…by Jonas E. Alexis
For over sixty years, the media, academic institutions, and even Hollywood taught that there are no moral standards. Wilhelm Reich, the father of the sexual revolution, put it quite bluntly when he said:
“The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…
“We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!”
Reich’s ideas have been highly praised in academic circles because he attempted to deconstruct practical reason in the cultural firmament. But most people could not see the moral and intellectual consequences of Reich’s ideas.
Keep the following logic in mind: If there are no moral standards, then there are no right and wrong. If there are no right and wrong, then there are no sexual ethics. If there are no sexual ethics, then all sexual mores are on the table. If all sexual mores are on the table, then things like rape and pedophilia are plausible and even permissible. Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean Paul Sartre understood this logic pretty well.
Now here is the funny thing: Catholic priests who were too stupid enough to follow Reich’s wicked ideology to its practical conclusions are now universally and ontologically condemned as perverts by the same people who said that there are no moral standards! If you understand logic, then you are going to be frustrated by these people.
I have just recently watched the movie Spotlight, which is about “the Massachusetts Catholic sex abuse scandal, for which The Globe won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.” Throughout the movie, Hollywood producers and directors give the impression that they stand against sex abuse and child molestation.
Yet the same producers would never tell us the life and time of people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and Brian Singer. Woody Allen, as Rabbi Rabbi Samuel notes, has had
“a ‘persistent fascination’ with incest…He has been in psychoanalysis for over 30 years; his fascination, whether expressed in his writing, or through his seduction of his and Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter is best explained by an analysis of Freud.”
Allen’s life, by definition, has been molded to fit Freud’s philosophy:
“While waiting for Woody to finish a therapy session in January 1992, Farrow received a call from him that took her to the mantel in his apartment where he had placed pornographic photographs of Soon-Yi, Farrow’s adopted daughter.
“Confronted by Farrow, Allen admitted to an affair with Soon-Yi. The conversation vacillated over the range of emotions from Allen saying he was in love with Soon-Yi and wanted to marry her, to admissions of guilt, to claiming it was no big deal.”
Did writers at the Washington Post say that Allen should be prosecuted? Did the Boston Globe write about this? No. On the contrary, the Washington Post quoted Allen praising his marriage with Previn.
The simple fact is that Woody Allen is not a Catholic priest and is therefore excluded from being prosecuted. Even Farrow herself was stunned by how the media protected Allen.
It is the same thing with Bryan Singer. When Singer was asked about whether he is exploring his homosexuality in films such as X Men, he said unapologetically:
“Absolutely. And what better way than in a giant, action, summer event movie! I could think of no better place to spill out one’s own personal problems and foist them onto the world [laughs].”
Roman Polanski is another interesting individual. In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, Samantha Gailey. Polanski asked Gailey’s mother for permission to take photographs of the girl for the French magazine Vogue, and the mother agreed. Then Polanski asked the girl to “change, well, in front of him.” Gailey, who changed her last name to Geimer, remembered,
“It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot…Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there. I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!,’ and then I didn’t know what else to do.
“We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this.”
Geimer testified to her lawyer that Polanski gave her a sedative, and the lawyer declared that “despite her protest, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.”
In his defense, Polanski declared on 60 Minutes,
“The girl is not a child. She is a young woman. She’s had, and she testified to it, previous sexual experience. She wasn’t unschooled in sexual matters. She was consenting and willing. Whatever I did wrong, I think I paid for it.”
Geimer was thirteen years old at the time. Blinded by his lust, Polanski could not figure out right from left. Biographer Thomas Kiernan writes,
“Roman just couldn’t understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He’s screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn…When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting, ‘I love young girls…very young girls.”
Like Sigmund Freud and Woody Allen, who flirted with incest, Polanski views incest as a pleasurable thing, something he inserted into his film Chinatown. Then Polanski lets the cat out of the bag when the interviewer was concerned that most people would view his film “as being very un-American.” In response, Polanski declared that he wanted “to make a Polanski film.”
In other words, to create a Polanski film is to go against the status quo, and to go against the status quo inevitably leads to opposing the moral order. For Polanski this would invariably lead to sexual deviance, which to him is Jewish. Scholar Ewa Mazierska of the University of Central Lancashire declares,
“Polanski’s films reflect his Jewishness and Polishness, as well as testifying to his nomadic character and lifestyle.”
After living abroad for thirty-two years in order to escape charges of rape, Polanski was arrested in 2009. Suddenly the Jewish community in Hollywood went berserk. On this issue, the LA Times was conservative, scolding actors and actresses for standing for Polanski.
Harvey Weinstein, who became famous for producing films such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape and The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover and co-founding Miramax Film, wrote that Polanski’s rape is a
“so-called crime…Now Thierry Frémaux, the director of the Cannes film festival, and I are calling on every US filmmaker to lobby against any move to bring Polanski back to the US, where he could face life in jail.”
When Delia Lloyd of the Washington Post found ou that Geimer was publishing a book detailing what happened to her, Lloyd concluded,
“I’d rather not go there, folks. Polanski himself has clearly moved on. In a bizarre twist to this never-ending conflagration of family values, Polanski is currently filming his next movie starring…his wife.
“My wish for Geimer is that she can move on too. Fair or not, it’s time to put this behind us.”
There is indeed an obvious double standard here. As E. Michael Jones pointed out back in 2014:
“The same media which automatically assumes that every Catholic priest accused of abuse is guilty as charged lets Hollywood celebrities off the hook by insisting that they are innocent until proven guilty.”
Christopher Hitchens is our last person to examine. Decca Aitkenhead of the Guardian wrote in 2010 that
“Hitchens was exuberantly bisexual in his younger days – until his looks ‘declined to the point where only women would go to bed with me’ – and is quite candid on the matter…”
Hitchens himself said: “Every now and then, even though I was by then fixed on the pursuit of young women, a mild and mildly enjoyable relapse would occur and I suppose I can claim this . . . of two young men who became members of Margaret Thatcher’s government.”
We are told that Hitchens “used his charms rather wickedly on men he considered might be vulnerable to them.” Hitchens himself bragged in his own book,
“I find now that I can more or less acquit myself on any charge of having desired Martin carnally. (My looks by then had in any case declined to the point where only women would go to bed with me.)”
But when it came to priests abusing boys, Hitchens took out his knife and was ready to perform surgery on the penises of those priests. And it’s not just priests. Hitchens was after Mother Theresa as well. “Millions of people are much worse off because of her life,” Hitchens wrote, “and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.”
Leaving this aside, let us focus on Hitchens’ literal promiscuousness and see if there is no contradiction. Didn’t Richard Dawkins say that “mild pedophilia” does not cause “lasting harm”? And don’t evolutionary biologists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer tell us that rape and sexual coercion have a biological basis?
You see, we are living in an intolerable world. Evolutionary biologists and so-called free thinkers tell us that there is no such thing as morality and that rape is biological, but when priests act upon that basis, all of a sudden they are wicked people.
Obviously the Church is facing a crisis, and Jesuit priests like John Courtney Murray were responsible for this. Driven by lust, they allowed the C.I.A. and subversive people like the Rockefellers to tamper with the Church’s teachings and then destroyed the Church’s position in the culture wars.
Let’s get this straight: law enforcement ought to indict every priest who has ever been involved in pedophilia. But is law enforcement going to follow up on that? Are they going after Wilhelm Reich and his followers, who literally persuaded priests that it was all right to molest kids? Are they going after Bryan Singer, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski?
Will they censor Hollywood directors like David Cronenberg and Eli Roth for producing pornography in the name of democracy and freedom? If we have to “nail these scumbags [priests],” as the movie Spotlight tells us, what about Hollywood scumbags? Who’s going to nail them?
If we have to “show everyone that nobody can get away with” abusing children, “not a priest or a freaking pope,” will we ever see a movie about pedophilia in Hollywood? Don’t forget the words of former actor Corey Feldman:
“I can tell you the number one problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That’s the biggest problem for children in this industry…I was surrounded by them when I was fourteen years old…[They were] like vultures… It’s the big secret…There was a circle of older men that surrounded themselves around these groups of kids…
“There are people in this industry who have gotten away with it for so long that they feel they are above the law. And that’s got to change.”
“On the 1986 set of Lucas, Corey Haim told Feldman that ‘an adult male convinced him that it was perfectly normal for older men and younger boys in the business to have sexual relations, that it was what all the guys do. So they walked off to a secluded area between two trailers … and Haim allowed himself to be sodomized.’
“Feldman went on to suffer abuse himself, specifically by a man named ‘Ron,’ whom his father hired as his assistant. Ron allegedly took advantage of him after turning him onto drugs.
“‘Corey was raped at the age of 11,’ Feldman writes, via the New York Daily News, ‘and like many, many victims, drug use became an easy, if also tragic, way for him to escape the weight of that shame.’”
Before he committed suicide, Corey Haim called these people “vampires.” After his death, Feldman concluded, “In this entertainment industry, in Hollywood, we build people up as children, we put them on pedestals, and then, when we decide they’re not marketable anymore, we walk away from them.”
One can say almost the same thing about Spotlight. They titillate priests and nuns and theoretically tell them that it is fulfilling to abuse children. But when those same priests and nuns follow that logic, we want to put them all behind bars.
If these people cannot see the moral perversity of this worldview, then we cannot help them. They are free to scream their lungs out every single day, but we have no obligation to pay attention to them because they cannot reason.
 Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (New York: Doubelday, 1971), 53.
 I would love to be engaged in a written debate with some of these people, where arguments and counter-arguments are presented and refuted. I challenge them to do so.
 Cited in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 997.
 Ibid., 1008-1009.
 Soraya Nadia McDonald, “Woody Allen says his wife, Soon-Yi Previn, ‘responded to someone paternal,’” Washington Post, July 30, 2015.
 “Woody Allen Responds to Dylan Farrow Abuse Claim,” Hollywood Reporter, February 2, 2014.
 Stephen Applebaum, “Interview: Brian Singer,” BBC, July 2006.
 Kate Harding, “Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child,” Salon, September 28, 2009.
 “Lawyer: Polanski will Fight for Extradition to the USA,” USA Today, September 27, 2009.
 Christopher Sandford, Polanski: A Biography (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 269.
 Sandford, Polanski, 245.
 Paul Cronin, Roman Polanski: Interviews (Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 2005), 61-62.
 Ibid., 62.
 Mazierska, Roman Polanski, 15.
 John Horn and Tina Daunt, “In Roman Polanski Case, Is it Hollywood vs. Middle America?,” LA Times, October 1, 2009.
 “Harvey Weinstein: Polanski has served his time and must be freed,” Independent, September 29, 2009.
 E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.
 Decca Aitkenhead, “Christopher Hitchens: ‘I was right and they were wrong,’” Guardian, May 22, 2010.
 Quoted in Geoffrey Levy, “So who WERE the two Tory ministers who had gay flings with Christopher Hitchens at Oxford?,” Daily Mail, March 6, 2010.
 Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir (New York: Atlantic Books, 2010), 157.
 Quoted in Alister McGrath, Why God Won’t Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism (London: SPCK, 2011), 25.
 Katie McDonough, “Richard Dawkins defends ‘mild pedophilia,’ says it does not cause ‘lasting harm,’” Salon, September 11, 2013; Trevor Grundy, “Richard Dawkins Pedophilia Remarks Provoke Outrage,” Huffington Post, November 9, 2013.
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
 For a recent study on this, see David A. Wemhoff, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the C.I.A.’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2015); see also E. Michael Jones, Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2009); Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2000).
Cavan Sieczkowski, “Corey Feldman’s ‘Coreyography’ Details Sexual Abuse He, Corey Haim Faced,” Huffington Post, October 22, 2013.
 Quoted Christina Everett, “Corey Feldman on ‘Larry King Live’: I’m ‘angry’ at Hollywood for turning its back on Corey Haim,” NY Daily News, March 11, 2010.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on February 12, 2016, With 3706 Reads Filed under Investigations, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.