Weaponizing Sex – How and Why


Jonas E. Alexis: I was reading a number of articles the other day on the rape crisis in India … .  You have done exhaustive research on the Jewish influence on Bollywood, the Indian version of Hollywood. Tell us about the rape crisis in India in minute details and describe how Bollywood itself has facilitated that perennial problem. It seems that these issues go back to Jewish revolutionaries such as Eve Ensler and Wilhelm Reich, the author of the Vagina Monologues and the Sexual Revolution, respectively. …

E. Michael Jones: The answer to the rape crisis was, in short, feminism and social engineering:

“Speaking at a discussion last week about the media’s reporting on the Delhi rape, social scientist Nivedita Menon said, one of the most gratifying aspects of watching young girls and boys protest the rape was to see that the idea of feminism and equal rights … spoke of an emancipated consciousness that was in the skin, beyond any studied political positions or self-conscious feminism. …

“Indian feminists, like their western counterparts, are insisting that they should be able to go out at any time of the night, wearing anything they want, and should expect not to be harassed by men. Such wishful thinking and a complete lack of appreciation for men’s nature is leading to situations like that of the woman who was brutally gang raped … .

“Author and activist Eve Ensler, who (created The Vagina Monologues, and who) organised One Billion Rising, a global campaign to end violence against women and girls, said that (the awareness raised by) the gang rape and murder was a turning point in India and around the world.

… The Vagina Monologues was a piece of Reichian agit-prop that promoted Lesbianism, masturbation and child molestation among sexually conservative populations (Ensler admitted targeting the campuses of universities with religious affiliation) in the name of curbing violence against women.

The purpose of The Vagina Monologues, especially as performed on college campuses across the United States, is to break down the natural sexual reserve and modesty of the largely female teenage performers and audience as a prelude to colonization. It was a classic instance of sexual liberation as political control.

As a Communist and Freudian revolutionary in both Vienna and Berlin in the 1930s, Reich quickly learned that it was pointless to debate things like the existence of God with seminarians. Reich, however, also learned that if those same seminarians could be involved in sexual activity, the idea of God simply “evaporated” from their minds.

The point then was to break down Catholic political resistance by changing their sexual behavior, and the first step in changing their sexual behavior involved breaking their sense of modesty, which, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “protects the intimate center of the person. (Therefore the point was to weaken political resistance by weakening the individuals. The weaker the individuals are, the more leverage a potentially oppressive State has over them.) …

The performance of The Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame, in other words, is completely consistent with the strategy of sexual revolution that has devastated both the Catholic Church and this country over the past forty years.

The recent priest sex scandals were a media-orchestrated campaign to marginalize the Church even further. … Those scandals followed on the heels of the heart of the campaign, which involved the sexualization of the culture. The sexualization of the Catholic clergy, something which I have documented in detail in Libidio Dominandi, followed naturally … .

The purpose of The Vagina Monologues is the desensitization of Notre Dame students, in other words, the subversion of their sense modesty as a prelude to the subversion of their morals (and so the weakening of their character and of their self-reliance). The Vagina Monologues is not art; it is not scholarship; it is not even discourse; it is social engineering. … The Vagina Monologues is not something that students study; it is something that is done to students to produce behavioral and psychic effects. Its main purpose is to break down their modesty and change their morals. …

Modesty was deliberately violated and ridiculed by the people putting on the play.

Which brings us to the real message of the play, something which came out in the monologue “My Short Skirt,” which is about being deliberately sexually provocative and at the same time denying that fact and using it against its victims.

The Vagina Monologues is a perfect mirror of the culture of political control through sexual arousal. The fact that it was performed at Notre Dame means that Notre Dame accepts its role as an agent of the government-sponsored sexualization of American Catholics.

This goes to the heart of Theodore Hesburgh’s deal with the Rockefellers. In exchange for large amounts of money from foundations and the federal government, Hesburgh agreed to turn Notre Dame into an instrument of social engineering for America’s Catholics. …

Notre Dame, in other words, is getting paid by the government to engage in the social engineering of Catholics, and since sexual liberation is the prime form of social engineering, The Vagina Monologues will continue to be performed on campus … .

The arrival of Eve Enssler (sic) was a sign that the feminists, i.e., the Jewish ladies from New York City, were attempting to take control of the discussion. In an interview in The Forward, Ensler announced that The Vagina Monologues had been performed in “villages in India.” … The Rape Crisis in India was, in other words, a crisis that this Jewish sexual revolutionary was not going to let go to waste. …

Ensler was, in other words, now targeting another traditional, sexually conservative culture, promoting sexual deviance as the antidote to sexual violence. Ensler came from a long line of Jewish sexual revolutionaries, most notably Wilhelm Reich, who advocated the promotion of masturbation among women as a way of destroying the cultural hegemony of the Catholic Church over Austria during the 1920s.

When the interviewer asked Ensler if she were Jewish, … Ensler then told The Forward … :

“… I grew up in a tradition where having ideas and contributing to the community and creating art that had an impact on the world mattered. That’s part of the Jewish tradition. The comedy that’s in me is very much part of Jewish theater history. When I look at my own heart as a social activist, there’s the spirit of Emma Goldman and Hannah Arendt and so many others.” …

(For America,) the crisis came in the 1920s, when the Jews who controlled Hollywood tried to sexualize American culture by smuggling nudity, ridicule of the clergy, and promotion of homosexuality into their films.

It turns out that India was no exception to this rule. …

According to Ha’aretz, the Jews succeeded because they were willing to “push the boundaries of Indian cinema.”[xiii] That, of course, is precisely what the Jewish filmmakers were doing in America at around the same time.

During the early 1930s in America, the Jewish penchant for moral subversion led to a battle between Catholics and Hollywood Jews over who would control the content of what America watched in its movie theaters. …

After Cardinal Dougherty launched a financially crippling boycott of Warner Brothers theaters in Philadelphia and other Catholic bishops threatened to expand it into a nation-wide boycott, the Hollywood Jews capitulated and implemented the production code, which prohibited nudity, obscenity, and ridicule of religion, and would remain in force for the next 31 years.

In India the Jewish penchant for moral subversion ran into the wall of a cultural inertia that measured its existence in millennia. The result was the subversion of the subverters. Indian culture won out because of its sheer inertia in both space and time … .

“Bollywood films tend to be spectacular melodramas about love and romance. Kissing scenes are allowed in the movies but explicit eroticism is strictly forbidden by the country’s censorship laws.”[xix]

Government censorship buttressed Indian cultural sensibilities. …

Mahatma Gandhi … after receiving a questionnaire from the film industry in late 1927, Gandhi responded by saying that he had no views about this “sinful technology.”

“Even if I was so minded,” he continued, “I should be unfit to answer your questionnaire, as I have never been to a cinema. But even to an outsider, the evil it has done and is doing is patent.  The good, if it has done at all, remains to be proved.”[xxi]

Like his father, Gandhi felt that motion pictures were an “imported vice from the West.”[xxii] One of the promoters of the Hindi film industry later claimed that Gandhi’s distaste for the cinema derived from the fact that most films dealt “exclusively with sex and love themes.”[xxiii]

As Jay Gertzman has pointed out in his book Bootleggers and Smuthounds, there has never been a time when pornography as the vehicle for cultural sexual subversion has not been associated with Jews, certainly not in America where it grew up in the shadow of Hollywood. …

(The political power of smut was not lost on these people, neither was it lost on the CIA.) In the mid-‘50s the CIA actually produced a pornographic film to bring down President Sukharno of Indonesia.[l] But by the 1970s, it had become clear … that the production of pornography could be out-sourced to people like Guccione (Penthouse) … .

In “The People vs. Bob Guccione,” A. Nolen claims both Hefner (Playboy) and Guccione were CIA assets.[xlvii] Like the Marquis de Sade, both Hefner and Guccione were aware of “the centuries-old understanding of the political effects of pornography.”[xlviii]

By the 1970s, when both Penthouse and Playboy enjoyed their heyday, the CIA began to make use of pornography as one of the weapons on their arsenal of psychological warfare.

In 2002 the CIA collaborated with Israel’s Shin Beth in broadcasting pornography over Palestinian TV stations in Ramallah during one Israel’s periodic incursions into Palestinian territory.

During the run-up to the 2003 invasion, the CIA contemplated doing a pornographic featuring a double who looked like Saddam Hussein, as a way of de-legitimizing his government.[xlix]

(In India) the notion that films were a foreign vice continued in the post-colonial period. The film industry could never shake its reputation for moral subversion. … As late as 1989 the Supreme Court of India defended government censorship of films by arguing that:

“A film motivates thought and action and assures a high degree of attention and retention as compared to the printed word. … It cannot be equated with other modes of communication. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but necessary.”[xxvi] …

The belief that government censorship was “not only desirable but necessary” changed, however, when the Soviet Union, traditionally one of India’s closest allies, collapsed and the ensuing vacuum was filled with Neoliberal propaganda and IMF loans. …

Subhash Ghai argued … “American films have enabled the United States to dominate the world culturally, even leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.” …

The global wave of “privatization” which followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 affected the Hindi film industry dramatically and marked the beginning of what we now call Bollywood. Ganti claims that …

“… After the advent of satellite television in 1992, dubbed by the press and some commentators as an ‘invasion,’ the mass media became the locus of public debates, controversies, and anxiety around questions of Indian nationhood, cultural sovereignty, authenticity, tradition, and identity.”[xxx]

The reverse engineering of the Hindi film industry–i.e., creating Bollywod (sic) as the Indian version of Hollywood—was a capitalist project from its inception. It was:

“enabled by the neoliberal restructuring of the Indian state and economy—intensified from 1991, after the IMF mandated structural adjustment policies—resulting in a dramatically altered media landscape, marked first by  the entry of satellite television and then by the emergence of the multiplex theater. . . . the Hindi film industry’s metamorphosis into Bollywood would not have been possible without the rise of neoliberal economic ideals in India.”[xxxi]

Capitalism, as we have come to expect, brought about the “creative destruction” of the moral order in both East and West. By the first decade of the 21st Century, thanks to the economic liberalizations that allowed satellite TV and the Internet, India had a tradition of “home-grown porn” … .

In 1992 … Bill Clinton was elected president. … All obscenity prosecution stopped under Janet Reno, Clinton’s attorney general.

Pro-pornography Hollywood propaganda films like Boogie Nights and The People vs. Larry Flynt brought about the failure of The Communications Decency Act to stem the spread of pornography to the new media and insured that the Internet would become a conduit for the transmission of pornographic imagery world wide.

The arrival of satellite TV and the Internet flooded India with sexual imagery, immediately nullifying the government’s decades’-long attempt to preserve the moral order through censorship of the film industry. The arrival of the IMF after the collapse of the Soviet Union “involved . .  . negotiating a transition from an earlier era of decononialization (sic) and ‘high nationalism’ and into the newer times of globalization and finance capital.” …

This economic liberalization was propelled by the International Monetary Fund, which had granted two loans to the Indian government. Consequently, state-run projects and government subsidies were replaced in favor of a more Westernized, consumerist-oriented model … . This economic liberalization paved the way for the establishment of a number of Indian and multinational media companies, such as MTV India and Sony Television.

These changes coincided with the spread of satellite technologies that led to the establishment of Zee TV and STAR TV (a division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation), providing Indian television audiences with a wide range of viewing choices.[xxxiv]

By the late 1990s, the Hindi film industry was in deep financial trouble, largely because of the highly sexualized competition that satellite TV provided.  … The government responded to this crisis by granting the studios official recognition: …

After the Hindu nationalist and probusiness Bharatiya Janata Party conferred industry status on the film industry, dramatic changes followed the government’s conversion to neoliberal economics.

The entry of the Indian corporate sector in the 21st century infused previously unheard amounts of capita into the Hindi film industry, … but global capital demands standardization, which meant R-rated movies, which led to the sexualization of Indian culture, which led to rape. … Capitalism led to sexualization, and sexualization led to violence, and although few people see the connection, virtually no one is happy with the outcome. … Economic liberalization went hand in hand with the liberalization of sexual morality. The former could not succeed without the latter. Globalization in economic terms meant globalization in sexual terms as well.

(Source)

See Also:

Flower Power – a CIA Psy-Op

The Social (Media) Engineers

Socially Engineered Rap

Cultural Marxism and You

National Security and Consciousness Acquisition

The Disney Dream

Advertisements

About icliks

Biding my time in central ms ... yours too, if ur reading this.
This entry was posted in American Culture, Catholicism, Christianity, clandestine programs, Conspiracy, culture, democracy, Entertainment, entertainment industry, globalism, Internet, social engineering, society, Spiritual Warfare and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Weaponizing Sex – How and Why

  1. Pingback: Pizza! | Icliks Incoming

Comments are closed.