Why Feminism and the New World Order Fail

Why Feminism and the New World Order Fail

Jonas Alexis

Warning: Sensitive Material 

What we are seeing here is that the Enlightenment has failed. The sexual revolution has also failed. The solution? A return to the moral order and practical reason. It’s the only hope for Hollywood and even the feminists who are supposedly mad and sad about what happened to the women who got raped by Weinstein and others.



Big Bang Theory actress Mayim Bialik confirms what we have been saying for the past two years or so: if ladies start to dress modestly, if they start to apply morality and simple precautions, they will make it more difficult for men to be titillated or aroused, which is another way of saying that rape and titillation do have a common denominator.
Bialik began her New York Times article which was published last October by saying that she knows that Hollywood “profits on the objectification of women.”[1] In fact, one has to be completely crazy to avoid the conclusion that Hollywood preys on the objectification of women, most particularly shiksas. If you still disagree, then let us bring in Mummy actress Rachel Weisz. She herself declared a few years ago:

“In some way acting is prostitution, and Hollywood Jews don’t want their own women to participate. Also, there’s an element of Portnoy’s Complaint — they all fancy Aryan blondes.”

The questions now are pretty simple: how did Hollywood began to objectify women? Did that happen in a vacuum? Could it be that the feminist movement is largely responsible for this objectification? Is the feminist movement an offshoot of the Enlightenment principle, which got its start with Marquis de Sade and which had its roots in the deconstruction of the moral order?
Bialik, who has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of California, doesn’t have the intellectual courage to pursue these issues because that would eventually ruin her weltanschauung, which is essentially Talmudic. According to the Enlightenment view of things, morality is a relic of the past and people ought to be free to pursue any activity without restraint. It is “liberty.” The man who sort of articulated these principles was none other than Marquis de Sade, who saw women as objects.
“The philosopher,” argues Sade, “sates his appetites without inquiring to know what his enjoyments may cost others, and without remorse.”[2] Sade here was trying to suppress guilt, conscience, and morality. Once that was done, then Sade took another ideological move. “A pretty girl,” he writes in Philosophy in the Bedroom, “ought simply to concern herself with fucking, and never with engendering.”[3]
Before proceeding to abandon himself to his sexual impulses and perversion, however, de Sade, like Nietzsche who later deliberately infected himself with syphilis,[4] made sure that he dismissed any supernatural force:
“No, there is no God, Nature sufficeth unto herself; in no wise hath she need of an author.”[5]
If God is dead, as Nietzsche postulated, then there is no objective morality. If there is no objective morality, then the objectification of women are morally permissive. If the objectification of women are morally permissible, then Harvey Weinstein’s behavior ought to be acceptable.
Since the moral order is banned, Sade moved on to intone his sexual impulse which he followed to its tragic end: “I advise a girl to have a good friend, a woman, who, untrammeled and in society, can help the girl to secretly taste those worldly pleasures.”[6]
With morality and order removed, de Sade was free to follow any impulse and encourage others to do the same:
“You girls who have been tied down by the absurd and dangerous bonds of an imaginary virtue and a disgusting religion: imitate ardent Eugenie. Destroy, trample, as swiftly as she, all the ridiculous precepts inculcated by moronic parents.”[7]
Sade further deconstructs the moral order by saying, “It’s absurd to say that this mania is unnatural. Can it be censured if nature inspires it in us? Can nature dictate something that degrades it?”[8]
Since the moral order is now gone and parental supervision is viewed as a relic of the distant past, Sade has to substitute the moral order with his own sexual passion, which he fleshed out in virtually every page of Philosophy in the Boudoir:
“Fuck, Eugenie, fuck 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.”[9]
“To fuck women in the rear is but the first part of buggery [sodomy]; nature wishes men to practice this oddity, and it is specially for men she has given us an inclination.
“We are born to fuck, because by fucking we obey and fulfill nature’s ordination, and because all man-mad laws which would contravene nature are made for naught but our contempt.”
Here and elsewhere, Sade was following the logical outworking of Enlightenment philosophy, which, like feminism, promised freedom on the surface but delivered moral and intellectual bondage. This sexual liberation was the bedrock upon which many of the Enlightenment writers ended up sexualizing France.[10] As Aldous Huxley himself later declared, Aldous Huxley wrote that the reason La Mettrie formulated his materialistic worldview was not primarily because of intellectual reasons, but because his “predominantly erotic” desires compelled him to do so, as indicated at the end of L’Homme Machine.[11]

By fighting against the moral order, feminism is actually climbing mount improbable.

Yet despite the fact that Sade’s writings are pornographic in nature, he does not lack defenders. Scholar John Phillips writes that most of de Sade’s writings “contained neither obscenity nor extreme violence, and many of his works of fiction are considered masterpieces of their genre.”[12]
We can ignore Phillips for our discussion here, since he doesn’t seem to have a complete version of Sade’s Philosophy in the Boudoir and his other works. If he does, then he deliberately misrepresents Sade and portrays him as a patron saint. For example, how did Phillips miss Sade’s point here, which is in plain English?
“My husband’s whim is to have himself sucked, and here is the most unusual practice joined as a corollary to that one: while, as I bend over him, my buttocks squarely over his face and cheerily pumping the fuck from his balls, I must shit in his mouth!…He swallows it down!…”
But there is something more underneath Sade’s sexual metaphysics: men—or women—are simply machines that could be manipulated. Sade picked up that idea from Enlightenment writers such as d’Holbach and Helvitius.
“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,” Sade theorized.
Since there is no real difference between man and plants—or even worms for that matter—Sade proceeded to cross the pornographic Rubicon, never to return to sanity.
“Women are nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness.” 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.”[13]
Sade wrote his Philosophy in the Boudoir in 1795, seven years after Kant published his Critique of Practical Reason. Sade was obviously aware of the intellectual currents of the time, so he must have been aware of Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason. Both writers ended up diverging on virtually every metaphysical foundation. For Sade, whatever is, is right, and one must never suppress his impulses—be they sexual or diabolical.
For Kant, practical reason, not impulses, is the basis upon which moral and political discourse is to be based. A person cannot be free without practical reason, which is another word for morality. Banning practical reason from any project is like building a house on sand alone. Soon or later it will fall.
What’s the inescapable verdict? Well, we have only two choices: our life is rooted in either practical reason or impulses or unbridled passion. Both ideas are frightening and indeed are pregnant with meaning. Kant declares:
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”[14]
Kant calls this the categorical imperative. He 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.”[15]
Hollywood and the architects of the culture of death chose Marquis de Sade’s philosophy over Kant’s categorical imperative. But, as we shall see, one cannot choose chaos over practical reason without serious ramifications.

——————————————–

Jenji Kohan

Bialik indicates that what largely saved her from people like Harvey Weinstein was that she dressed modestly. She said:
“I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”[16]
That obviously doesn’t sit well with all the feminists out there and the whole “vigina monologue” thing, an ideology that has been forced upon America by people like Eve Ensler.[17] Moreover, Bialik sounds like a Catholic. “Modesty,” Catholicism teaches, “protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.”[18]
One feminist responded to Bialik by saying that she is wrong because “rape and assault are about power, not about desire.”[19] Bialik wrote:

“I am entirely aware that these types of choices might feel oppressive to many young feminists. Women should be able to wear whatever they want. They should be able to flirt however they want with whomever they want. Why are we the ones who have to police our behavior?

“In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect. Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.”[20]

Even in a perfect world, no one—not even women—can be free “to act however they want.” A perfect world cannot exist without practical reason, and practical reason forbids anyone to act however they want. In other words, if some things are immoral, then women cannot act however they want. If they do have that license, then were are in deep trouble because there is a history of female teachers screwing kids in the United States.
Moreover, if women ought to get the freedom to act however they want, then who are we to say that Harvey Weinstein should not have the same freedom? Who are we to say that he committed a moral or ethical crime? You see, Bialik here is inexorably heralding the death of the feminist movement in general.
Bialik ends up undermining her own mines by saying that “Women like Jenji Kohan and Jill Soloway are showing the kinds of female characters on their shows that we all know in real life but never got to see on TV. And more women and men are waking up to the fact that it is on us all to sound the alarm on unacceptable behavior.”[21]
Jenji Kohan? Can Bialik be serious? Kohan, the producer of Orange Is the New Black (one of the most perverse and subversive shows on TV), declared:

“I love graphic sex, the more sex the better. Very often it’s convincing the actors to get naked. … You hope everyone will just be cool about it, and then they’re not. There’s a lot of convincing and making people feel comfortable.”[22]

Kohan has said elsewhere:

“I want more fucking, everywhere. That’s one of my things. It expresses everything. It’s comfort, it’s release, it’s brutality, it’s companionship. It’s so many things.”

Obviously we do have a problem here. If Kohan’s ideology is true—that “fucking” has to be everywhere—why should she exclude Weinstein in that equation? What makes her so discriminatory? What “logical” move that allows her to take such a radical stand?

Rose McGowan

When Emily Nussbaum, a writer for The New Yorker, went to visit a set of Orange Is the New Black, Kohan began to tell him about what she’s been working on: “It’s a couple giving each other oral sex. See? She’s leaning over his cock, he’s on her pussy.”[23]
Bialik obviously cannot address this issue because it morally and intellectually destroys the feminist movement altogether. Actresses like Rose McGowan have been bamboozled by the same ideology, and they are now crippled. They simply cannot frame a coherent and consistent proposal because they are deliberately ignoring the fundamental issues.
Rose McGowan in particular thinks she can titillate men in films such as Grindhouse—a movie which by the way was produced by Bob and Harvey Weinstein themselves—without repercussions. The movie begins with stripper Cherry Darling (McGowan) titillating her audience for almost three minutes, and no one can really explain the real purpose of that introduction. So, people like McGowan are morally and intellectually bankrupt. As E. Michael Jones has recently pointed out,

“A quick survey of the internet indicated that virtually every woman who accused Weinstein of sexual harassment—including Rose McGowan, who accused him of rape—had a sex tape on the Internet. Roughly one year before the Weinstein scandal broke, Rose McGowan was portrayed in the British press as “the victim of a sex tape leak.”[24]

People like Kate Winslet, Jones continued to say, were “Hollywood’s willing executioners,”[25] which is to say that they were willing to be objectified in movies and even on sex tapes. Kate Winslet, who played a major role in The Reader, interestingly condemned Weinstein. But she could never tell her audience why she decided to have sex with a minor in The Reader, which the Huffington Post itself has called “child pornography.”[26]

Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan, of all people, slowly realized there is a vital contradiction here. In an article entitled, “Spare me Hollywood’s hypocritical horror over Harvey Weinstein – the same people, led by moralizing Meryl, gave a standing ovation to child rapist Polanski,” he brought the whole feminist house down:
“[The Weinstein] scandal goes much further and murkier than just Harvey Weinstein. It goes right to the heart of Hollywood’s sickening deceit and hypocrisy. Take his great friend Meryl Streep, for example; the woman who called Weinstein ‘God’ at an awards ceremony.
“Streep, eventually, after four days of silence, described the revelations as ‘disgraceful’ and said they ‘appalled those of us whose work he championed.’
“Then she insisted: ‘One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. I didn’t know about these offenses. I did not know about his settlements with actresses and colleagues. I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts.’
“She ended by saying: ‘The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave word that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.’
“Fine words, but how exactly do they sit with Streep’s public displays of support for another notorious Hollywood sex abuser – Roman Polanski?…
“In March, 1977, the director was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl: rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.
“Now, you might think that moralistic Hollywood would have revolted against this sickening fugitive child rapist.
“This is the same Hollywood, after all, that led the global outrage against Donald Trump when a tape emerged of him talking in a lewd, disgraceful manner about how his celebrity status enabled him to grab women ‘by the p***y.’
“Meryl Streep was almost as shocked and offended by Trump’s behaviour as she now says she is by her great friend Weinstein’s. Meryl Streep was almost as shocked and offended by Trump’s behaviour as she now says she is by her great friend Weinstein’s…
“A month later, she attacked the now President again: ‘Evil prospers when good men do nothing…ain’t that the truth.’
“Yes, it is, Meryl. But it thus beggars the question: why, then, did you give a standing ovation to Roman Polanski, when you KNEW every single sordid little detail of how he had raped a child? Why, when asked about him at a press conference, did you say: ‘Roman Polanski? I’m very sorry that he’s in jail.’
“Why have you never said a public word of criticism about a man who used his powerful position to bully and sexually abuse a young girl? This despite three more women alleging he assaulted them: British actress Charlotte Lewis claimed Polanski forced himself on her just after her 16th birthday in 1983.
“Another woman identified only as Robin claimed she was ‘sexually victimised’ by Polanski in 1973 when she was 16. And only this week, a German woman claimed that Polanski raped her too in 1972 when she was 15.
“The truth is that Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with what he did for so long because Hollywood, led by two-faced Ms Streep, doesn’t really give a damn about powerful men abusing young women.”[27]

————————————–

Let’s just say that the feminist movement is essentially a Jewish project, and it would be hard for Bialik to go against that project. Still, one can see Hegel’s “the cunning of reason” lurking beneath her article: she certainly didn’t plan on deconstructing the feminist ideology, but she ended up doing exactly that. The feminist movement, as E. Michael Jones has argued, was responsible for the rape crisis in India as well. We are seeing the same thing in America.
What we are seeing here is that the Enlightenment has failed. The sexual revolution has also failed. The solution? A return to the moral order and practical reason. It’s the only hope for Hollywood and even the feminists who are supposedly mad and sad about what happened to the women who got raped by Weinstein and others.