“Morality is reason in the practical order. Anything which undermines morality undermines reason, and without reason man is no better than the animals, which procreate themselves into extinction unless checked by nature. Man without morals is in precisely the same situation as the bacteria in a bucket…” E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi
Jonas E. Alexis: in his book Jewish Power: Inside The American Jewish Establishment, Jewish writer J. J. Goldberg has noted: “In a few key sectors of the media, notably among Hollywood studio executives, Jews are so numerically dominant that calling these businesses Jewish-controlled is little more than a statistical observation.”
What was the end result when these people began to control Hollywood? Well, they ended up corrupting the culture in general. The late historian Robert Sklar of the University of Michigan noted that before the National Legion of Decency, Jews in Hollywood
“had always tried to give their public as much sexual titillation as contemporary morals would allow…producers had no qualms about tossing aside the [Decency] code and hanging on to their audiences by offering more sex stories, risqué language and glimpses of nudity than they had ever dared before.
“One reason why the Legion of Decency campaign proved so quickly effective in mobilizing support was that the general run of movies had never before been so clearly in opposition to traditional middle-class morality.”
The Legion of Decency proved successful—encouraging Hollywood to “direct its enormous powers of persuasion to preserving the basic moral, social and economic tenets of traditional American culture”—until the end of World War II.
Then, tempted once more by the profit that could be gained by the risqué, producers began to reformulate their subtle attacks. They turned their attention to
“settings that provided the full opportunity to raise the pitch of excitement on the screen, to amaze, frighten and even to sexually arouse…At its most basic level, sound was noise, and noise itself could be a source of thrills. Hollywood did not tear down its boudoir sets overnight, but the possibilities of sound attracted filmmakers more and more to noisy settings.”
Hollywood was eventually became a corrupt organization largely because it was overtaken by a group of people whose allegiance is no to the moral law but to an essentially Talmudic ideology, which never ceases to denigrate the Goyim. The recent Harvey Weinstein debacle was just the tip of the iceberg. This is actually what we are now seeing with the recent movie, Professor Marston & Wonder Woman. Henry Makow, what’s your take on this movie?
Henry Makow: Harvey Weinstein or not, Hollywood continues its assault on society. Professor Marston & Wonder Woman is about the menage a trois that inspired the Wonder Woman comic book in the 1940’s. We’re talking about a man with a bisexual wife and mistress who also have sexual relations.
The director of the movie, Angela Robertson, is a lesbian. The producer, Jewish heiress Megan Ellison, is also a lesbian. It has received positive reviews but has not yet caught fire at the box office and won’t because, apart from some inspired moments, the film is, in the words of one reviewer, “underpowered.”
Jonas E. Alexis: Joseph McAleer, can you tell us about the movie a bit?
Joseph McAleer: At Radcliffe College in the late 1920s, the hunky professor teaches behavioral psychology to his eager female students. Marston purports that all human behavior can be traced to the interplay of four emotional states: dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance.
It’s not hard to see where all this will lead. “People are happiest when they submit to a loving authority,” Marston insists.
By his side is his wife and research partner, Elizabeth (Rebecca Hall). Together they invent a lie detecting machine, which offers multiple opportunities to ask awkward questions (and inspires Wonder Woman’s “lasso of truth”).
Open-minded Elizabeth tolerates her husband’s roving eye. “I’m your wife, not your jailer,” she says.
The door thus opened, in marches one of Marston’s students, the gorgeous Olive (Bella Heathcote), who volunteers as a research assistant. Marston is instantly smitten. But Olive, in a surprising twist, only has eyes for Elizabeth, at least initially.
What ensues is an astonishing love triangle devoid of all propriety. The trio moves in together, engages promiscuously and, as the years pass, multiple babies are born.
It’s only a matter of time before neighborhood whispers are confirmed, and Marston is fired. To earn a living (and support all those children), he turns to writing.
“I’m going to inject my ideas right into the thumping heart of America,” Marston boasts.
Viewers will be disappointed to learn that the inspiration for Wonder Woman comes from Marston’s visit to a seedy Manhattan sex shop filled with tight costumes, ropes and cuffs.
Indeed, the early years of the Wonder Woman comic (which began in 1941) raised eyebrows for its extreme violence, bondage episodes and an acceptance of “free love” and homosexual behavior. Amid calls for the comic to be banned, Marston is hauled before a tribunal headed by moral gatekeeper Josette Frank (Connie Britton), director of the Child Study Association of America.
He has some explaining to do, as does writer-director Angela Robinson, who eagerly hoists the banner of relativism, painting a sympathetic picture of the outrageous Marston triad and casting traditional morality to the winds.
So much for being lassoed by the truth.
Marston sold Wonder Woman as a feminist statement but it was a vehicle for his own weird views about “willing submission” which have an NWO resonance. Indeed, in the movie, when Marston sells the concept to the Jewish comic book mogul, he makes a Masonic hand sign.
For a comic book about “female empowerment,” Wonder Woman was obsessed with women in bondage or being spanked. The male role is also attacked. In real life, Marston wrote, “Give men an alluring woman stronger than themselves to submit to, and they’ll be proud to become her willing slaves!”
Apart from the usual feel-good scenes, there is nothing to recommend polyamorous relations or evidence that women –bisexual or otherwise– are so “wonder”ful. The “sex” scene is basically three people hugging each other and jumping up-and-down.
In a love relationship, people are seeking intimacy. Intimacy requires an exclusive two-way commitment. In a threesome, the parties are always shut out of another intimate relationship they are forced to witness at close quarters.
Jonas E. Alexis: It’s not that Hollywood cannot produce decent movies and making money at the same time. In fact, wholesome movies have always made it big at the box office. So why do Hollywood directors continue to produce filth as art? Simple.
Michael Medved himself stated that the film industry is waging war the moral order. In his book Hollywood vs. America,
Medved makes the point that during the 1980s, “PG” films “represented less than 25 percent of all titles—but occupied six of the Top 10 places on the list of the decade’s leading money-makers. If you expand the calculations to consider the twenty leading titles in terms of domestic box-office returns between 1981 and 1990, 55 percent were rated ‘G’ or ‘PG’; only 25 percent were rated ‘R’ films.”
Based on facts like these, the million-dollar question is why doesn’t Hollywood primarily produce G or PG rated films, since that is where the money is? The answer again is quite simple: making money is less important than weakening the moral fabric of the culture.
As Medved goes on to say, “In response to this consistent trend throughout the decade, one might reasonably expect that Hollywood would adjust its approach and reduce the levels of sex, violence and gutter language so that fewer films would earn the ‘R’ rating. Instead, official figures from the Motion Picture Association of America show that the percentage of ‘R’ rated movies dramatically increased—from 46 percent in 1980, to 67 percent in 1989.” We find the same result in 1990 and 1991, that G and PG movies “out-performed” R-rated ones.
In 1992, Medved brought these statistics to the attention of entertainment executives and journalists in Hollywood. One Hollywood studio executive agreed with Medved, saying that the figures he presented were “interesting,” but tried to explain why Hollywood preferred R-rated movies:
“We need pictures that have teeth to them, that have an edge, that stand out from all the stuff people see on TV…hard-edged pictures are a much safer bet—because they cut through the TV haze and get attention.”
Medved’s frustration with Hollywood is understandable, but the point here is very clear: Hollywood is primarily governed by an ideology that invariably leads to a deep-seated hatred of the order of the universe and any culture that has adopted this order. This has not changed since the 1920s, when Henry Ford noted that “as soon as the Jews gained control of the ‘movies,’ we had a movie problem, the consequences of which are visible.”
We are seeing this conspicuous consequence today. And the Harvey Weinstein debacle is a classic example.