Torture Porn and Moral Reasoning (Part III)

0
254

“The philosopher sates his appetites without inquiring to know what his enjoyments may cost others, and without remorse.” Marquis de Sade

 

by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Jewish writer David Edelstein tells us that it was Eli Roth who introduced “torture porn” to fans everywhere. Why? Because Roth wants to make his viewers comfortable with brutal sexual acts in films such as Hostel.[1]

Torture porn, indeed, is congruent with Roth’s essentially Talmudic worldview, which he fleshed out in 2013. Roth declared that his work seeks to “fu$k an entire generation.”[2]

There is just one problem here: what if “an entire generation” does not want to be “fu$ked”? What if they resist Roth’s pornification?

Well, you know the drill by now: you will be labeled an anti-Semite. In fact, the Dreadful Few tell us that the people who challenged the pornification of the American culture at the dawn of the twentieth century were all anti-Semites.

And if you are not explicitly labeled an anti-Semite, then you are sick. Listen to Jewish writer Howard Jacobson very carefully in his article “In Praise of Perversion”:

Whenever I encounter a man who says he has never visited a prostitute, either because the thought appalls him or, as is more commonly asserted, because he doesn’t need to pay for sex, thank you very much, I believe that he is lying, or, worse, that he is a fool….”[3]

So, Jonas E. Alexis is a fool because he has never visited a prostitute. Most of you, readers, are all fools because you think that prostitution is morally repugnant. Do you see how people like Jacobson drown themselves in the lake of their own Talmudic mumbo jumbo? And do you see why those people are responsible for anti-Jewish reactions? 


 Historically, torture porn has been around long before Roth came on the scene. We know that David Cronenberg has been in the business since the 1970s. And we know that French-Jewish filmmaker Gaspar Noe has already gotten into the game.

In describing Noe’s Irreversible, in which the director “delivers a nine-minute anal rape,” Edelstein had some interesting thing to say after seeing the first two minutes of the rape:

“I stared at the EXIT sign, then closed my eyes, plugged my ears, and chanted an old mantra. I didn’t understand why I had to be tortured, too. I didn’t want to identify with the victim or the victimizer.”[4]

Edelstein did not have enough guts to watch the entire nine-minute scene because his moral duty tells him that something is wrong with the picture.

This goes back to the essence of what we have been saying in the past articles: morality dictates that pornography degrades women, is against nature, and is one of the potent forms of control. As E. Michael Jones rightly puts it,

“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 places and force…means the sexual exploitation of women.

“As Sade makes perfectly clear, the innor 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….

“In its nascent and crudest form, [sexual liberation] is male control women. Since women according to this view are essentially appliances who get neutered to prevent unwanted offspring from diminishing sexual pleasure, sexual liberation is also essentially masturbatory.”[5]

Pornography is worse than chattel slavery because in America in particular it is celebrated in the name of “freedom.” But this form of “freedom” is pseudonym for corruption and wickedness. And no one is free when he is corrupt. As Augustine articulated thousands of years ago:

“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

If we apply Augustine’s principle to our modern age, then the Dreadful Few must be slaves, though they reign as kings. And those who resist them and uphold the moral law all the way are free men and women.

The sad part is that the Dreadful Few have spent years convincing much of the world, including some Goyim, that abiding by the principles of corruption and wickedness is freedom.


 libidoThe Dreadful Few have already changed the name of the political game: what is morally corrupt is freedom and what is freedom is morally corrupt. But deep inside they that pornography is related to sexual death. Listen to Howard Jacobson once again:

“In its written form, pornography’s only convincing conclusion is death, for ecstasy without restraint wants nothing less…Either way, pornography is a trance, demeaning all parties to it, those looked at and those looking, locking them into a perpetuity of shame…

“In its ominous nothingness, pornography familiarizes us with humiliation and humiliation with despair and loss.”[6]

The Dreadful Few, as we have already seen, overwhelmingly changed the rules with respect to pornography in the United States in the name of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.[7] They also have done this through covert means and through the cinema. To cite again Nathan Abrams:

“[O]lder generation of Jewish filmmakers and actors, here [Woody] Allen, [Stanley] Kubrick and [Ron] Jeremy, arguably not only increased the Jewishness of their work, but updated it to match the new post-1990 sensibility by defining it in increasingly sexualized (and pornographic) terms.”[8]

Jewish scholar Joshua Lambert added that they have used pornography and most specifically obscenity “to fight anti-Semitism, while others use it to rewrite traditional stories in a contemporary idiom.”[9]

What is equally worse is that you pay the Dreadful and their puppet Goyim to be pornified. And once you become desensitized, you begin to rationalize the pornographic image or behavior, and once that’s done, the Dreadful Few got you exactly where they wanted.

What is even more stunning is that once you stand up against this psychological machination, you magically have become an Anti-Semite!

And here we come to a central point: the word anti-Semitism is fraught with political maneuvering. There are some Goyim who indeed believe that Jewish behavior is genetic.

This view is morally and intellectually perverse and a serious person with an ounce of brain cells knocking together should flee from it at the earliest opportunity.

First of all, the view simply does not have enough metaphysical force to give a rational explanation for the first century Jews who later became Christians and who ended up being persecuted by “the Jews” themselves. And if Jewish behavior is genetic, then people like Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Norman Finkelstein, Brother Nathanael Kapner, Roy Tov, to name just a few, are all lying about challenging the Jewish universe! Is that the road the genetic theorists would want to tread on?

A few months ago, I had this heated discussion with an individual who previously believed this strange theory is correct. After he realized that his own theory got him into trouble, he suddenly declared that Jesus and his disciples and even Paul were not Jews in the ethnic sense, despite the fact that they all made specific references to this issue!

What was so laughable was that the same person was an ardent proponent of Darwinian metaphysics, which at its core advances the idea of survival of the fittest.

If Darwin was right, then Darwinists should be glad that the Dreadful Few are trampling on the Goyim to survive. In fact, the idea that “Jewish behavior is genetic” is inescapably compatible with Darwinism.

The Talmudic text makes a clear distinction between the Goyim and the “Chosen People.” And Darwin did almost the same thing when he makes an explicit distinction between “higher” and “lower animals.” Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: Or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”[10]

Darwin insisted that “There is a grandeur in this view of life,”[11] which is an implicit and indirect way of saying that death, famine, suffering, and even misery are great ways to get ahead—for the “higher” animals, and Darwin explicitly fleshed this out.

So, those who think that Jewish behavior is genetic and who at the same time take Darwin seriously must consistently agree with the Dreadful Few that the Iraq war was good. They must consistently agree that the Goyim are donkeys and slaves and shiksas should always be ready to serve their masters, as the famous Rabbi Ovadia Yosef perversely postulated. To repeat the words of the good rabbi again:

Goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.

 “Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created. [An ‘effendi’ is a lord, or a master, in Arabic].”[12]

Those genetic theorists must also consistently agree that the Syrian rebels/terrorists, who slaughtered more than 300 civilians and who were largely responsible for more than 900 civilian deaths this year, are not only “moderate” but “the good guys” precisely because they faithfully serve the Dreadful Few.

Finally, when the Dreadful Few impose the draconian speech code on America—such as “Rule 1: Talk About Anything Political in Hollywood…Except Gaza”[13]—then consistent Darwinists should applaud it.

If life is about a struggle for existence based on the most “exalted” animals and, more precisely, on eugenics, who are we to say that we are better than the Dreadful Few? Aren’t we told ad nauseam by people like Charles Murray and others that the Dreadful Few have the highest IQ and that there is something called “Jewish Genius”?[14]

Didn’t Francis Galton (Darwin’s contemporary and cousin) suggest that this is how we can detect “hereditary genius”?[15] Based on that principle, why shouldn’t the Dreadful Few suppress us in their quest for survival? Why should we not be at their mercy?

If “survival of the fittest” does not lead to “survival of the nastiest,” as G. K. Chesterton aptly put it[16] and as the history of Social Darwinism has clearly shown,[17] then nothing does.

Darwin again wrote,

“We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skills to save the life of every one to the last moment…

“[If we] do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world.”[18]

Most British intellectuals during that time agreed with Darwin and followed that ideological fashion to its conclusions. Darwin, of course, did not know that he was laying down ideological principles upon which the Dreadful Few could use to support their Talmudic premises.

In that sense, Darwinian metaphysics lacks moral and philosophical backbone to challenge the “Jewish question.” Of course, some Darwinists say some true things here and there, as a good panhandler will most probably find at least one gold in a river of mud.

But those people cannot follow their own metaphysical claims to their conclusions. Onereason why a number of Jewish radicals find Darwinism compelling because they think it is compatible with their revolutionary ideas.

One person who understands this Darwinian principle somewhat indirectly is David Cronenberg, the man who has literally pornified movie audiences everywhere. In fact, Cronenberg hired porn stars like Marilyn Chambers for films such as Rabid (1976).[19]

“Cronenberg,” one writer declared, “has shown interest in the structures and stylistic tropes of pornography over many years.”[20] The writer continued to say,

“Cronenberg’s breakthrough into mainstream cinema was achieved ‘through the taboo orifices of the horror and soft-core porn genres’ due to ‘having failed an audition as a porno director for Canadian skin-flicks company Cinepix.’

“In an interview with Cronenberg, Susie Bright jokes that ‘maybe in your dotage we could corral you into making just an unabashed cock and cunt porn film,’ to which he answers in a manner which makes it unclear whether he is being serious or not: ‘Well, I like watching those myself…’”[21]

Cronenberg’s films suggest that he is not joking here. In fact, critics have already pinned movies like Videodrome as pornography in plain language.

Cronenberg said unequivocally, “I’m a complete Darwinian.” One reviewer declared that Cronenberg’s A History of Violence “is in many ways about the survival of the fittest—at all cost.”[22]

A History of Violence, the review continued is congruent with the “the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope.”[23]

 

Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future is also based on “a variant of Darwin’s evolutionary theory that argued that evolutionary processes could also include sudden leaps and changes, such as Rouge’s Malady’s extermination of women.”[24]

The bottom line is that the genetic theorists need to be responsible for their spurious ideas. They simply cannot have it both ways—they cannot make metaphysical claims about morality and Jewish behavior, but shy away from the moral and metaphysical implications of those claims.

If they do, they will either be living in contradiction or be borrowing principles from moral order which they cannot establish from a Darwinian standpoint.

I have patiently been waiting for a serious person to explain those phenomena to me from a rational viewpoint for at least four years, and it has been a complete disappointment.


[1] David Edelstein, “Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn,” NY Magazine, January 28, 2006.

[2] “Netflix series Hemlock Grove: ‘People want their horror horrific,’ says Eli Roth,” Guardian, April 10, 2013;

[3]  Howard Jacobson, “In Praise of perversion,”The Independent, September 17, 2008.

[4] Edelstein, “Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn,” NY Magazine, January 28, 2006.

[5] E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2000), 26.

[6] Howard Jacobson, “In Praise of perversion,”The Independent, September 17, 2008.

[7] Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2013), 6-7, 8.

[8] Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012), 72.

[9] Josh Lambert, “‘Dirty Jews’ and the Christian Right,” Haaretz, March 2, 2014.

[10] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (New York: Bantam Book, 2008), 478.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Quoted in Dan Murphy, “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, In His Own Words,” Christian Science Monitor, October 7, 2013.

[13] Tina Daunt, “Rule 1: Talk About Anything Political in Hollywood … Except Gaza,” Hollywood Reporter, July 23, 2014.

[14] Charles Murray, “Jewish Genius,” Commentary, April 1, 2007.

[15] Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into the Laws and Consequences (New York: Prometheus Books, 2006).

[16] G. K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils (London: Cassell, 1922), 54.

[17] See for example Peter Dickens, Social Darwinism: Linking Evolutionary Thought to Social Theory (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2000); Edward J. Larson, Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); Richard A. Soloway, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990); Peter Watson, The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century (New York: Harper Perennial, 2002); Ian Robert Dowbigin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1997); Robert C. Bannister, Social Darwinism: Science and the Myth of Anglo-American Social Thought (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979).

[18] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 159.

[19] Mark Browning, David Cronenberg: Author or Filmmaker? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 58.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Roger Ebert, “Review of ‘A History of Violence,’” Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 23, 2005.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ernest Mathijs, The Cinema of David Cronenberg: From Baron of Blood to Cultural Hero (London: Wallflower Press, 2008), 24.


EDITORIAL DISCLOSURE
All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy