Pornography in the French Revolution and Abu Ghraib

The French Revolution Largely Operated Under Freemasonry

“Sexual liberation would become Enlightenment rationalization in the service of masturbation and implemented into later cultural expressions of sexual liberation like Playboy magazine, where the photos served as masturbatory aids and Playboy philosophy served as rationalization of that behavior.

“In creating texts like Justine, Marquis de Sade set the pattern for all subsequent versions of sexual liberation and sexual revolution.”–E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control[1]

    …by Jonas E. Alexis

As we saw in the previous article, Ann Coulter’s 2011 book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America is very interesting for many reasons, and we will conclude our analysis of Coulter in the next article.

One of the problems with the book is that it seeks to analyze the mob without naming the big elephant in the room. It is like trying to talk about King Kong without the monkey. Coulter says that the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Mao’s Marxist/Communist ideology, were all “demonic.”

Yet Coulter doesn’t tell us that the Bolshevik mob was largely Jewish.[2] She doesn’t tell us that Mao was ideologically a follower of Karl Marx and ended up liquidating at least 40 million people within less than five years;[3] she doesn’t tell us that the French Revolution largely operated under the ideology of Freemasonry, which was consistent with Jewish revolutionary movements—and many of the leading revolutionaries at the time were largely Freemasons.[4]

Supliers for the Napoleonic army in Italy were none other than the Bedarride brothers, who founded the Grand Orient there. They “had benefitted from support when they undertook to found an order of Freemasons.”[5]

This is not conspiracy theory. This is widely known among many historians and scholars. For example, Reinhart Koselleck, who is widely known as one of the most eminent historians of the twentieth century, argues that that the Enlightenment period was marked by primarily two poles: The Republic of Letters on the one hand, and the Masonic lodges on the other.[6]

One of the key persons who played a major role in the French Revolution was Maximilien Robespierre. He himself was a Freemason, and his grandfather was a founder of a Masonic group in Arras, France,[7]where Robespierre was born.

Historian William Doyle of the University of Bristol writes,

“Between 800 and 900 Masonic lodges were found in France between 1732 and 1793…Between 1773 and 1779 well over 20,000 members were recruited. Few towns of any consequences were without one or more lodges by the 1780s and, despite several papal condemnations of a deistic cult that had originated in Protestant England, the elite of society flocked to join.”[8]

Historian Roger Chartier declares the same thing. The first lodge in France was established in 1725 in Paris, which spread Freemasonry quickly.[9] Its spread “reached cities and towns of all sizes, even the smallest. In 1789, eighty-one towns of fewer than two thousand inhabitants had a lodge.”[10]

One of the intellectual elites who later joined the Lodge was none other than Voltaire, who got initiated in the Nine Sister Lodge.[11]

Freemasonry seemed to have been the revolutionary engine during that era, and messianic mood was in a state of flux. It was in the same century that Jewish messiah Jacob Frank (1726-1791) was proclaimed to be the reincarnation of Sabbatai Zevi, another Jewish messiah who superficially converted to Islam in the seventeenth century. Philo-Semitic historian Paul Johnson tells us that Frank “was initiated into secret Shabbatean rites, by followers of the extreme wing of the movement.”[12]

Frank and his followers, Johnson continues, “indulged in sexual practices forbidden by the Torah.”[13] But Johnson never told us what those sexual practices were and why they were forbidden by the “Torah.”

Johnson is a skilled historian, but on many occasions his Philo-Semitic overtone trumps truth. (We will come back to this issue in more details when we look at the issue of slavery, which has been postponed again until next month.)

The Sabbateans taught that it was permissible “to have sexual intercourse with someone else’s wife or one’s own sister, or even—though only in secret—with one’s own mother.”[14]

One Sabbatean admitted, “As I am old now, I no longer do it, but twenty years ago (and I have professed this faith for twenty-four years), I had carnal relations with the wife of my son…”[15]

Other testimonies were quite shocking, such as “the breaking of the prohibition of incest, having sexual relations with menstruating women, masturbation (also in public), as well as the practice of ‘sexual hospitality,’ whereby a host offered his wife or daughter to a stranger coming as a guest to his house.”[16]

Jewish historian Pawel Maciejko of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem declares that “The famed Frankish ‘orgies’ were, in fact, the custom of sexual hospitality, which was not a single ritual but a daily practice…it was upheld by the Sabbatians for years before Frank’s appearance in Poland and was in no way connected to his activity. It is highly unlikely that none of this had come to the attention of the rabbis…”[17]

Having sex with menstruating women and public masturbation were popular as far back as 1725 among the Sabbatians (or Sabbateans), and once again the rabbis knew about these activities.[18] Christianity, of course, is against all of that. And it is understandable that “Becoming a Christian—whether voluntarily or under coercion—turned into one of the most powerful taboos in medieval and early modern Jewish society and came to be firmly associated with ‘physical violence, sexual degradation, and spiritual annihilation.’”[19]

In the process of time, many Jews tried to either “kidnap or even kill converts or prospective converts,”[20] which is another way of saying that the term “Jew” is ceise to have an ethnic meaning and therefore has a theological meaning. “The last recorded case of a father murdering his son who had expressed wish to become a Christian comes from 1869.”[21]

In a nutshell, Maciejko  says that “the Sabbatians engaged in secret antinomian rites: they practiced necromancy, masturbated and then smeared the whole body with the semen, permitted or even encouraged incest, practiced wife swapping and group sex, advocated a complete sexual freedom, and ‘permitted perjury, theft, and adultery.”[22] (In other words, the Sabbatians would have been impressed to see Sarah Silverman on stage practicing “Jesus is Magic.”)

But Frank was one of the Jewish messiahs who popularized freemasonry in Turkey in the 18^th century, an issue we are currently addressing in an upcoming book. “Thus the kabbalah, which began in unspecific, formless Gnosticism in late antiquity, returned to unspecific, formless Gnosticism in the late eighteenth century.”[23]

This “formless Gnosticism” was either “secular Enlightenment or freemasonry.”[24] Once again, Johnson never pursued the consequences of Freemasonry during that period and some occasions fault people who label Freemasonry as evil.[25]

In an indirect way, the Sabbatians set the sexual tone in some sections in Europe in the eighteenth century—a sexual tone which indirectly got morphed into the French Revolution and which inevitably precipitated into the sexual power of Marquis de Sade.

Scholar James H. Billington declares that “So great, indeed, was the general impact of Freemasonry in the revolutionary era that some understanding of Masonic milieu seems the essential starting point for any serious inquiry into the occult roots of the revolutionary tradition.”[26]

Masonry, Billington continues, was “implicitly subversive within any static society based on traditional hierarchy.”[27] Albert Pike would later tell us that it was Freemasonry that “aided in bringing about the French Revolution” in its subversive form.[28]

But Billington, like a number of Jewish historians such as Margaret C. Jacob,[29] ends up saying that Freemasonry was a benign institution. He writes, “The rituals leading to new level of membership were not, as is sometimes suggested, childish initiations. They were awesome rites of passage into new types of association, promising access to higher truths of Nature once the blindfold was removed in the inner room of the lodge.”[30] As I argued elsewhere, this is half truth, and the rest of the story is much more devastating.[31]

The inevitable parallel between the French Revolution and the neoconservative movement was that they both produced sexual decadence among some of their intellectual children and advocates. Both operated under a revolutionary ideology. French revolutionaries were theologically the product of Freemasonry, and the neoconservative intellectuals are ideologically the children of Stalin and Trotsky. During the French Revolution, historian Simon Schama of Columbia University argues that “The standard tales of buggery, adultery, incest and promiscuity thus became a kind of metaphor for a diseased constitution.”[32]

As the Revolution progressed, things like incest became a fair game.[33] Schama continues to say, “If there ever was a justification for the Bastille, it was the Marquis de Sade.”[34]Marquis de Sade, as we shall see in a future article, represents the quintessential guru of sexual perversion during that time.

Sade crossed the sexual rubicon by explicitly argued that women are “nothing but machines designed for voluptuousness.”[35] Sade was indirectly much more in line with William Blake’s famous quote which says that “the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.” Sade’s whole life was based on the maxim that “the principle of philosophy is the search for pleasure.”[36]

If those propositions are true, then it follows logically that sexual torture is a great tool to manipulate women and to satisfy one’s particular needs. According to Sade, since pleasure is man’s bold quest for achieving ultimate freedom, then pleasure must be found—by any means necessary. “A pretty girl,” he writes in Philosophy in the Bedroom, “ought simply to concern herself with [expletive], and never with engendering.”[37]

Biographer Iwan Bloch writes, “For de Sade defecation was also an object of pleasure and passion. The feces were delicious and were swallowed by men and women as a great delicacy. One can hardly believe it! Even the act of defecation was presented before the eyes of the Parisians.”[38]

Yet Sade was not the only person advocating sexual freedom by any means. Two individuals during the French Revolution, La Mettrie and Diderot, were closely in line with Sade.

Centuries later, Aldous Huxley would argue 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.[39](As we shall see when we discuss Ayn Rand and usury at the end of next month, this statement was also true for Huxley, Sartre, Foucault, and a host of others.)

Sexual decadence was certainly congruent with the mode of that era. “The number of prostitutes in Paris in 1770 is estimated to have been 20,000 in a population of 600,000. At the time of the Revolution it grew to 30,000.” Those prostitutes “were mainly recruited from the theatre-world. Actresses, singers and dancers were special favorites.”[40]

Sade wrote 120 Days of Sodom four years prior to the French Revolution while imprisoned in the Bastille. It is perhaps the first book by a decadent writer whose sexual trajectory became almost synonymous with Abu Ghraib.[41] Two of the obvious differences are that 120 Days of Sodom was found to be repulsive by the “Right.” This time the “Right” supported what seemed to be another 120 Days of Sodom: Abu Ghraib.

Sade was arrested when the prostitutes themselves complained that he mistreated them; Abu Ghraib however is much more interesting because the neoconservatives have come up with pathetic rationalizations as to why it has to be put aside or simply be dismissed with no serious consequences.

Abu Ghraib was a bad omen for the neoconservative movement. The omen got even worse when some of the most leading luminaries in the movement either blame the “Left” for it or simply ignore it as if nothing happened. Moreover, it is always laughable to watch those neoconservatives on the side lines. Some of them support the tradition view of marriage, but not in far distant lands as the Middle East.

Dinesh D’Souza, as we saw in a previous article, is a classic example. He declared in his New York Times best-selling book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11:

“Abu Graib did not reflect the shared values of America, it reflected the sexual immodesty of liberal America.”[42]

Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Weekly Standard and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a neoconservative think tank, declared that “sexually sensitive Muslims” who “revolted” against Abu Ghraib should embrace the new government[43] which the neoconservatives have created because Iraq was on the verge of democracy.

Gerecht continues: “Properly understood, the spread of democracy in the Muslim Middle East is now well into its second century.” Those Muslims and Arabs, Grecht further declares, “have vastly more important things to worry about”[44] than Abu Ghraib, which is a small price to pay. Democracy, according to this logic, is the big picture. Sexual decadence and pornography in its literal form is just one tree in the forest. Sensitive Muslims ought to be looking at the forest.

In other words, the Muslims should accept sodomy because after sodomy you have the Zionist interpretation of freedom. And if you revolt against handcuffing men in contorted positions, having them wear women’s underwear, having them masturbate  and forcing them to have sex with one another in Abu Ghraib,[45] you are sexually sensitive.

One prisoner who actually witnessed the sexual phenomena declared that at one point,

“They brought three prisoners completely naked and they tied them together with cuffs and they stuck one to another…and I heard them begging for help. And also the American soldiers told to do like homosexuals…and they repeat the same thing the second day…And they were ordering them to crawl while they were cuffed together naked…I saw [name blacked out] fu$king a kid, his age would be about 15-18 years.”

“The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard the screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name blacked out], who was wearing the military uniform putting his dick in the little kid’s ass. I couldn’t see the face of the kid because his face wasn’t in front of the door.”[46]

This is the Abu Ghraib that the neoconservatives tried to ignore.[47] Yet in Decision Point, Bush declares that when he heard about Abu Ghraib, “I felt sick, really sick.”[48] Both Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice tell us almost the same thing in their New York Times bestselling books.[49]

One doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Cheney, one of the most evil persons who has no remorse for helping propagate mass murder in Iraq in the twenty-first century, declared,

“There were a dozen independent investigations conducted of detainee policy on Rumsfeld’s watch, and none found any evidence that abuse was either ordered, authorized, or condoned by military authorities or senior officials at the Department of Defense.”[50]

In other words, the men and women who conducted Abu Ghraib received absolutely no command from the top. The abuse was not conducted by one or two individuals but groups of people, and yet they received no command from the top? Is the military that disorganized? Is it possible for groups of people to operate pornography for months and no one knew about this? This is hardly rational.

In his entire book Cheney never told us who conducted those independent investigations.  So we are left to take Cheney at his words, a man who has a penchant for lying to cover his wicked actions.

In addition, if the administration did not order abuses, who ordered water-boarding and other evil acts in the name of gaining information? The Muslims?[51] Or is Cheney going to play the neoconservative card by putting the blame on the liberals? Cheney simply doesn’t make sense.

“Military intelligence, private contractors, and especially Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the Guantanamo commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and hardcore neocon Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, all had a direct hand in creating the hothouse conditions under which the dark bloom of Abu Ghraib sprouted and flourished.”[52]

The name Alan Dershowitz is not synonymous with rationality, but here Dershowitz is right: “That problem is the Bush administration’s conflicting messages. Out of one side of its mouth—the public, rhetorical side—it condemns all forms of torture regardless of the need to secure intelligence. Out of the other—the discreet wink and nod side—it tells intelligence officials the gloves are off and they should do what they have to do to obtain life-saving information…

“After all, the administration did approve rough interrogation methods for some high valued detainees. These included waterboarding, in which a detainee is pushed under water and made to believe he will drown unless he provides information, as well as sensory deprivation, painful stress positions, and simulated dog attacks. It is also well known that the US subcontracts difficult cases to nations such as the Philippines, Egypt, and Jordan, which have no inhibitions about pulling out fingernails”[53]

In a nutshell, Cheney and the neoconservative gangsters and murderers just prove that in the “Jewish Century,” crimes are a fair game if they are committed under the hospice of Zionism. In the West, it used to be that if a nation commits a crime against humanity, it will be brought to court. In the “Jewish Century,” you can commit the most heinous crime and still get to enjoy a ravish life such as teaching at Stanford University, holding  posts at the American Enterprise Institute, and becoming a New York Times bestseller.

Recently, the Israelis finally admitted that they did commit a crime in the Gaza flotilla debacle, an incident which eventually took the lives of nine people. But will Israel face sanctions any time soon? Will the Israelis be brought to court? Will there be justice done? Will the United States reevaluate its unconditional allegiance to the Zionist/terrorist state?

The answer is a resounding no. In other words, whenever “King Bibi” and the Israelis commit a crime in the Jewish Century and got caught red-handed, all they have  to do is “Apologize and go home to watch CSI and eat Matza ball soup.”[54]

Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

• Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>