…by Jonas E. Alexis
Whenever fundamental issues are not seen under the umbrella of morality, practical reason, and ultimately metaphysical truth, then contradiction, inconsistency, illogical leaps, and sometimes deliberate lies and fabrications will inevitably ensue.
As a corollary, any movement that purports to be truthful cannot exist for long without practical reason. The Zionist ideology is failing because it lacks that essential element.
It must also be said at the outset that in the real world, moral or metaphysical truth must exist. If it does not, then we have no foundation from which to judge the numerous crimes against humanity that have been committed in the last century alone and prevent future human rights violations.
Moreover, if metaphysical truth does not exist, then there is no point in dialogue precisely because people can come up with their own conclusions and there is no way of adjudicating competing hypotheses. What is true for you may not be true for the person next door, and each hypothesis is just as equally right as its contradictory rival.
That, indeed, is irrational. The job of morality or practical reason is to destroy that kind of irrationality. One can also say that morality is a sort of universal solvent that intellectually makes serious debates interesting and reasonable.
Moral truth must also be objective—bigger than humanity itself. It cannot be based on mere social contract, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau would argue, or on “the community of individuals,” as Bertrand Russell would say, or even on what you and I agree is right. Otherwise moral truth will constantly be redefined to fit the inclinations and ambitions of selfish men and women.
For example, if the laws of thermodynamics are true, then they are true irrespective of what you and I think about them. If mathematical laws are true, then your opinion cannot have any effect on their truthfulness. This is one reason why it is very important to ask the big question: is it true?
More importantly, denying the truth of thermodynamics is an implicit truth claim in and of itself! Let me make it clear here that I am not arguing for an epistemological foundation of truth, but rather for an ontological foundation of truth. In other words, a person doesn’t just wake up one morning and instantly knows the truth. Truth does take effort and a willingness to know.
But in order to examine truth claims, we all need to follow a simple formula known as practical reason. Practical reason is the antithesis of double standard, inconsistency, irrational leaps, and deliberate lies and fabrications.
As a corollary, if you want to know whether a movement has serious moral and intellectual backbone, check to see if its proponents use double standard or any of the things listed above. We will get to Donald Trump and others in a moment, but here is a classic example of what I am talking about here.
For over sixty years, academics and the media have promiscuously and almost universally declared that one should never suppress his or her sexual impulse or appetite. In fact, we were told ad nauseam that suppressing sexual impulses is like having some kind of disease. Way back in 1915, Sigmund Freud said:
“Sexual morality—as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it—seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”
Freud passed that subversive ideology to his devoted disciple Wilhelm Reich, who is arguably the father of the sexual revolution and who wrote a book by the same title. Reich’s ideology has been defended by our academic institutions, and his virus spread far and wide. One of Reich’s victim is Professor Camille Paglia of the University of the Arts. She argues quite extensively that:
“Pornography cannot be separated from art; the two interpenetrate each other, far more than humanistic criticism has admitted. Geoffrey Hartman rightly says, ‘Great art is always flanked by its dark sisters, blasphemy and pornography.”
In a similar vein, Hugh Hefner declared back in 1985:
“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.”
Now here is the kicker: when Bill Cosby got caught with his pants down, the media has universally condemned him for not suppressing his sexual impulse. There is more: some of the women were allegedly raped at Hefner’s own Playboy mansion!
This obvious contradiction is bad enough, but Brittney Cooper, Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University, could not see it. Because she is working with a system that does not allow her to see things the way they really are, Cooper ends up articulating intellectually perverse things, such as the following:
“We are not a society given to slaying our patriarchs, even when they have proved over and over again that they are unworthy of our devotion. Despite increasing acceptance of gay families, the two-parent, heterosexual, nuclear narrative still anchors our notions of proper family. But what does it mean that while these men played progressive, loving family men on television, they potentially and allegedly raped and terrorized women and children in their personal lives?
“It feels particularly egregious, because these men had access to literal scripts that could demonstrate another way to live and relate to women and children. Instead, they have perhaps shown themselves to be so many wolves masquerading as proverbial sheep. Frankly, I think it is high time that these violent crimes begin to cost men something. And that might mean that it has to cost those of us who love them something as well.”
Well, which is it, Cooper? Why are you trying to have it both ways? And what about sluts and whores like Nikki Minaj, Beyonce, Rihanna, Madonna, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, people who have made a career titillating teenagers, men and sometimes children with their provocative videos and performances? Why should they get a free pass? Why can’t you pick up a copy of Euripides’ The Bacchae and find out what happens to the king of Thebes?
There is more to this story than meets the eye and ear. Hefner enunciated his views on sexuality and pornography more than thirty years ago and he never got into trouble for it. But whenever people like Cosby follow the principles which Hefner and ideologues have been propounded over the years, then all hell breaks loose!
“Temple University faculty have voted to condemn Bill Cosby over the sex assault allegations he faces,” but Temple University was deconstructing the moral order and was teaching students how to hate Western Civilization.
That is a contradiction, and this can be really frustrating to a thinking person. If I were Bill Cosby, I would buy a copy of evolutionary biologists Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion and bring it with me every time I am being interviewed. I also would get a copy of evolutionary psychologist David M. Buss’ The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating.
Furthermore, Bill Cosby should have pointed out long ago that the media still hasn’t provided a full frontal attack on people like Alfred Kinsey, the man who sexually molested multiplied hundreds of boys, girls, women and men in the name of “scientific” research.
In short, contradiction ought to make a thinking person angry precisely because it is contrary to practical reason. But how does that work in politics, particularly during this presidential election?
It must be emphasized here that whenever we examine politicians like Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump (I am not including Ted Cruz anymore because he’ll be out soon), we are primarily appealing to practical reason. We are not here to execute politicians. We are simply challenging them to go by the moral law, which is binding, which brings us all to a common denominator, and which makes rational discussion possible.
So, when protesters come out and quickly scream their lungs out saying things like, “Trump is a racist” without sober thought and serious evidence, then you can say that those people are not acting on the basis of practical reason.
Moreover, whenever protesters try to violently stop Trump from speaking to voters, then this is an infallible sign which clearly indicates that “multiculturalism” and “diversity” fail miserably and pathetically. Why would not they respect Trump’s “diversity”? Doesn’t violent reaction show that those protesters believe that only their “truth” matters? Doesn’t that show that they have never believed in diversity?
You see, things get so bad out there that people simply cannot string two rational thoughts together in order to provide a reasonable and defensible critique of some of the leading presidential candidates. For example, David Brooks of the New York Times asserts:
“Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.”
Really? Is Trump worse than George W. Bush? Brooks and the Neoconservative establishment are attacking Trump for the wrong reason. They are not attacking him where he plays double standard. Where, then, does Trump play double standard?
For the past four months or so, Donald Trump has made it very clear that “We need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States while we figure out what the hell is going on.” But when it comes to the issues surrounding the Israel/Palestine conflict, Trump unflinchingly declared that he wants to remain “neutral.”
So, what the hell is going on, Trump? Are you kidding us here? Why couldn’t you remain “neutral” on Muslims entering the United States? You mean to tell us that you want to remain neutral on the country that has caused us more damage than any other entity on the planet?
Did the Muslims created the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria? Why can’t Trump pick up a copy of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy? Are Trump and the Khazarian Mafia in cahoots? Let’s see.
Things has gotten a little interesting because it has been reported that Sheldon Adelson—yes, Adelson—seems to open his arm to embrace or support Trump. We are told that he is ” burnishing Donald Trump’s image in Israel.” Adelson says:
“Trump is a businessman. I am a businessman. He employs a lot of people. I employed 50,000 people. Why not?”
If actions mean something, Adelson has at least three articles in his newspaper Israel Hayom (Israel Today) featuring Donald Trump approvingly. Far from being “neutral,” Trump did an interview for one of those articles saying that winning the presidential bid would be “tremendous news for Israel.” Trump, like Hillary Clinton who has already bowed down to Benjamin Netanyahu, moves on to tell the editor of the Israeli paper:
“Your friend is leading in the primaries. I’ve always been your friend, even at the toughest moments. And that’s not going to change. I love you.”
These actions seem to have an enormously powerful influence on Israelis. “This might be the most surprising poll from a wild, unpredictable 2016 campaign: One in four Israeli Jews would vote for Donald Trump.”
Trump seems to be regurgitating what Adelson was saying about the Palestinians two years ago. Adelson said that “the Palestinians are an invented people.” If Trump shares a platform with Adelson, then you can be sure that both men will also combine forces to politically liquidate the Palestinians and demonize decent Muslims.
Keep also in mind that Adelson is an Israeli agent who works closely with Netanyahu and has been accused of spreading prostitution and gang activity in places like China. As Connie Bruck of the New Yorker himself said back in 2008, Adelson is on a “relentless quest for global influence” and has made China, by 2006,
“the top gambling center in the world, with gaming revenues exceeding $6.9 billion, a quarter of a billion dollars more than those on the Las Vegas Strip. In 2007, revenues climbed to $10.3 billion. That year, Adelson opened the $2.4-billion Venetian Macao—with canals and stripe-shirted gondoliers, as well as an extensive shopping mall and a five-hundred-and-forty-six-thousand-square-foot casino, which is the largest in the world.
“Since the Sands Macao opened, his personal wealth has multiplied more than fourteen times, and, according to the Times, in the two years after his company went public he earned roughly a million dollars an hour.”
Adelson, “who had been a generous donor to AIPAC since the nineties,” said: “In my sixty-three years in business, in over fifty different businesses, I’ve broken the mold and changed the status quo.”
Adelson was called “a Bush Pioneer” because he donated millions of dollars to George W. Bush’s campaign. In return, Bush made every effort to protect and defend the Israeli regime against any criticism. When political prostitute Condoleezza Rice was a little concerned that Israel’s policy could backfire, Adelson went mad.
“Then, as Adelson later told an acquaintance, Bush put one arm around his shoulder and another around that of his wife, Miriam, who was born in Israel, and said to her, ‘You tell your Prime Minister that I need to know what’s right for your people—because at the end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not Condi’s.’”
Bush turned out to be right—his policy, not Condi’s, prevailed. Later, the Zionist of America, “to which Adelson is a major contributor,” put out a headline which specifically said: “SECRETARY RICE: DON’T PROMOTE A STATE FOR PALESTINIANS WHILE THEIR 10 COMMANDMENTS PROMOTE TERRORISM AND ISRAEL’S DESTRUCTION.”
Over the years, Adelson has done everything he could to destabilize any peaceful resolution between Israel and the Palestinian. As already suggested, he and Netanyahu are two sides of the same coin, and we all know that Netanyahu and the Israeli regime, as former executive at the American Jewish Committee David Gordis himself has said, encourage “the worst behaviors rather than the best.”
So, will Donald Trump be the person as so many hope he would be? One can never predict the future, but signs mean anything, then Trump’s supporters need to genuinely ask him serious questions. Doug Bandow has recently written in the Japan Times:
“America is practically bankrupt, yet Israel remains a multibillion dollar dependent. The United States can’t afford to continue subsidizing its well-off friends. And Israel, which spends heavily both to expand state regulation and occupy Palestinian lands, doesn’t need American support.”
If that is true, then Trump has no business flirting with people like Sheldon Adelson and the Israeli regime. If he does, then we can be sure that Trump would probably be another FDR, who promised America that he would never send American boys to die in foreign lands but ended up doing exactly that.
 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
 Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics (New York: Routledge, 2010).
 I have expanded on this notion in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism (Vol. I).
 Quoted in Peter Gay, Freud: A Life of Our Time (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998), 143.
 Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 34.
 Hugh Hefner, “Hefner’s Views on Pornography,” LA Times, October 26, 1985.
 Nancy Dillon, “P.J. Masten, former Playboy bunny, says Bill Cosby raped her and other bunnies, as Judy Huth plans to file LAPD report of her sexual assault claims,” NY Daily News, December 6, 2014.
 Britney Cooper, “We must abandon Bill Cosby: A broken trust with women, black America,” Salon, October 30, 2014.
 “Faculty at Temple University condemns Cosby, urges school to rescind his honorary degree,” Fox News, December 11, 2015.
 See E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), chapter 4.
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
 David M. Buss, The Evolution Of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994).
 See for example Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey—Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme (Crestwood, KY: Institute of Media Education, 1998). We will be interviewing Dr. Reisman in a few days.
 Eliza Collins, “Sheriff Arpaio to police Trump’s Arizona rally,” Politico, March 18, 2016.
 David Brooks, “No, Not Trump, Not Ever,” NY Times, March 18, 2016.
 For recent development, see Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin, “Republican Leaders Map a Strategy to Derail Donald Trump,” NY Times, March 19, 2016.
 Quoted in Ed Pilkington, “’I. Don’t. Care’: Trump brushes off horrified reaction to his Muslim ban,” Guardian, December 8, 2015.
 Jack Moore, “Donald Trump Will Remain ‘Neutral’ on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict If President,” Newsweek, February 18, 2016.
 Jacob Kornbluh, “Adelson signals support for Trump: ‘Why not?,’” Jewish Journal, March 15, 2016; Nate Cohn, “How Donald Trump Can Fall Short of His Delegate Target,” NY Times, March 19, 2016.
 Quoted in Robert Mackey, “Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli Newspaper Has a Crush on Donald Trump,” The Intercept, March 18, 2016.
 Hillary Clinton, “How I Would Reaffirm Unbreakable Bond With Israel — and Benjamin Netanyahu,” Jewish Daily Forward, November 4, 2015; Eric Cortellessa, “Bill Clinton tells Florida Jews Hillary will prioritize Israel ties,” Times of Israel, February 16, 2016.
 Mackey, “Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli Newspaper Has a Crush on Donald Trump,” The Intercept, March 18, 2016
 Gregg Carlstrom, “Why Israel Loves Donald Trump,” Politico, March 20, 2016.
 Quoted in “Adelson: Palestinians an invented people out to destroy Israel,” Times of Israel, November 10, 2014.
 See for example Evan Osnos, “Sheldon Adelson and Macau,” New Yorker, July 3, 2012; “A Former Sands Exec Has Accused Sheldon Adelson Of Personally Approving Prostitution At His Macau Resorts,” Business Insider, July 28, 2012; Sam Ro, “Sheldon Adelson Denies Greenlighting A ‘Prostitution Strategy’ At His Macau Casinos,” Business Insider, July 1, 2012.
 Connie Bruck, “The Brass Ring: A multibillionaire’s relentless quest for global influence,” New Yorker, June 30, 2008.
 Connie Bruck, “Friends of Israel,” New Yorker, September 1, 2014.
 Bruck, “The Brass Ring: A multibillionaire’s relentless quest for global influence,” New Yorker, June 30, 2008.
 Doug Bandow, “U.S. should stop subsidizing bad Israeli policies,” Japan Times, March 2, 2016.