Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had it coming

…by Jonas E. Alexis

No, this is not some tabloid-type article, but since the current Pitt-and-Jolie fiasco has a moral dimension to it, we felt compelled to comment on some of those deep issues.

First of all, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt certainly had it coming. Some have speculated that By the Sea, the movie in which the couple appear to be at the end of their nuptial rope, was probably art imitating life. The movie, we are told, was probably “the last therapeutic gasp for Brangelina…perhaps Brad and Angelina were working through their own problems too.”[1]

Almost a year ago, Jolie denied that By the Sea was autobiographical, but she also admitted that the script for the movie came from “my own crazy mind.”[2]

Whether she is telling the truth or not is not our concern here. The central point is that Pitt and Jolie built most of their lives deconstructing the moral order in their own professional career.[3] But fighting against the moral order, as we shall see, comes with a huge price. As Kant would have put it, there is no alternative to practical reason, which is another word for morality. A person can try to break the moral code, but he will do so at his own peril.

There is no doubt that both Pitt and Jolie tried to circumvent the moral order over the years. According to writer Rhona Mercer:

“After viewing the steamy sex scenes between Jolie and Banderas [in Original Sin], producers decided to cut ten minutes’ worth for fear of their explicit nature putting off potential film-goers.”[4]

Both Jolie and Pitt have taught precious and naïve young people through numerous films[5] that cheating on your spouse is just a harmless enterprise and people who say otherwise are just crazy. But obviously Jolie doesn’t like being cheated. Obviously Jolie is now saying that cheating is wrong and that family really matters. Jolie doesn’t seem to understand that by implicitly saying that family matters then she is ultimately repudiating the sexual revolution.

Jolie “hired a private eye because she felt that he [Pitt] was fooling around with [Marion Cotillard] on the set [of Allied], and it turns out, he was. And that was the final straw… Jolie’s hired help also learned that the perceived family man had been partying like a wild bachelor during filming overseas… The atmosphere [off-set] was full of hard drugs and Russian hookers, and Angie was told Brad got caught up in it. He’s in the throes of some insane midlife crisis, and Angie is fed up.”

International Business Times has reported that Jolie is “prone to think that since she was once Brad’s co-star and seduced him away from his wife [Jennifer Anniston], the same will happen to her.”[6] If the reports are true, then Marion Cotillard is obviously breaking Jolie’s heart. Of course, Cotillard is denying she had something to do with the Pitt-and-Jolie split. Only time will tell.

“She’s exactly the kind of sultry European actress that Angie has always wanted to be and she’s playing exactly the kind of role Angie’s always wanted to play. Adding to the jealousy is the fact that Marion has one thing Angelina hasn’t achieved in her acting career: Oscar for Best Actress.”[7]

Obviously Jolie has to give her fans a reasonable answer to these fundamental question: What’s wrong with partying like a wild bachelor when in fact both Jolie and Pitt have given the impression in numerous films for years that such lifestyle ought to be pursued at any cost? What are Mr. and Mrs. Smith and other voyeuristic and kinky movies all about? Don’t Jolie and Pitt place sexual desire and passion over moral restraint? Doesn’t Jolie use sex to kill and destroy in numerous movies? What was the leather dominatrix outfit all about in Mr. and Mrs. Smith?[8]

More importantly, why is Jolie now appealing to an implicitly traditional view? What, then, was the movie Original Sin about? If “pleasure can never be sinful,” as Jolie’s character asked in Original Sin, then Pitt is doing a great thing by hanging out with hookers. He is just taking Jolie’s position to its logical conclusion.

You see, Jolie, like Ayn Rand before her, is slowly but surely learning that you can’t be really happy if you deliberately deny or dismiss or ridicule the moral universe. Jolie is basically saying that spousal cheating or infidelity cannot be universally accepted and is therefore wrong. Kant would have agreed with Jolie here.

But because her life has been built on a massive lie, Jolie could not see that the moral order would come back and hunt her after years of screwing around in Hollywood. She could not realize that you can’t kill the moral order; you either submit your will to it or be miserable in the end. Even after she began to reach her celebrity status,

“Life was undecidedly unfunny for Angie…After the shoot she experience the typical depression associated with the ending of collegial venture such as making a movie. In Angie’s case, though, it was compounded by her feelings of worthlessness and alienation…contemplating taking her life.

“‘I didn’t want to know if I wanted to live because I just didn’t know what I was living for,’ she later told Rolling Stone. She decided to take sleeping tablets and cut her wrists with one of her knives.

“He didn’t have enough pills, however, and she asked her mother…to mail her more. Then she wrote a note for the hotel’s housekeeping staff asking them to call the police so that no one would have the distress of finding her body…

“At some point, lying on the bed, she came to a conclusion of sorts: ‘You might as well live a lot, really hard, and not give a shit, because you can always walk through that door. So I started to live as if I could die any day.’”[9]

After she got settled in Hollywood and bought her own apartment at the age of nineteen, Jolie still

“felt a profound depression afterward, spiraling into a mood of anger, sadness, and hopelessness. As much as she embraced life, burning faster and running harder than her contemporaries, so did she reject life, as she rejected herself. It was almost as if she didn’t really deserve a home of her own.

“Once she got the keys to the apartment, she found herself sitting on the floor sobbing because she had to pick out a carpet color and didn’t think she would live long enough to see the carpet installed.

“Having a nice home of her own, it turned out, didn’t resolve her inner torment. And now she was truly lost: If a home didn’t provide the feeling of being finally ‘home,’ what would?”[10]

Jolie, who had a long history of drug abuse,[11] admitted that she got involved in sadomasochism, which she said was “good for my image.”[12] The plot thickens. Jolie had to prostate before the Powers That Be so that she could make it big in what Satanist Kenneth Anger would have called “Hollywood Babylon.”[13] She had to sell herself—body and soul—in order to enjoy a lavish lifestyle for a short season. In fact, Jolie’s character in Mrs. Smith confesses that she is “Jewish.”

Biographer Ian Halperin writes that Jolie “was being offered mediocre action movies from people wanting to capitalize on the new image she had created for herself in her huge box-office success Lara Croft: Tomb Raider.”[14]

Even then, she got no respect from her Jewish bosses. She has been called a “minimally talented spoiled brat” with a “rampaging spoiled ego” from “Crazyland” by Jewish producer Scott Rudin (the same guy who produced the disgustingly pornographic filmTeam America). Rudin has more nasty things to say about Jolie: “She’s seriously out of her mind.” And then this:

“She’s a camp event and a celebrity and that’s all, and the last thing anybody needs is to make a giant bomb with her that any fool could see coming.”

Rudin certainly thinks that he owns Goyim like Jolie:

“Rudin forced an employee to tape the definition of ‘anticipate’ above his desk. Another had to make 300 calls in a row, in one day. Rudin once pitched a fit when brought the wrong sushi. He is known for issuing the following declarations:

“‘Don’t ever f–king think — I hired you from the neck down.’ ‘This is a new level of stupid.’ ‘Why doesn’t everyone just do what I say?’ ‘My silence is high praise.’ ‘Do you think you’ll even vaguely perform your duties as my ­employee?’ ‘You have three things to do: answer the phone, listen to me and die.’”

Instead of addressing some of those deep issues, Jolie risibly focused on sexism in Hollywood![15] Perhaps Jolie should have listened to what rapper DMX has said some years ago:

“The industry doesn’t have to do with talent; it’s about playing the game…The industry—money, bitches, hate…The industry is like ‘Wait’! But in the street we’re like, ‘Get them’!

“The industry—if you ain’t got a strong mind—will break you down, [and] it’s a matter of time. The industry vultures with nothing to feast on…The industry plays in the dirt, stays in the dirt—test the wrong one in the industry and you will get hurt.

“The industry wanted, dead or alive, new artists to sell their souls…to survive. The industry don’t give a fu$k about you! But the industry couldn’t make a dime without you!”

The Industry is obviously run by a plethora of Satanists whose essentially Talmudic ideology is to attack or destroy the moral order in the culture. At this point in her life, perhaps it is time for Jolie to take morality seriously, otherwise she will be deconstructing her entire life.

Jolie also needs to at least apologize to the millions of naïve fans and young people around the world who look up to her. She needs to give a serious answer to the following questions: have her movies over the past twenty years or so been able to build families and uplift the human spirit, or have they done the opposite? Would she allow her own children to watch her own movies?

We know for example many actors, actresses and entertainers who refuse to allow their own children see their performances. Bob Odenkirk, Judd Apatow and Leslie Mann, Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green, Jack Black, Kristen Bell and Dax Shepard, Helen Hunt, Julia Roberts, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hugh Jackman and even Madonna, have all made it very clear that they do not let their children watch their work and certain programs on TV. Actor William H. Macy himself declared, “Our issue is that television itself is too powerful. That image is too overwhelming for a little kid.”

Jewish actress Mayim Bialik, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience and who “shows support for ‘Supergirl’ with special work outfit,” has this to say about her own children:

“What really gets people is this: we don’t let our kids watch TV. Oh, the gasps! The jaw-dropping! No TV!? That’s right, no TV. Nothing. Nothing ‘educational.’ No Sesame Street. No videos.  And get this: not even ‘Blossom’ or ‘The Big Bang Theory.’”

What is her actual reason? Again, it gets a little interesting:

“My husband and I prefer to educate our children with books and words that come out of our mouths and our minds. We believe that children under the age of 7 or so don’t need any structured ‘education.’”

Just to make sure that her readers understand why she is very conservative when it comes to educating her own children, she says:

“To sum this all up as bluntly as I can, I don’t like the way kids’ eyes glaze over when they stare at a TV. I don’t like the commercials, I don’t like the ads, I don’t like the fast cuts, and I don’t like the messages I see on kids’ programming.

“I don’t like that kids will keep asking for more TV time than they already have allotted to them, and I don’t like that otherwise reasonable children throw hysterical fits when you tell them that their TV time is up, as if you have removed their beloved doll or… dare I say it… a drug.”

Isn’t that beautiful? She was protecting her kids from being brainwashed but she was making millions brainwashing other people’s kids. If she cannot see that this is a blatant contradiction, then she needs to go back to UCLA and get her money back because she didn’t learn damn thing over there.

In short, the moral order is here to stay. As E. Michael Jones rightly pointed out,

“Those who set out to debunk the moral and spiritual order were in the end debunked by their own lives. Since they choose desire over truth, the explication of their desires debunked their entire intellectual system.”[16]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN1zltBu29E&feature=em-subs_digest

[1] Peter Bradshaw, “Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie: a marriage that started – and ended – on screen,” Guardian, September 21, 2016.

[2] Arlene Washington, “Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Talk “Challenging” ‘By the Sea’: “It’s Not Autobiographical,’” Hollywood Reporter, October 16, 2015.

[3] See for example Andrew Morton, Angelina: An Unauthorized Biography (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2010).

[4] Rhona Mercer, Angelina Jolie: Portrait of a Superstar (London: Blake Publishing, 2009), 81.

[5] See Brian J. Robb, Brad Pitt: The Rise to Stardom (London: Plexus Publishing, 2002), chapter 5.

[6] Maria Vultaggio, “Angelina Jolie-Brad Pitt Divorce Rumors: Angie Is Insanely ‘Jealous’ Of Marion Cotillard, Report Claims,” International Business Times, September 3, 2016.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Jennifer Anniston later suggested that it was actually Mr. and Mrs. Smith that largely contributed to her divorce with Pitt.

[9] Morton, Angelina, 99.

[10] Ibid., 99-100.

[11] See for example Shyam Dodge and Tom Leonard, “Bloodshot hollow eyes, emaciated arms and rambling on the phone: Haunting video of Angelina Jolie the heroin addict,” Daily Mail, July 8, 2014.

[12] Rhona Mercer, Angelina Jolie: Portrait of a Superstar (London: Blake Publishing, 2009), 39-40.

[13] Kenneth Anger, Hollywood Babylon: The Legendary Underground Classic of Hollywood’s Darkest and Best Kept Secrets (New York: Dell Publishing, 1975).

[14] Ian Halperin, Brangelina: The Untold Story of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (Montreal: Transit Publishing, 2009), 192.

[15] Andrew Pulver, “Angelina Jolie Pitt says she was ‘not bothered’ by insults in Sony email hack,” Guardian, November 6, 2015.

[16] E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), 236.

Jonas E. Alexis, Senior Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the book, Kevin MacDonald’s Metaphysical Failure: A Philosophical, Historical, and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and Identity Politics. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read the Latest Posts from Jonas >>>
• Read Jonas’ Archives (2004-2015) >>>