“Every time I kill someone in my movie, I’m rehearsing my own death.” David Cronenberg
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Speaking of his sexual act in the up-coming movie Fifty Shades of Grey, actor Jamie Dornan has recently dropped the moral dilemma when he said that he and Dakota Johnson “got ourselves into situations that don’t feel too natural and are not that easy.”
Notice that there is a moral judgment implicit in the sentence here: “situations that don’t feel too natural.” Dornan’s moral psyche is telling him that there is a natural or moral way of doing things, most specifically when it comes to sex.
But since Dornan and Johnson are fresh prostitutes in Hollywood obviously looking for a little bit of money, power and fame, they have no other choice but to go against the moral order. And they never seem to have the hindsight to realize that soon or later, the moral order is going to hunt them and break them to pieces.
But Dornan and Johnson are far from alone. A number of Goyim, as we have seen in the past, are more than willing to literally prostitute themselves before the Dreadful Few in Hollywood in order to gain some power, money and fame for a season.
Anna Paquin, who played in the X-Men series, has said that selling herself or having sex on the big screen is a fair game:
“Actually, it’s not really uncomfortable because we’re all like kind of cozy and friends. It’s like, ‘Oh, I’ll put my leg there, you put your hand there. It’s OK, whatever.’”
Paquin did not hesitate to say,
“I’ve had sex with several cast members on the show—obviously, on camera.”
Keep in mind that Paquin has a husband, Stephen Moyer. The stunning news is that Moyer “has even directed Paquin in sex scenes with other actors.”
If you think that Moyer and his wife are acting in a disgusting way, just hold on. Moyer had this to say about some of those sex acts:
‘In a funny way, I feel like — without revealing too much — it’s quite interesting for us as a couple because we’ve kind of gone to places where a lot of people don’t get to.
“’There are moments where I’ll be watching on a monitor [and say], ‘Oh, Joe, just move your hand up towards Anna’s breast. Good. And can you move your right thumb just a little bit …? Great.’ And then I’ll go, ‘Babe, babe, enjoy it.’ I’m certainly talking to her as ‘babe.’ ‘Darling, go for it.'”
After reading this, one writer for the LA Times declared: “Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?”
In her zeal to promote bisexuality, Paquin declared, “I’m Anna Paquin. I’m bisexual, and I give a damn.”
Why does she have to tell us that? Isn’t sex a sacred thing? Why does she have to implicitly tell us what she does in her bedroom? Does she really think that some nut is going slaughter her as she is having sex with another woman or with multiple partners?
Wouldn’t people like Paquin find it weird if other people start walking around and saying things like, “I’m straight and I give a damn”?
Furthermore, would Paquin call it “hate crime” if other people “give a damn”? Should the phraseology “give a damn” be applied to only one group of people, namely, bisexuals and gays?
Certainly pop culture’s sexual calculus is fraught with contradictions. And if inconsistencies and internal contradictions and illogical leap drive you crazy, then you understand why celebrities and so-called entertainers cannot be taken seriously when they start talking about sexual violence against women and children.
The people in the sex industry practically scorns and laughs at the moral order as if it does not exist but embraces it when their sexual proclivities get them into trouble or when their own sexual debauchery literally ends up leaving them empty. Take for example the Bill Cosby debacle.
It would be hard for Cosby’s lawyer to dismiss at least 19 multiple and independent accounts of sexual rape or harassment. If this man is really guilty, I really sympathize for those women. If they are telling the truth, then Cosby should be placed behind bars for the rest of his natural life.
But here is something that those women (many of them are celebrities themselves) and the sex industry have to explain to us: Cosby commits rape and that is not right; Hollywood endlessly produce movies showing sexual rape and torture and pornography at an astronomical rate to precious children and decent people around the world and that is freedom!
What is so morally repugnant and boring is that some of those actors ask for sexual freedom and explicitly promote it on screen! Take for example Robert Pattinson. Of the homosexual movie Little Ashes, in which the well-paid prostitute literally exposes himself, Pattinson declared,
“If you Google something long enough you will soon know everything there is to know about me,…What I eat…with whom I’m sleeping, even what I look like when I masturbate.
“Faking it just doesn’t work. So I pleasured myself in front of the camera. My orgasm face is recorded for eternity.”
How crazy can we be? Movies like this degrade and humiliate young people and women, but somehow people like Cosby who follow those messages ought to be arrested and people like Cronenberg, who actually produce literal pornography on the big screen, are pretentiously exercising their freedom.
Who are we seriously kidding here? Is sexual violence against women wrong or not? If it is, should we allow it to be produced in the name of freedom? If we should, then what’s the big deal about Bill Cosby? Something is fundamentally repugnant and morally perverse here. And if the sex industry cannot see this, we cannot help them.
It has been reported that Angelina Jolie spoke with Obama about “her work on preventing mass atrocities and combating sexual violence against women.” In the same vein, Charlize Theron has become “a UN ambassador for peace and a leader in the ‘Stop rape now’ campaign.”
Many other actors and actresses have joined this campaign: Daniel Craig, David Schwimmer, Ian Somerhalder, Monique Coleman, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon, Robin Wright Penn, Salma Hayek, Lena Healey, etc.
But don’t those actors and actresses tell us something different in their movies? Didn’t Jolie made a conscious decision to play in sexually provocative movies such as Original Sin?
Didn’t Kidman play in semi-pornographic and Gnostic films such as Eyes Wide Shut? Do these people really think that they can build with her left hands while their right hands seek to destroy?
Actress Teri Hatcher for example “broke down crying at a United Nations event while discussing her experiences with sexual abuse as a child.”
Is this woman serious? Doesn’t she know that Hollywood, as former child actor Skip E. Lowe puts it, the “ghost of molesters past”? Doesn’t Hatcher know that if she really wants to stop sexual violence, she would have to quit her job in Hollywood and find a decent job elsewhere?
Doesn’t Hatcher know that whenever there is a flood of sexual violence in movies and films, there is also a flood of sexual rapists looking for countless prey? Doesn’t she know about Ted Bundy? Doesn’t she know that the Dreadful Few in Hollywood have been using people like her as sex toys from time immemorial?
Doesn’t she know that scholar Molly Haskell, in her book From Revenge to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies, has called Hollywood “the propaganda arm of the American Dream machine”?
Doesn’t Hatcher know that director Roman Polanski raped and sexually molested young girls in Hollywood and got away with it? Will Hatcher ever go after Polanski for doing so?
Doesn’t she know that sexual abuse has arguably become an open secret in Hollywood? Take it from actress Thandie Newton and actor Todd Bridges:
But here is the funny thing. Hatcher, who complained about sexual abuse, is continuing to challenge the sexual order by selling herself as a literal whore and a slut in racy scenes such as this:
Can we take those people seriously when they talk about sexual violence? They take their clothes and even underwear off and dance naked on the mountainside, as Euripides would have put it, and then expect not to get raped! They expect men to close their eyes and walk away! What, then, was the purpose of getting naked on screen, if they were not titillating men?
Pop culture’s sexual calculus, as we have seen, simply does not add up. Madonna was raped on a New York rooftop when she was nineteen, but she turned around and sexualized (or shall we say pornify?) the culture, titillating rapists and giving them reasons to explore sexual possibilities.
Jewish ideologue Eve Ensler for example wrote and promoted the Vagina Monologue for years and thinks that it will not urge men to commit sexual violence! What is so risible is that Ensler indirectly hoped that it will help deter sexual violence.
If “vaginas need to be loosed” and if they need to “spread” and “talk,” how can we segregate those rapists who want to “talk” to vaginas? Why are we so discriminatory? If “Vaginas need comfort,” on what grounds are we excluding rapists in the sexual calculus? Don’t those rapists need comfort as well?
Didn’t the woman in the video clip declare that she is “the vagina—fu$k me”? And wasn’t she indirectly calling rapists to “fu$k” her vagina? If her vagina “wants everything,” doesn’t that include rapists?
If people like Jolie and other Hollywood celebrities who superficially declare that they want to fight sexual violence cannot rise up and boycott perversion like the Vagina Monologue, then we have absolutely no reason or justification to take them seriously.
But, like “evangelical Darwinism” which “uses science to support a view of humanity that comes from religion,” people like Jolie will always come back to support a moral view of humanity that comes from the moral order and more precisely religion.
The atheist political philosopher John Gray of the London School of Economics and Political Science argues in Straw Dogs that “a truly naturalistic view of the world leaves no room for secular hope.” Gray moves on to say,
“Darwin showed that humans are like other animals, humanists claim they are not. Humanists insist that by using our knowledge we can control our environment and flourish as never before.
“In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity’s most dubious promises—that salvation is open to all. The humanist belief in progress is only a secular version of this Christian faith.
“In the world shown us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress. To anyone reared on humanist hopes this is intolerable.
“As a result, Darwin’s teaching has been stood on its head, and Christianity’s cardinal error—that humans are different from all other animals—has been given a new lease on life.”
I like people like Gray because they (like Friedrich Nietzsche before them) are able to dissect their own metaphysical weltanschauung and realize that it is not pretty solid. Gray is indeed a serious metaphysician. In the same way, one is inclined to say that Hollywood’s version of humanity leaves no hope for the fight against sexual violence.
If celebrities cannot see that, then they need to take a closer look at what people like George Lucas have been saying for more than three decades. Back in 1981, Lucas declared:
“Film and visual entertainment are a pervasively important part of our culture, an extremely significant influence on the way our society operates…
“People in the film industry don’t want to accept the responsibility that they had a hand in the way the world is loused up… Films and television tell us the way we conduct our lives, what is right and wrong.”
In other words, you cannot unleash your moral disease upon the culture and then absolve yourself of any responsibility. Many directors have tried to do just that. Listen very carefully to this lively and heated interview with Quintin Terantino, shortly after the release of Django Unchained:
First of all, who told this poor sap that black American males need a Western hero? I didn’t tell him that! And what kind of hero is he talking about? Blood for blood? Why doesn’t he tell them the truth about slavery? Why is he manipulating black Americans? And if he did want to explore slavery in a historically rigorous manner, why didn’t he talk about Jewish slavery? How about African slavery? Does this man have a local library where he lives?
If Tarantino really wants to help, why doesn’t he display things like moral virtue, self-sacrifice, courage, love for neighbor, etc., in his movies? How about decent people who actually did display this in their own lives?
The simple fact is that Tarantino wants black Americans to hate their fellow whites, and once they start killing each other like cats and dogs, who do you think will be laughing? Well, you know the drill.
In short, if people like Jolie want to be taken seriously, they need to do something better. They need to stop craving after lust, power and money in their movies and produce decent films that uplift the moral and sexual order and reflect the virtuous life. Furthermore, they need to stop prostrating before the Dreadful Few. If they cannot do that, then they are simply giving lip service when they talk about fighting against sexual violence.
David Cronenberg for example never misses an opportunity to produce pornography and violence in order to corrupt and humiliate the dumb Goyim. Again, will people like Jolie confront this man?
If “true sexuality demands the destruction of the ego,” as we are told in A Dangerous Method, wasn’t Cosby following that principle? Didn’t he destroy his ego and release his libido on those women?
And if Cosby gets arrested and jailed for following that principle, shouldn’t we go after the people who wrote the principle in the first place?
How about the people who constantly put the principle on the big screen in front of children in order to corrupt them? Should we go after the directors and producers of Shame?
 Quoted in Stanley Wiater, Dark Visions: Conversations with the Masters of the Horror Film (New York: Avon Books, 1992),62.
 Nardine Saad, “’True Blood’ sex scenes a marital aid for Anna Paquin, Stephen Moyer,” LA Times, June 17, 2014.
 Skip E. Lowe, Hollywood Gomorrah: Sex Lives of the Hollywood Stars (Create Space, 2014), chapter 12.
 For similar studies, see for example Sissela Bok, Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1998); Dorothy G. Singer and Jerome L. Singer, Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2005); Joy D. Osofsky, ed., Children in a Violent Society (New York: The Guildford Press, 1997); Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society (New York: Back Bay Books, 1996).
 For a cultural history on similar issue, see for example Thomas Doherty, Pre-Cod Hollywood: Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema, 1930-1934 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 125-13; see also Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince, Hollywood Babylon Strikes Again! (New York: Blood Moon Productions, 2010).
 Molly Haskell, From Revenge to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 2.
 For a review of the Vagina Monologue, see E. Michael Jones, “Michel Foucault and the Metaphysical Roots of India’s Rape Crisis,” Culture Wars, November 2014.
 John Gray, Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002), xii.
 Ibid., 4.
 We will address the metaphysics of atheism again at the end of this month.
 Aljean Harmetz, “U.S.C. Breaks Ground for a Film-TV School,” New York Times, Nov. 25, 1981.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.