…by Jonas E. Alexis
If you were trained in logic, then you will observe that the sex culture is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies. In fact, if you keep counting the logical contradictions that exist in the sex culture, it would almost certainly take you months and perhaps years to unravel them all.
We have heard of rape charges over the past few weeks in the political landscape. “Grab them by the pussy” is now fashionable. Of course, the sex culture and much of the Zionist Media quickly capitalized on this oft-repeated phraseology. Once again, we are in no way condoning Trump’s vile and disgusting statement.
But perhaps it is high time that the sex culture tries to be honest and look at their own moguls with a straight face. Actress Rose McGowan has just come out and declared that she was raped by a studio head in Hollywood. But instead of standing up for her, the media, she said, shamed her “while adulating my rapist.”
The million-dollar question is this: why does the media continue to ignore Hollywood perverts who never cease to grab women and even teenagers “by the pussy”? Didn’t actor Elijah Wood declare that Hollywood is infested with pedophiles and vipers? Didn’t actor Corey Feldman say that “the number one problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia”? Didn’t he say that he was “surrounded by them”? Didn’t he call them “vultures”? Who has been going after people like Roman Polanski?
Well, obviously no one.
After twenty-five years of working in the entertainment industry, McGowan warns actresses like her:
“To the men and women in the entertainment industry who know exactly whom and what I am talking about, Do not work with those you know to be offenders or you are no better than they. Take a stand. You are culpable for your actions. Stop rewarding sociopaths. How many more stories do you have to hear before you do the right thing and stop rewarding men that are predators? Why are you so cowardly that you would take the softer, easier way out?
“I can tell you this, your soul is a blighted one if you do so. Your personal legacy, the very fabric of your being, is at stake, so fight for it. I know you have it in you to be better. I know you have it in you to break free from the bonds of secrecy. So do it.”
I am in complete agreement with McGowan here. But we shouldn’t let her off the hook that easily. Why?
Well, she spent twenty-five years in the industry prostrating before the Powers That Be, saturating the culture and naïve young people with sex, and explicitly telling fans everywhere to be sexually emancipated. Didn’t she play a slut in films such as Devil in the Flesh (directed by Steve Cohen)? And how about dressing like a whore?
In order for McGowan to sexually liberate herself, she had to abandon the moral order and embrace an implicitly incoherent system, which always brings people like her sorrow and suffering at the end. Sinéad O’Connor found that out a long time ago.
When Miley Cyrus was prostrating before the Powers That Be for money, sex and power, O’Connor did not hesitate to tell the former Hannah Montana star:
“Nothing but harm will come in the long run, from allowing yourself to be exploited, and it is absolutely NOT in ANY way an empowerment of yourself or any other young women, for you to send across the message that you are to be valued (even by you) more for your sexual appeal than your obvious talent.
“The music business doesn’t give a shit about you, or any of us. They will prostitute you for all you are worth, and cleverly make you think its what YOU wanted … and when you end up in rehab as a result of being prostituted, ‘they’ will be sunning themselves on their yachts in Antigua, which they bought by selling your body and you will find yourself very alone.
“None of the men ogling you give a shit about you either, do not be fooled. Many’s the woman mistook lust for love. If they want you sexually that doesn’t mean they give a fuck about you. All the more true when you unwittingly give the impression you don’t give much of a fuck about yourself.
“And when you employ people who give the impression they don’t give much of a fuck about you either. No one who cares about you could support your being pimped … and that includes you yourself.”
O’Connor herself has been inconsistent. She was the lady who sang “I will live by my own policy” in songs like The Emperor’s New Clothes. Obviously if everyone lives by his or her own policies, then there is no need for objective morality. And if there is no need for objective morality, then things like rape and child abuse are acceptable because there is no way of adjudicating two opposite and competing worldviews or systems.
For example, O’Connor, like I do, believes that rape is morally wrong at all time and places. Hollywood moguls obviously believe the opposite, otherwise they would have arrested people like Bryan Singer and Roman Polanski.
How would O’Connor go about convincing those people that it is morally wrong to rape when in fact they want to live by their own policies? Wouldn’t it be presumptuous of O’Connor to impose her worldview upon those people?
So, we have a serious moral problem here. Does McGowan mean to tell us that she wants to deliberately titillate men in the industry or emancipate them from morality and expect them to keep their sexual impulses out of the equation? Doesn’t she know what happened to Pentheus in Euripides’ The Bacchae? Doesn’t she know that constant sexual titillation has the potential to drive men toward the edge?
You see, McGowan just shows that people simply cannot rule out morality (or practical reason) without coming face to face with intellectual chaos or suicide. In fact, those who reject objective morality like Richard Dawkins (ideologically) and Ayn Rand (sexually) always go back to pick it up because the absence of morality always renders their worldview philosophically incoherent and therefore worthless. Thinkers like Immanuel Kant knew long ago that life is obviously impossible without practical reason. This is why Kant himself formulated the categorical imperative, which states:
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
This universal law is independent of our appetite or preference, and some have argued that Kant’s epistemological point here is a philosophical and abstract reworking of the Golden Rule, which simply states: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
So, the categorical imperative and the Golden Rule are two sides of the same coin. They are both attempting to establish a universal principle which would bind every human being. Moreover, human beings did not make this universal principle; we just happen to discover it.
Kant even makes this universal law interesting by attaching it to duty, which logically negates (but not eliminates) personal desires or preferences when dealing with ethical issues. In other words, we just don’t become moral for moral’s sake, but we are moral because it is our duty as human beings.
As a corollary, to be rational is to be moral, and to be moral is to live by principles which forbids and condemns contradictions. In other words, to be moral is to be logically consistent. But because human beings have free will, they can also choose to become irrational and therefore inconsistent.
There are several metaphysical principles which inevitably flow from these deductions, but we will develop them in a future article. But let us just say in passing that Kant here destroys the Neo-Darwinian principle, which argues that man is just matter and chemistry. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick dogmatically asserts in his book The Astonishing Hypothesis:
“The Astonishing Hypothesis is that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
Richard Dawkins makes the same assumption when he argues that the universe is “just electrons and selfish genes,” therefore “meaningless tragedies…are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune.”
Daniel Dennett agrees. Human beings, he says, “are made of mindless robots and nothing else, no non-physical, non-robotic ingredients at all.”
Robots, by definition, do not have consciences and do not act as free agents. External entities always tell them what to do and they act on those orders. Again jumping off his premise that we are all robotic machines rather than free agents, Dennett argues that consciousness itself is an illusion.
Kant would have almost certainly chastised Dawkins and Dennett for stripping human beings of his metaphysical nature. And this was one reason why Darwin himself struggled mightily to understand the role of morality in his incoherent system. In the end, he could make neither heads nor tails of morality. In other words, Darwin failed, and Kant prevailed.
To go back to Kant’s point, the moral or universal law is what binds us all together as rational creatures. We as humans are able to discuss moral or ethical issues because there is a moral law within us all. As Kant moves on to say elsewhere:
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more oftener and the more steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”
The moment a person or groups violate that moral law, then they will inexorably become irrational. As a corollary, any system that seeks to dismiss that moral law must be wrong precisely because it would lack metaphysical grounds. In that sense, that system will inevitably be incoherent and therefore worthless. And here again the Darwinian system fails miserably.
Kant continues to say that for an action to be good, “it is not enough that it should conform to the moral law—it must also be done for the sake of the moral law.”
In short, if actors and actresses deliberately violate the moral law through their acts, then they must be willing to pay the consequences, which may result in moral death, psychological and spiritual pain and suffering. By violating the moral law, they must also admit that they have become irrational people.
In any event, McGowan should have learned that you cannot violate the moral law through films and then prostrate before the Powers That Be without paying a huge price. The Powers That Be, or the Khazarian Mafia, never abide by moral rules and principles. This is one reason why they have single-handedly deconstructed virtually every moral or legal code in America and Hollywood.
McGowan should also have paid close attention to rapper DMX, who said:
“The industry doesn’t have [anything] 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 play in the dirt, stay 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 fuck about you! But the industry couldn’t make a dime without you!”
Though McGowan may have never heard of those words before, she probably would have understood them because she herself admitted when the Rolling Stone featured her and Rosario Dawson with literally no clothes on (except an ammo belt around their hips):
“It’s always part and parcel of it, you’re expected as a woman, this is what you trade off of, this is how you sell tickets to the movies, this is your part of it. Your job as a promoter is this: They’re not sticking a guy on the cover doing it, unless it’s like Seth Rogen doing a joke.
“So as a woman I’m expected to sell myself, my body, my image, my sexuality, in order to get your ticket sales up. It’s kind of fucked up. And it’s like, wait, I wasn’t aware that when I signed on to act, I had to sell myself that much.”
If McGowan and other Hollywood celebrities want to make their voice heard, they have to renounce their allegiance to the Khazarian Mafia in the industry and start taking morality seriously. Until then, they cannot be taken seriously. And if late director Samuel Fuller was right in saying that “Film is a battleground,” which side are people like McGowan on?
 We simply can’t show the picture here. But people can look it up online. Rose McGowan, “The Red Carpet Can Be Like ‘Visual Rape,’” Hollywood Reporter, September 16, 2016.
 Sinéad O’Connor, “Sinéad O’Connor’s open letter to Miley Cyrus,” Guardian, October 3, 2013.
 See for example Gail Dines, Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality (Boston: Beacon Press, 2010); William M. Struthers, Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2009); Melinda Tankard Reist and Abigail Bray, eds., Big Porn Inc: Exposing the Harms of the Global Pornography Industry (North Melbourne: Spinifex Press, 2011). For a cultural history on similar issues, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 Emmanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1959), 39.
 See James Miller, Examined Lives: From Socrates to Nietzsche (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2011), 274-276.
 Francis Crick, The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 3.
 Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 132.
 Daniel Dennett, Freedom Evolves (New York: Penguin, 2003), 2-3.
 Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained (New York: Little, Brown, 1991).
 Emmanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (New York: Classic Books International, 2010), 163.
 Emmanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Torchbooks, 1964), 390.
 See for example Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012).
 Quoted in Rainer Werner Fassbinder, The Anarchy of the Imagination: Interviews, Essays, Notes (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 77
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on October 20, 2016, With 9216 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.