The Oliver Stone interview
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Putin has just killed the ideology that undergirds the New World Order with respect to family values once again. It just couldn’t get any better:
“As head of state today, I believe it’s my duty to uphold traditional values and family values. But why? Because same-sex marriages will not produce any children. God has decided, and we have to care about birth rates in our country. We have to reinforce families. That doesn’t mean that there should be any persecutions against anyone.”
So much for Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Aleister Crowley, Timothy Leary, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Eve Ensler, Rosa Luxemburg, Andrea Bronfman, and other theoreticians who saw family values as a threat to civilization. Notice that Putin’s proposition has two parts: 1) no one has the right to attack family values and 2) no one has the right to persecute people because of their sexual orientation.
This is actually a modus vivendi, and it is perfectly congruent with practical reason. The sad thing is that we had a plethora of theoreticians at the dawn of the twentieth century who hated practical reason. They did not want to subordinate their desire or appetite to the moral order, therefore they came up with a number of rationalizations to justify their misbehavior.
More importantly, those theoreticians desperately tried to impose their essentially wicked worldview upon the majority of people around the world. Those theoreticians deliberately ignored the fact that there is a moral, philosophical, scientific, ethical, and esthetic order.
One particular theoretician who metaphysically ignored that order at the dawn of the French Revolution was Marquis de Sade, a revolutionary philosopher and decadent writer who turned sexuality upside down. In Philosophy in the Bedroom, Sade was essentially setting the stage for people like Freud and Wilhelm Reich when he stated:
“Fuck, Eugenie, fu$k away, my dear angel! Your body belongs to you, and to you alone. You are the only person in the world who has the right to enjoy your body and to let anyone you wish enjoy it.”
“To fu$k women in the rear is but the first part of buggery [sodomy]; tis with men Nature wishes men to practice this oddity, and it is specially for men she has given us an inclination….
“We are born to fu$k, because by fu$king we obey and fulfill Nature’s ordinations, and because all man-made laws which would contravene Nature’s are made for naught but our contempt.”
Here and elsewhere, Sade was following the logical outworking of the Enlightenment philosophy, which, like feminism, promised freedom on the surface but delivered moral and intellectual bondage. If morality does not exist, as Darwin and others would later postulate, who is to say that Sade is wrong? If man is just a machine and nothing more, as Enlightenment writers like d’Holbach and Helvitius argued, who is to say that rape is wrong, or that sexually abusing or torturing children are repugnant? Sade again declared:
“What is man? And what difference is there between him and other plants, between him and all the other animals of the world? None, obviously.”
Since there is no real difference between man and plants—or even worms for that matter—Sade proceeded to cross the ideological Rubicon, never to return to sanity. “Women are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness,” he said. As a metaphysical principle, “Voluptuaries of all ages and sexes” must “listen solely” to the “delicious passions” which guide them, and that “their source is the only one that will lead to happiness.”
Camille Paglia stated that Sade actually changed Mother Nature: “Rousseau revives the Great Mother, but Sade restores her true ferocity. She is Darwin’s nature, red in tooth and claw.”
Building his work on the Greek mythology known as the Oedipus complex, Freud universally postulated that:
“[Oedipus’s] fate moves us only because it might have been our own, because the oracle laid upon us before our birth the very curse which rested upon him. It may be that we were all destined to direct our first sexual impulses toward our mothers, and our first impulses of hatred and violence toward our fathers; our dreams convince us that we were.
“King Oedipus, who slew his father Laius and wedded his mother Jocasta, is nothing more or less than a wish-fulfillment—the fulfillment of the wish or our childhood.”
In other words, a boy has no other choice but to have sexual desires toward his mother and hatred toward his father. A girl has no other choice but to have sexual desires toward her father and hatred toward her mother.
E. Michael Jones argues that here Freud was projecting his own sexual liberation upon mankind, as he had a love affair with his sister-in-law. On his voyage to America, Freud was confronted with this fact by Carl Jung and immediately Freud ended the discussion. “I cannot risk my authority,” he said. Jung took that as an admission that Freud “was placing personal authority above truth.”
Louis Breger of California Institute of Technology writes that Freud used the Oedipal theory “to account for his own neurosis as well as everyone else’s.”
One individual who took Freud’s ideology and spread it across the political spectrum was none other than Wilhelm Reich. He postulated in his book The Sexual Revolution: “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!”
Well, Putin has actually challenged all those diabolical principles by appealing to the moral order to make his case. Looking at basic biology, he correctly deduces that in order for the next generation to survive, the government must maintain or even encourage “traditional values and family values…We have to care about birth rates in our country. We have to reinforce families.”
If “same-sex marriages will not produce any children,” then it is perfectly logical to enhance family values, which ought to be one of the jobs of the state as well. Obviously this is one reason why New World Order agents hate Vladimir Putin.
 Marquis de Sade, Philosophy in the Boudoir (New York: Penguin, 2006), 35, 105.
 For an excellent treatise on these issues, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Augustine’s Press, 2000).
 Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 235.
 Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams (New York: Basic Books, 2010), 171.
 E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 114-115.
 Ibid., 115.
 Louis Breger, A Dream of Undying Fame: How Freud Betrayed His Mentor and Invented Psychoanalysis (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 95.
 Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Regulating Character Structure (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1945 and 1974), 54.