline of the ancien regime, as well as the writing which celebrates it—namely the erotic novels of Crebillon fils, Duclos, Diderot, Prevost and Laclos, and the obscene philosophical writing of de Sade and others.”
This libertinage, argue two scholars, became the “dissident freedoms of everyday life” in France. The same scholars agree that “sexual behavior, and writing about sexual behavior, came to have philosophical, political and cultural context. These contexts ranged beyond rarefied courtly cultures to the newer print communities that thrived upon the dissemination of politicized forms of sexual gossip, pornography, and scandal.”
What Weber didn’t mention was that leading Enlightenment writers such as Voltaire, Diderot and others, were Freemasons. Rousseau himself was certainly aware of Freemasons and Rosicrucians in one of his essays.
Keep also in mind that both Freemasonry and the Illuminati came into existence long before the French Revolution, and the Illuminati in particular operated under the banner or pretension of materialism and atheism, though it was essentially Jewish.
Like Marquis de Sade, Adam Weishaupt, who founded the Illuminati, was heavily influenced by Enlightenment writers such as d’Holbach, Helvitius, Jean-Baptiste Robinet, etc. Those writers had an enormous influence in other places such as Germany “in the pre-1789 period.”
Many scholars do not want to fully address the sexual component of the leading writers of Enlightenment for political reasons.
For example, Peter Cryle and Lisa O’Connell, while making important contribution to eighteen-century France, declare that “libertinism, as a form of sexuality associated with free-thinking, is constitutionally insubstantial. It is not what enlightened philosophers would have called a ‘clear and distinct idea.’ Theirs was the anti-dogma of inconsistency, understood as freedom from preconceived ideas and emotional attachment.”
Perhaps it is time for both scholars to reread Sade’s Philosophy in the Bedroom and 120 Days of Sodom again.
If Cryle and O’Connell misread the Enlightenment era—at least in this instance—Michel Foucault philosophically and practically did not. Foucault saw himself and others “as beings who are historically determined, to a certain extent, by the Enlightenment.”
But Foucault ended up proving that you simply cannot embrace sexual liberation without political and intellectual consequences. In 1983,
“after he had already collapsed and less than a year before his own death, [Foucault] could still be found in the baths and bars. He laughed and talked of ‘safe sex’ and reportedly said, ‘To die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful?’”
Foucault, after many years of teaching and practicing sexual liberation, died of AIDS in 1984.
Yet no one would have believed that the sexual economy of the Enlightenment, which can easily be traced back to the disputatious thesis of Freemasonry and the Illuminati, would revive once again in our modern age in different languages and contexts, most particularly in the modern music industry.
It certainly was quite a surprise for some when the British newspaper the Daily Mail mentioned people like Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, Jay Z, among others, as part of the OTO, which is Crowleyan, which is Masonic, and which is essentially Jewish.
Moreover, no one would have believed that Wilhelm Reich’s sexual principles would make a great surge in the music industry. Reich postulated that
“Sexual potency and physical vigor and beauty must become the permanent ideals of the revolutionary freedom movement.”
Right was right. Robin Thicke, who simulated sex with Miley Cyrus on stage, sounded like Marquis de Sade and Wilhelm Reich and Anton Lavey and Aleister Crowley when he said:
“We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory towards women.”
The prodigious and erudite scholar Hugh B. Urban of Ohio State University would certainly equate that with sex magic. Thicke continued,
“People say, ‘Hey, do you think this is degrading to women?’ I’m like, ‘Of course it is. What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman. I’ve never gotten to do that before.”
Whether he likes it or not, Thicke was fulfilling one of Crowley’s sexual principles, which he articulated in The Book of the Law:
“Take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where, and with whom ye will!
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
“Thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.”
Myley Cyrus, the seemingly innocent Hannah Montana girl who started her career at a very young age, has now turned into what Sade would have called a sexual machine pimping the system, pornifying young people and corrupting or destroying real intimacy.
“Pop music is intimately with the pornography industry as today’s pop stars embrace and exalt the joys of porn. Eminem, Kid Rock, Blink 182, Metallica, Everclear, and Bon Jovi have all featured porn performers in their music videos.
“Trying to keep up, Britney Spears, Lil’ Kim, and Christina Aguilera emulate porn star moves in their videos and live concerts. Pornography has not only seeped into televised music videos; musicians have crossed over into the adult film industry.”
Obviously Cyrus is responsible for her actions, but the forces behind her sexual imagery are none other than Jewish handlers:
“Miley is simply one in a long chain of good Christian girls turned bad. Hollywood needs to turn a good girl bad every three or four years. It is part of the system of corruption and control that Hollywood has created to keep us all in line.
“The Corriere places Miley in a list of Selena Gomez, Lindsay Lohan, Brittney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Rihanna, all good girls gone bad. The Corriere did not note that these stars, in turn, by internalizing the commands of their oppressors, help their masters to corrupt large segments of the populatiuon. And Miley seems to be aware of this much. As she said in her interview with Hunger Magazine,
“‘With magazines, with movies, it’s always weird when things are targeted for young people yet they’re driven by people that are like 40 years too old. It can’t be like this 70-year-old Jewish man that doesn’t leave his desk all day, telling me what the clubs want to hear. I’m going out. I know what they want to hear.’
“In the interview, Miley describes her relationships with the various Jewish handlers that have helped her along in her career. And, from the statement quoted in the Corriere, she has clearly internalized their commands.
“Now, she can promote their agenda without them appearing to have an influence. And, she can, just as they do, claim that it is simply about money.”
Now it is time to return to the sexual politics of the Mossad.
Throughout the late 1960s, Israeli officials quickly discovered that sex could be used as a form of control in the political war. For example, chief Israeli intelligence Meir Amit, who participated in the 1967 war, “pioneered the use of female agents, the ‘honey trap’” in order to politically disarmed enemies or perceived enemies. Mit put it quite bluntly that the “honey trap”
“was another weapon. A woman has skills a man simply does not. She knows how to listen. Pillow talk is not a problem for her. The history of modern intelligence is filled with accounts of women who have used their sex for the good of their country. To say that Israel has not done the same would be foolish…
“It is not so much a question of sleeping with someone. It is to lead a man to believe you will do so in return for what he has to tell you.”
Last year, one Mossad agent by the name of Yael, which could be a pseudonym, declared that women have “advantage” over men in many branches in the Mossad because “A man who wants to gain access to a forbidden area has less chance of being allowed in… A smiling woman has a bigger chance of success.”
Efrat, “the most senior female operational commander in the Mossad” pronounced: “We use our femininity because any means is valid.”
Efrat added that the agent would not allow them to sleep with an enemy, but Rabbi Yediot Aharonot argued that it is legitimate to sleep even with terrorists “in order to obtain information leading to their arrest.”
Former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky elaborated, “The whole purpose is to use people. But in order to use them, you have to mold them. If you have a guy who doesn’t drink, doesn’t want sex, doesn’t need money, has no political problems, and is happy with life, you can’t recruit him.”
David Petraeus got jammed in the “money trap” a year ago and finally had to exit out of the military. Before that happened, Petraeus got into trouble with some neoconservatives, including Max Boot of Commentary, because he declared that
“The [Israel-Palestine] conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR [Centcom’s Area of Responsibility] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”
In a nutshell, the “honey trap” is purely sexual, not genuine love. The female Mossad agent would learn “how to use sex to coerce, seduce, and dominate.” Once again, the Israelis learned that “honey trap” from Samson and Delilah.
Going back to the NSA, what if you live in places like Nigeria? Will they be able to track you down? Listen to this:
“Staff from the Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit have arrived in Nigeria to begin installing a mass Internet surveillance system that has been the focus of national outrage since first revealed in April, according to the Abuja-based newspaper Premium Times…” Nigeria, like most states, already had significant capacity for mass data collection…
“The website Israel’s Homeland Security notes that ‘In recent years the traditional structured databases of the past are being complemented by much bigger repositories of unstructured data, information that has never been tapped before — video surveillance, satellite images, emails, social networks, Internet pages, open source news, voice and data interception etc.
“Managing these new repositories requires new systems, storing huge volumes of information and able to retrieve specific pieces of data in an efficient and timely manner.’”
Every single day, the agency “is gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cell-phones around the world,” but the Zionist regime in America declared that “the programs that collect and analyze location data are lawful and intended strictly to develop intelligence about foreign targets.”
Inconsistency notwithstanding, Robert Litt, general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “which oversees the NSA,” declared,
“There is no element of the intelligence community that under any authority is intentionally collecting bulk cellphone location information about cellphones in the United States.”
Elbridge Colby of the National Interest spiced things a little by arguing that the NSA should keep spying on U.S. allies. Colby declares that “as a rule, the United States should be prepared to collect intelligence on its allies. Why? The U.S. government should collect foreign intelligence to fulfill its most important role, which is to protect the security, liberty and well-being of its citizens.
“Collecting intelligence on our allies is sometimes necessary to fulfill this obligation, because what allies do and what happens within their borders can and regularly does have a major impact on Americans.”
These are certainly infallible signs that you are in the presence of political whores. If the U.S. should continue to spy on allies, shouldn’t allies spy on the U.S.? Or, to put it quite bluntly, shouldn’t Snowden spy on the U.S.?
If not, what kind of logical inference that allows Colby to hold one standard for himself and a completely different standard for everyone else?
Colby is not the typical guy who is oblivious about elementary logic. He “served with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and with the President’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Colby struggles mightily to make a coherent argument because he is living in the neo-Bolshevik matrix which has its headquarters in Israel and which seeks to rule virtually the entire world with an implicitly neo-Bolshevik fist (i.e., the NSA).
But things got even a little interesting when President Obama declared that “The N.S.A. actually does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance, not reading people’s emails, not listening to the contents of their phone calls.”
With all due respect, this is generally dumb. If the NSA has thwarted “over 50 terror plots,” as Obama and the agency have claimed in the past—a claim which by the way is a fabrication—how could they avoid reading people’s emails, listening to the contents of phone calls? How does that work in the real world?
Keep in mind that Stalin did not need your permission to invade your privacy and even torture and slaughter the innocent and perceived enemies. And keep in mind that the NSA does not need your permission to invade your privacy.
Keep in mind that the neo-Bolshevik regime does not need your permission to keep people behind bars and torture them for years in places like Guantanamo. Keep in mind that they do not need evidence to prove that those people are guilty. Many of those people have been tortured and locked up for at least twelve years of their natural lives without any proof that they have committed terrorist acts or that they were linked to terrorist organizations.
Colby continues to shoot himself in the toes by saying,
“Let’s remember what being a U.S. ally actually means: that American citizens are committed to defending these countries with their resources and ultimately with their lives. So, since our allies see fit to ask us to defend them, we have a reasonable interest in knowing what they are up to.”
Once again, if the Israeli Big Brother is watching us, do people like Snowden have some right to watch the Israeli Big Brother? Why is Snowden being charged as a criminal and a terrorist? If the neo-Bolshevik narrative makes any sense, why is the Zionist mafia charging the Guardian as a terrorist cell simply because they publish some “politically incorrect” documents?
Colby moves on to say,
“Now, if our allies were perfectly transparent and straightforward with us, there would be no problem. But they aren’t. Nor should we be particularly surprised or offended by this.”
Colby certainly cannot be serious. Keep in mind that two of the many definitions of a whore are 1) “a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain” and 2) “a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse for money.”
These are coalescing definitions, and their common denominator is that the individual in question will do just about anything to get money or to advance his or her career, position, or prestige.
For a political whore, to lie under oath is a small price to pay, to persecute those who proclaim the truth is a good thing, to discredit or dismiss opponents without an iota of evidence is a great weapon to use, to prosecute and sometimes kill opposing voices and perceived enemies in the name of fighting terrorism is realistic, and to change the definition and practice of torture at the expense of everyone else is a fair game.
The British newspaper the Guardian “may face terrorism charges for publishing Snowden leaks.” Other individuals are facing the same thing. The political whores are attacking the Guardian probably because the Guardian has recently declared that it has published only one percent of the Snowden documents so far, which means that they intend to publish more documents bit by bit.
More recently, it has been reported that Sweden spied on Russia for the NSA. Those reports are certainly not compatible with the neo-Bolshevik weltanschauung, and the only way to stop this is to lump the Guardian with terrorist activity.
But the interesting thing is that same political whores never stop supporting actual terrorism in Syria. As Stephen M. Walt of Harvard recently pointed out, these things certainly make the so-called war on terror embarrassing.
If this so-called war on terror is actually genuine, then Al Qaeda and his clans are smarter than the people presiding over Zionist organizations both in America and in Israel. Why?
Just a few days ago, the New York Times published an article entitled: “Jihadists Groups Gain in Turmoil Across Middle East.” The Washington Post likewise declared, “Next door to Syria, an al-Qaeda-linked group is also gaining ground in Iraq.”
After spending billions upon billions of dollars on “counter-terrorism,” and after spending government money on booze, the neo-Bolsheviks tell us that Jihadists are winning! We are also told that the Pentagon is running out of cash in places like Afghanistan.
I simply am really confused: we are told over and over that we are fighting a bunch of deranged, demented and crazy people, but talking heads and neo-Bolshevik experts in the Pentagon and Washington cannot catch those crazy people.
Here we are confronted with at least two frightening possible explanations: 1) al-Qaeda and his clans are out-smarting the neo-Bolsheviks; 2)terrorism is a neo-Bolshevik/Zionist creation. The first explanation simply does not hold up precisely because al-Qaeda, as far as technology is concerned (unlike the NSA), is outnumbered.
We have seen over and over that the neo-Bolshevik/Zionist regime in America and Israel supported and are still supporting terrorist groups such as the Syrian rebels.
Just recently, noted journalist Seymour M. Hersh has pointed out that the Obama administration largely made up the “evidence” that Assad used chemical weapons. Hersh also briefly suggested that the evidence was cooked up by an Israeli agent.
Put simply, the second possible explanation makes much more sense: the neo-Bolshevik regime is largely responsible for terrorism.
To summarize, the neo-Bolshevik/Zionist narrative simply doesn’t work in the real world. As it turns out, it only fits the pattern of those who want to indiscriminately slaughter civilians and wipe out much of the population in the Middle East with sophisticated weapons such as drones:
“The Pentagon has loosened its guidelines on avoiding civilian casualties during drone strikes, modifying instructions from requiring military personnel to “ensure” civilians are not targeted to encouraging service members to “avoid targeting” civilians….
“Moreover, commanders had been instructed to ‘consider the military necessity for attacking the target, proportionality of the means planned, and reasonableness within the framework of operational objectives.’”
Recently, it has been reported that Israel plans to “forcibly resettle” Bedouin Arabs from their villages in the Negev desert. Will the West stand by and watch? No doubt about it.
The Foreign Press Association has reported that “the Israeli army [were] ‘deliberately targeting’ journalists after soldiers fired rubber bullets and threw stun grenades at photojournalists clearly identified as press.” Did the West stay silent? Yes.
Last month, “the Israel Defense Forces arrived in this tiny Palestinian community in the Jordan Valley with an abrupt message: Clear out. ‘An officer named Yigal came and told us we would have to leave our home on the holiday because there would be military training here,’ says Ha’il Hussein Turkman, a sheep and cow farmer and father of six. ‘’Yigal said, ‘The army wants to train. You must go. Those who will not leave, I will bring soldiers to force them out.’”
Did the Zionist media let viewers know about this form of ethnic cleansing? Of course not. Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Rihanna, Beyonce, Selena Gomez, are more important than those Palestinians. Corrupting the young and the restless is much more valuable and lucrative than defending the lives of people living in distant lands. How else would they justify Miley Cyrus’s recent desecration of Christmas?