“Just as the food industry shapes how we eat and the fashion industry shapes how we dress, the sex industry shapes the way we think about sex”. Gail Dines and Robert Jensen of Wheelock College and the University of Texas
The sex culture never ceases to amaze me. As we have suggested in the previous article, the regime which controls the sex industry seeks to pornify America and much of the world but then punishes anyone who actually practices the essentially Talmudic standards which the regime has set forth in dozens of movies and music videos. The Bill Cosby debacle seems to be a classic case.
And the sad part is that the sex industry simply cannot survive without corrupting men and women, both young and old. Yet when men and women have been literally and morally brainwashed by the sex industry, what do they do?
They follow sexual titillation which their oppressors have sophistically forced upon them. It is actually a cycle.
How, then, does the regime end up controlling men and women like remote control? Simple.
Scholar Ruth A. Miller of the University of Massachusetts writes in her study The Erotics of Corruption: Law, Scandal, and Political Perversion:
“Websites devoted to pornographic material became increasingly sophisticated throughout the 1990s and into the following decade, producing visual, audio, animated, and ‘live action’ narratives, often ‘interactive,’ of bondage, fetishism, bestiality, schoolgirl intercourse, ‘virgin rape,’ and a variety of other situational sexual fantasies.”
Miller moves on to argue in several sections in her book that the entertainment industry, most specifically pop singers, celebrates and glorifies pornography through sophisticated means.
We all know by now that pornography is another name for sexual and moral bondage, and that studies show that “exposure to sexually violent pornography increases antagonistic attitudes towards women…”
Yet the simple fact is that the sex and entertainment industry embrace pornography and simultaneously have the audacity to say that they are against degrading women or against rape—a purely contradictory notion which can only exist if one pushes the moral order aside.
For example, Robin Thicke, who simulated sex with Miley Cyrus on stage, did not hesitate to declare, “We tried to do everything that was taboo. Bestiality, drug injections, and everything that is completely derogatory towards women.
“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.”
The sex industry also produces magazines such as Playboy, Sports Illustrated, Cheri, Barely Legal, Hustler, Penthouse, etc., to titillate men around the world. And how about hooking children—yes, children!—on pornography and masturbation?
But here is the vital contradiction: if you get caught seducing women and perhaps sexually raping them through covert means, the sex culture would quickly tell you that it is wrong. Your name will be all over the news, all across the world, showing that you are a wicked person!
The sex industry and even some dumb shiksas and Goyim teach men to act on their sexual fantasies by constantly displaying pornographic images virtually every single day online, in movies and on MTV, but when those men eventually do cross the sexual rubicon and began to commit sexual rape, they are condemned as wicked! How those people can live with such a vital contradiction while their heads do not explode is beyond comprehension.
Didn’t Jewish ideologue Betty Friedan defend pornography? Didn’t Jewish lawyer and former ACLU president Nadine Strossen defend pornography? Didn’t Alan Dershowitz desperately try to build a stupid case for pornographic magazines such as Penthouse?
Don’t we allow sluts and whores like Lady Gaga to literally strip on stage while their young and screaming fans go wild?
Don’t we allow women to come to the American Music Award naked?
How about Miley Cyrus playing with her vagina on stage?
Take it from New York Times Book Review editor Pamela Paul:
“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.”
We can also add the Pussy Riot to Paul’s list as well, a Russian Trotskyist group which got its support from both the “Left” and the neoconservative “Right” in America and which literally started to have sex orgies at the Moscow’s Biology Museum in an effort to start a revolution. To cite once again the Moscow-based newspaper the eXile, members of the group
“stripped off their clothes and started fu$king in the middle of Moscow’s Biology Museum in an act they called ‘Fuck For Medvedev! ‘
“They managed to gather a few photographers and a banner, popped a bunch of Viagra, and fu$ked on the floor for about 10 minutes before getting thrown out.’”
To make things a little more delicious, one member of the group stole a frozen chicken, stuck it in her vagina, and simulated sex inside the supermarket.
None of those acts bothered the sex industry in America. None of those sexual acts bothered Jewish neoconservative Ben Shapiro, who thought that standing for the Pussy Riot was
“the right thing to do. No matter what your religious belief system, no matter how you feel about blasphemy in a church, there’s no excuse for jailing political dissidents for exercising the right to free speech.”
Right here Shapiro sets the Jewish weltanschauung in motion: having orgies at a public place or sticking a frozen chicken in your vagina is politically permissible because Shapiro tells us that it is “the right thing to do.” And if you do not see it that way, you are against freedom!
In other words, in the Jewish universe, freedom is no longer an expression to do what is morally right but is an expression to do what the Dreadful Few think is right.
The sad part of the story is that people like Shapiro give the impression that they support traditional values in America.
This Mephistophelian system, which is essentially Talmudic in its ideological orientation, is against all things meaningful and rational and is therefore against all mankind.
This system has been expressed and advanced in multiple different ways and through different news outlets.
For example, in 2012, Candida Royalle, a director and former pornographic actress, wrote in the New York Times that “pornography can be good for consumers.”
In a similar vein, Ana Bridges, professor of psychology at the University of Kansas, wrote that “some pornography scenes are wholesome” and “others” are “degrading.” By what standard can we know that pornography can be “wholesome” and at the same time “degrading”? Bridges does not tell us.
Mireille Miller-Young of the University of California and author of The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure declared that “pornography can be empowering to women on screen.” Miller-Young moved on to say that “society ignores the diverse ways that women actually interact with it.”
Women who got into the pornography business, Miller-Young continued, found it fulfilling because, among other things, it is “flexible” and gives women the opportunity to do “independent work.”
How can those people seriously argue against Bill Clinton or Bill Cosby? Are they seriously telling us that having men ejaculating on women’s faces or in their mouths are not degrading to women?
Well, let us hear the answer to the last question from one male pornographer: it’s “like a dog marking its territory.” Chyung Sun of New York University wrote,
“When I asked male interview subjects what they would like to do in bed, ‘ejaculation on a woman’s face’ was most often at the top of their lists.
“But when I asked them what the attraction of this act was and whether it meant anything, their initial response was puzzlement.
“They had never given it much thought. With time for reflection, however, most came up with answers very similar to those of the pornographers I interviewed: it is about controlling women, doing something disgusting to them. It’s like spitting or urinating on them…
“‘The second you have an orgasm and that passion sinks out of your body, and you’re still watching the movie, you start to really see what’s going on,’” one male college student said. ‘This is not sexy. This is not sex. This is not how I want to experience sex.’”
Simiarly, Gail Dines and Robert Jensen of Weelock College and the University of Texas, respectively, declared, “The most extensive peer-reviewed study in the past decade found that a majority of scenes from 50 top-rented porn movies contained physical and verbal abuse of female performers. Physical aggression – including spanking, open-hand slapping and gagging – occurred in 88 percent of scenes, with expressions of verbal aggression – usually a man calling a woman derogatory names – in 48 percent.”
If pornography does not degrade women, then Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby are saints.
As we have said in the previous article, if the women who have accused Cosby cannot rise and fight against pornography in the media and the entertainment industry and cannot tell the Dreadful Few to stop producing sexual violence against women in movies and on MTV, then we should not pay close attention to their daily whining and moaning.
While people like Clinton and Cosby should be held accountable for what they have done, the pornography and film industry, which feasts on people’s weaknesses, is also to be held accountable.
Put simply, the sex industry has literally exposed itself to be an emperor with no clothes. Cosby is indeed in a hot water, but the response to his sexual act simply shows that the sex industry and the people who promote it simply do not have a moral leg to stand on.
Hugh Hefner—yes, Hugh Hefner!—has declared that he would never tolerate Bill Cosby’s behavior. one simply does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Here is Hefner at his best:
“I would never tolerate this kind of behavior, regardless of who was involved.”
Does Hefner forget that he is the founder of Playboy magazine? Hefner’s mind is so twisted and perverted that he cannot think straight. Now, listen to Hefner back in 1985 very carefully here:
“Censorship is the tool of totalitarianism and repression. If it is used today to prohibit sexually explicit words and images, it might be used tomorrow to prohibit other forms of expression.
“It might be used to justify the oppression of women in such areas as abortion rights, and to foil other efforts to bring about equality between the sexes. Censorship is insatiable.
“It can erode the freedom of expression until there is only one acceptable point of view left. If that were to happen in our society, whose point of view would survive?
“Playboy celebrates sex because sex is one of the good things in life. The freedom to express oneself without fear of censorship is another. Sexual imagery is not a social carcinogen, but censorship is.”
Hefner again continued to say in the same article that Playboy “is far less violent than the average PG-rated movie”!
Censorship is wrong, but when you apply the sexual appetite as perpetuated in Playboy—as in the case of Bill Cosby—Hefner will censor you! If that is not the zenith of stupidity, then nothing is. G. K. Chesterton was right when he declared that the new rebel,
“has no loyalty…and the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.
“For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it…
“As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time.
“A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.
“A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.
“The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
“In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
“Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything, he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
As it turns out, the sexual culture is a chip off the old block: it indirectly got its essentially Masonic principles from the Enlightenment.
Marquis de Sade, of course, would have agreed with the ideological foundation of the pornography industry. Remember what scholars like Dines and Jensen have found, that “physical aggression” and “verbal aggression” against women “occurred in 88 percent of scenes.” And calling women derogatory names in 48 percent of pornographic scenes should not be a laughing matter.
But if moral principles are abandoned and Enlightenment/Masonic ideology is substituted, then women become disposable pleasure machines which can be manipulated at the push of a button. De Sade tells us in his pornographic text Philosophy in the Bedroom:
“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.”
De Sade is not finished:
“A pretty girl ought simply to concern herself with fu$king, and never with engendering. No need to touch at greater length on what pertains to the dull business of population, from now on we shall address ourselves principally, nay, uniquely, to those libertine lecheries whose spirit is in no wise reproductive.”
In the de Sadean world, there are no morals, and you should seek pleasure at the expense of everything and everyone else. If that means contracting AIDS or syphilis or other sexually transmitted diseases—as in the case of Michel Foucault or Friedrich Nietzsche or Gustave Flaubert—so be it.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche in particular captured that Enlightenment principle and added his own twist, calling for a transvaluation of all values—be they sexual, political, or intellectual—at any cost. Nietzsche was not simply positing those sexual claims; he contracted syphilis because of his sexual habits.
In short, sexual liberation and Enlightenment/Masonic doctrine were two sides of the same coin. And if you read de Sade long enough, you will quickly discover that he used the same language that the pornographic industry has been using for years. Listen to de Sade once again,
“Fuck, Eugenie, fu$k away, my dear angel! Your body belongs to you, and to you alone. You are the only person in the world who has the right to enjoy your body and to let anyone you wish enjoy it.”
“to fu$k women in the rear is but the first part of buggery [sodomy]; tis with men Nature wishes men to practice this oddity, and it is specially for men she has given us an inclination….”
De Sade, then, descended into the “fu$k” world—never to return:
“Her anus is tight enough to slice off my finger!…What bliss it would be to fu$k her up the ass right now!
“In whatever state a woman may be, my darling—whether girl, woman, or widow—she must never have any other goal, any other occupation, any other desire than to be fu$ked from dawn till dusk. It’s toward that single end that nature has created her…
“If the husband refuses, then the wife can virtually wear a thicker veil and fu$k tranquilly in its shadow…Ah! She must fu$k, fu$k with impunity!
“How I love to kiss an ass after fu$king it…”
And on and on it goes. If you take the Enlightenment/Masonic principle seriously, the Sadean world is your final destination.
And if you take what the Dreadful Few and their puppets have been saying for the past sixty years in America seriously, you know that you are in a war against an enemy that seeks to destroy the moral fabric of the West. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“The connection between Jews and pornography is like the connection between Jews and Bolshevism. Jews become involved in pornography for the same reason they were involved in Communism, i.e., to save the world…
“Jews also used pornography for cultural warfare and moral subversion. The relationship between Jews and pornography is similar to the relationship between the communist party and the proletariat described by Marx.
“Just as the Jews were the vanguard of revolutionary activity in Russia, so they were the vanguard of sexual revolution in the United States.
“The concept of the chosen people transformed itself into the concept of the revolutionary vanguard as the Talmud dissolved the core of Jewish identity. Messianic politics replaced waiting for the Messiah.”
One cannot fight against this cunning enemy without appealing to the moral order, which is the manifestation of metaphysical Logos and which we Christians view as the sustainer of all life. Jewish pornographer Al Goldstein perhaps had this definition of Logos in mind when he declared,
“The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”
What Goldstein ends up saying is that order sucks. And those who appeal to order must be subverted through pornography.
In that sense, Goldtein makes himself an enemy of the West and indeed an enemy of anyone who upholds the moral order.
The Apostle Paul was right when he declared that the Jews who rejected Christ ended up attacking him and eventually killing him. They also
“have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15).
 Gail Dines and Robert Jensen, “A Pornography Habit Destroys Relationships,” NY Times, November 11, 2012.
 Ruth A. Miller, The Erotics of Corruption: Law, Scandal, and Political Perversion (New York: State University of New York: 2008), vii.
 Diana Scully, Understanding Sexual Violence: A Study of Convicted Rapists (New York: Routledge, 1994), 54.
 Quoted in Adam Boult, “Has Robin Thicke Just Given 2013’s Most Dreadful Interview?,” Guardian, October 25, 2013; Ryan Reed, “Robin Thicke Debuts Racy Single ‘Give It 2 U,’” Rolling Stone, July 3, 2013; “Robin Thicke on ‘Blurred Lines’ Criticism: ‘I Can’t Even Dignify That With a Response,’” Huffington Post, July 9, 2013.
 Pamela Paul, Pornified: How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families (New York: Times Books, 2005), 6.
 Candida Royalle, “Pornography Can Be Good for Consumers,” NY Times, November 11, 2012.
 Ana Bridges, “Some Pornography Scenes Are Wholesome, Others Degrading,” NY Times, November 11, 2012.
 Mirreille Miller-Young, “Pornography Can Be Empowering to Women on Screen,” NY Times, June 10, 2013.
 Chyung Sun, “Pornography Has Become More Hard-Core,” NY Times, November 11, 2012.
 Gail Dines and Robert Jensen, “A Pornography Habit Destroys Relationships,” NY Times, November 11, 2012.
 Hugh Hefner, “Hefner’s Views on Pornography,” LA Times, October 26, 1985.
 Hugh Hefner, “Hefner’s Views on Pornography,” LA Times, October 26, 1985.
 G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), 52-53.
 E. Michael Jones has a great summary of de Sade’s ideas in Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 See for example E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994).
 Marquis de Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir (New York: Penguin, 2006), 35.
 Ibid., 19, 36, 40.
 E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1033.
 Ibid., 1056.