In my recent book, Being in Time, I analyse Jewish controlled
opposition. I argue that some self-identified Jews end up being on both polar
extremes of every debate that is even mildly relevant to Jewish existence:
Those who have recently been disturbed about the Jews who are at the centre of
the impeachment trial have also found that Jews hold key positions on Trump’s
defense team. Those who accuse Jews of pushing immigration and
multiculturalism can’t deny that Trump’s senior policy advisor on immigration
is Stephen Miller and that breitbart.com was conceived in Jerusalem.
The Palestinians’ solidarity movement is dominated by a few well organized
Jewish solidarity groups that do little but divert the discourse from the
Palestinian right of return and
exhaust the movement in their relentless witch-hunting of truth speakers and seekers.
In Being in Time, I point out that as soon as
an issue or event is identified as a potential Jewish problem, a Jewish
satellite dissent emerges to ‘calm things down.’ As soon as Corbyn became the
modern Amalek (‘existential threat’), Jews for Jeremywas formed to dismantle the idea
that Jews hate Corbyn collectively. Those who view Capitalism as a Jewish
construct are similarly reminded that Marx was also a Jew. In Being in
Time I argue that none of this is necessarily conspiratorial. It
is only natural for Jews to denounce the crimes that are committed on ‘their
behalf’ by a state that defines itself as ‘The Jewish State.’ The same applies
to Jews who are genuinely tormented by the vast over representation of Jews in
some problematic spheres. Yet, the outcome of all this is potentially volatile:
every crucial debate regarding the West and its future; Globalism, Neocons
wars, capitalism, immigration, multiculturalism, Israel and so on, is too
frequently reduced into an internal Jewish exchange.
It was therefore just a matter of time
before some Jews would admit that the involvement of a few prominent Jewish
celebrities in some spectacular sex crimes is becoming rather embarrassing and
even dangerous for the Jews.
It seems
as if Jonah Goldberg has launched the ‘Jews against pedophilia’ campaign.
Today, The Jewish World Review published an article
titled “French pedo flap a
cautionary tale for OUR cultural aristocrats.” In the
commentary, Goldberg digs into the activities of Jewish radical ideology, along
with those of the notorious paedophile, Gabriel Matzneff.
Goldberg
was triggered by a New York Times article
that examined the rise and fall of the paedophilia devotee. Matzneff is 83, an
old man now, but he has been the darling of the French literary world and media
for decades: his work was supported by leading newspapers and literary
publications. “He’d appear on highbrow TV shows,” Goldberg writes, where he’d
“regale interviewers and audiences with the sublime pleasures of having sex
with children in France and on sex tours of southeast Asia.”
In his
book “Under 16 Years Old,” Matzneff wrote, “To sleep with a child, it’s a holy
experience, a baptismal event, a sacred adventure.”
But the
contrast Goldberg draws between Jeffrey Epstein and Matzneff is surprisingly
clumsy: “The well-connected billionaire spent vast sums to keep his sexual
abuses at least somewhat secret. Matzneff not only confessed to his crimes, his
confessions were celebrated as literary contributions.” I feel the need to
remind Goldberg that nicknaming one’s plane the “Lolita Express” is hardly an
attempt to hide one’s sexual morbidity and crimes. If anything Matzneff is like
Epstein in that both celebrated a peculiar sense of impunity. Needless to
mention, no Jewish outlet denounced either of them or their not very secretive
activities before they were caught and charged.
Jewish Radicals and the role of the Orgasm
Next
comes the ‘rationalisation.’ “Matzneff was a Child of 68,” Goldberg writes, “a
product of the left-wing ‘May 68’ movement that shook France in the 1960s.
These radicals subscribed to the idea that anything smacking of traditionalism
or bourgeois morality was backward. Conventional sexual morality was part of
the same rotten edifice as imperialism and racism.”
Goldberg
doesn’t approve of the ‘Jewish radicals and their ideology. He reminds us that
“a few years ago, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (a.k.a. Dany le Rouge), the famous former
radical and leader of the European Green movement, got in hot water for his
earlier writings and statements about “erotic” encounters with 5-year-olds. He
(Cohn-Bendit ) dodged major consequences by disavowing his own words, saying
they were merely intended to provoke.”
Goldberg
is a well-known and successful
writer, he could have published his criticism of Matzneff and
Jewish radicals in numerous national American news outlets but, presumably he
made the decision to use a Jewish outlet. Whether intentionally or not,
Goldberg provides an insight into Jewish survival strategy in general and
Jewish controlled opposition in particular. Criticizing radical philosophy and
the advocacy of pedophilia on ideological grounds by Jews in a Jewish media
outlet conveys the image that Jews can deal with their problems. The goyim should
let it go or, even better, move on.
But
Goldberg’s account is either mistaken or misleading. The sex revolution that
branched into advocating paedophilia wasn’t invented in 1968. Its radical
Jewish roots take us back to the 1920-30s and, in particular, to the early work
of Wilhelm Reich.
The
Following is an excerpt from Being in Time in
which I delve into Wilhelm Reich and his ‘genital utopia.’
In his
1933 work, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Jewish Marxist and Freudian
psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich attempted to explain the striking victory of
‘reactionary’ Fascism over ‘progressive’ Communism. Reich was desperate to
rescue the relevance of revolutionary Marxism. In order to do so he formed a
new ‘post Marxist’ theoretical outlook to explain why the Germans of his time
favoured ‘authoritarianism’ over a ‘preferable’ communist revolution.
According
to Reich, the attraction of reactionary and conservative politics and the
inclination towards fascism is driven by a long history of rigid, authoritarian
patriarchy which affects the family, parenting, primal education and
eventually, society as a whole.
Of course, the remarkable popularity of fascism in Europe could
have provided the scientifically-orientated Reich with a clear refutation of
Marxist working class politics, theories and predictions. After all,
dialectical Marxism had failed as a social theory as well as a methodical
prophecy. But for some reason, he, like many other Jewish intellectuals of his
time, decided to stick with Marx. Hoping to rescue what was left of dialectical
materialism, and insisting that true communist political revolution would
prevail once sexual repression was overthrown, Reich synthesized Marx and Freud
into a ‘Sex Revolution.’
Wilhelm
Reich posited that sexual liberation on a mass scale would save Marxist
dogmatism and working people as well. In chapter five of The Mass Psychology
of Fascism, he declared war on the patriarchal and conservative family which
he saw as being at the core of mass conservatism: “From the standpoint of
social development,” Reich wrote, “the family cannot be considered the basis of
the authoritarian state, only as one of the most important institutions which
support it.” The traditional family is a “central reactionary germ cell, the
most important place of reproduction of the reactionary and conservative
individual. Being itself caused by the authoritarian system, the family becomes
the most important institution for its conservation.”
In the
eyes of the neo-Marxist affection, both romanticism and traditional family
values were obstacles to socialist reform and Reich’s vehicle towards the new
world order was … orgasm! In his 1927 study, The Function of the Orgasm, he
came to the conclusion that: “there is only one thing wrong with neurotic
patients: the lack of full and repeated sexual satisfaction.” In the hands of
Reich, the Marx-Freud hybrid was leading to what some critical cynics dubbed
“genital utopia.”
Reich
believed that for women within the patriarchal society, sex was within the
realm of duty and/or restricted to procreation. “The maintenance of the
authoritarian family institution requires more than economic dependence of wife
and children on husband and father. This dependence can be tolerated only under
the condition that the consciousness of being a sexual being is extinguished as
far as possible in women and children. The woman is not supposed to be a sexual
being, only the producer of children.”(The Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm
Reich pg 56 37. Ibid pg 56)
Within
the traditional society, the woman was robbed of any libidinal consciousness: “This
idealization of motherhood is essentially a means of keeping women from
developing a sexual consciousness and from breaking through the barriers of
sexual repression, of keeping alive their sexual anxieties and guilt feelings.
The very existence of woman as a sexual being would threaten authoritarian
ideology; her recognition and social affirmation would mean its collapse.”
Women were mere baby factories, who had only an instrumental role because:
“Imperialistic wars require that there be no rebellion in the women against the
function that is imposed on them, that of being nothing but child-bearing
machines.” This description of the woman and the family fits the traditional
Jewish orthodox family rather better than, say, the German, French, Italian or
Spanish family cell.
But
Wilhelm Reich wasn’t only a dialectic social revolutionary, he was also a
pragmatist. He invented the Orgone Energy Accumulator, a wooden box about the
size of a telephone booth, lined with metal and insulated with steel wool. The
Orgone itself was a vague concept: an esoteric energy, a universal life force
that was massless yet omnipresent and promised to charge up
the body with the life force that circulated in the atmosphere and which he
christened “orgone energy.” His Orgone box promised to improve “orgastic
potency” and, by extension, physical and mental health . Thus, the
newly liberated Western subject was invited to experience the true meaning of
Marx and Freud through sweating towards full emancipation by means of
accumulating ‘Orgone energy’ in this wooden box.
Those who
watched Woody Allen’s comedy film Sleeper (1973)
probably remember the Orgasmatron – the orgasm inducing machine. In Allen’s
satirical take on Reich’s Orgone box, it is actually the authoritarian regime
that encourages its citizens to emancipate themselves by means of their
genitalia. In Allen’s prophetic movie, the orgasm, like consumerism is a reward
from the oppressive regime that diverts the masses’ attention from their
existential misery.
The ‘authoritarian’ Germans, both
fascist and communist, quickly expelled Reich from their ranks. By 1934, even
Freud didn’t want anything to do with Reich. The progressive Americans however, tolerated his ideas, at
least for a while. Reich was eventually arrested and died in an American prison
leaving behind some radical minds, still convinced that the Orgone box was
acting as a greenhouse for cosmic, libidinal energy. Within the free-ranging
pornographic realm in which we live, the universe has become an extended Orgone
container: pornography is free to all; genital sex is deemed almost Victorian;
heterosexuality, at a certain stage, was on the verge of becoming a marginal
adventure. And yet authoritarianism hasn’t disappeared. Quite the opposite; to
borrow Marx’s metaphor – it is sex and pornography rather than religion that
have become the opium of the masses. And yet, this ‘progressive’ universe in
which we live didn’t defeat the inclination towards violence. We are killing
millions by proxy in the name of moral interventionism and Coca Cola.