“Yes, I will help corrupt the culture in Japan, and no one will know because we Jewish feminists use different vocabulary to seduce the masses. But the end result is always the same: corruption, corruption, and more corruption. The only way people can find out is to read Nathan Abrams’ ‘Triple Exthnics,’ which basically argues that people of my tribe have been corrupting any culture that appeals to the moral law and order. We destroyed the culture in the U.S., and Japan is our next victim.”
Feminist writer Christine Stark and philosophy professor Rebecca Whisnant write that feminism came to Japan through the United States in the 1990s, specifically with the publication of Sex Work: Voices of Women Who are Engaged in the Sex Work Industry.
Yet before that period, the Japan Communist Party—which was formed in 1922, disbanded two years later, re-formed in 1926, and then “forced underground in 1928”—provided the ideological soil for revolutionary movements in some circles. Communist propaganda and ideology were promoted in newspapers such as “the legal Musansha Shinbun (Proletarian Newspaper).”
The name of the newspaper itself implies that it was obviously a Marxist and Communist cell. In fact, many of the leading figures were anarchists, Communists, and Bolsheviks. People like Sata Ineko, Yamakawa Kikue, Hiratsuka Raicho, Yagi Akiko, among others, were all Communists, Marxists, materialist feminists, and anarchists. Around the same time, a number of leading intellectual journals such as Fujin Koron “provided a space for a feminist version of the anarchist-bolshevist debates.”
Scholar Vera Mackie tells us that “In the 1920s, communist, socialist and anarchist women pushed the limits of acceptable behavior for women.”
But throughout her study, Mackie could never come to the fact that those subversive movements in Japan would have been almost impossible without their progenitors, namely, Jewish revolutionary movements from abroad, most specifically in revolutionary politics in the Soviet Union.
Interestingly enough, it was right after the February Revolution of 1917 that feminism began to take a radical shift in Russia. Lenin himself supported the feminist movement. So it was a little bit frustrating to read Mackie’s work because she never got to heart of the issue.
Even people like Naomi Wolf brag that feminism and Judaism are basically two sides of the same coin. “We have a political history going back to the socialist and labor movements,” she wrote in 2005, “where women were organizers and rabble-rousers.”
Some of those rabble-rousers include Alexandra Kollontai and Betty Friedan. Kollontai herself “had joined the Bolsheviks and, under the leadership of V.I. Lenin, she would devote her life to the overthrow of the Czar in Russia as a prelude to worldwide revolution on the part of the working class.”
The simple of fact is that the ideology of those rabble-rousers did not die out. It thrived and spread like wildfire in Japan and in other Asian countries. In other words, some Japanese writers and intellectuals were being placed in a lab experiment, which was exclusively Jewish in its orientation.
This lab experiment went underground in the 1920s but came back to life in the 1990s under new names: postmodernism and feminism. This postmodernist movement produced Sex Work: Voices of Women Who are Engaged in the Sex Work Industry and turned the cultural milieu, as we shall see, into a sex pool.
Sex Work exposes Japanese men and women to the pornographic work of Jewish porn stars and gender theorists such as Annie Sprinkle (real name Ellen Steinberg), Kate Bornstein, Carol Queen, etc.
Sex Work, Start and Whisnant tell us,
“became an important motivator for this theory [feminism]. This book had a big impact on feminist movements and leftist groups in Japan, and the following discourse soon became dominant: prostitution is not a system of male dominance, therefore by regarding it as a form of work—fully legalizing it and wholly exempting it from punishment—we could do away with discrimination against prostitution and eliminate violence and injuries from the sex industry.
“Post-modernist theory, which came to be dominant in Japanese sociology in the 1990s, also functioned to undermine feminism, and led many leftist intellectuals to accept prostitution, sadomasochism, and pornography as various forms of human sexuality.”
After the postmodernist wave and feminist movement took over the intellectual firmament,
“opportunities to use and exploit women sexually in the media and in everyday life increased substantially. For example, many TV commercials and advertisements use women and children sexually, and a large amount of pornography is placed in convenience stores (7-Eleven, Lawson, and so on). The Japanese convenience store is a kind of general grocery store, which children as well as adults use daily in almost every city…
“Many pornographic magazines, which display female nakedness and make rape an amusement, are available in the magazine corner, and even pornographic comics, which openly display child rape, are located in this area. Moreover this area isn’t separated from the rest of the store in any way, schoolchildren can and do read these materials easily.
“Pornographic images, materials, and works penetrate the world of videos, DVD, the internet, CATV, PC games and so on. New communication technology always provides new means and opportunities for pornography, thus promoting the daily sexual objectification of women more and more.
“In Japan, 30,000 titles of pornographic videos are made and released onto the market every year…In spite of the legal ban on prostitution targeting children under eighteen, child prostitution using ‘meet-a-mate’ sites on the internet and cellular phones has not disappeared, but rather increased.”
Of those 30,000 pornographic videos,
“thousands of copies of each are put on the market…Child pornography is legally prohibited, but virtual child pornography such as cartoon, animation and computer graphics overflows in Japanese media, from major comic magazines to the internet.
“The content of this kind of child pornography is, in most cases, the rape, confinement, and abuse of virtual girls; many virtual girls are described to be abused in a variety of ways and to be thoroughly made into sexual slaves. Virtual child pornography can be seen at convenience stores, available to anyone, and anyone also can get it through the internet and obtain it in PC shops.”
Things were so bad in the 1990s in Japan that “the citizens of Wakayama prefecture loudly called for the control of sexually explicit manga [comic books] directed at children.”
Stark and Whisnant say that
“there is no doubt that the trafficking of pornography significantly reduces the status of females in Japan, distorts men’s views of women, and infringes upon the equal and personal rights of women.”
So, postmodernism—which is essentially Jewish and Satanic and which has progressively become “the official philosophy in academe in our day,” most specifically in the United States—opened the sexual floodgate in Japan. Postmodernism is Satanic because its intended goal is to deconstruct the moral, political, and intellectual order. It is Jewish because its proponents were largely Jewish revolutionaries.
One of the fathers of postmodernism is Rudolf Pannwitz (1881-1969), a Jewish philosopher who thought that Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideology was ontologically salvific and existentially superior to the traditional interpretation of logos as articulated in the writings of people like Plato and Aristotle.
Other Jewish revolutionaries picked up postmodernism in the 1960s and spread it in academe. Two of its modern and public exponents were Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, who subversively used postmodernism to destroy docility to the truth in academe. As E. Michael Jones writes,
“Literary criticism was no longer Protestant; it was Talmudic. Those who signed up for literature classes to learn how to read a poem, now learned that there was, as Fish put it, ‘no text.’
“No text meant any constitutional principle could be subverted by Talmudic reasoning by rabbis like Leo Pfeffer; and that any human right, such as the right to life, could be subverted similarly…[no text] also meant that there was no substance or being, as Derrida’s attack on ‘onto-theology’ showed….
“Political correctness was the final expression of the Talmudic redefinition of American discourse which had begun in the ‘70s under the direction of Jewish critical theorists like Fish and Derrida.”
Derrida, through a corrupt and self-defeating system of philosophy known as deconstructionism, which “claims to offer much-needed philosophical assistance to all disciplines, not simply to the study of literature,” mocks logos as the fountainhead of knowledge. Derrida used Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s philosophy to smuggle in essentially Talmudic ideology into his system of thought, which ended up attacking logos as embodied in the philosophy of Plato and the Western intellectual tradition.
Richard Rorty himself says that Derrida’s “line of thought is characterized by an ever more radical repudiation of Platonism—of the apparatus of philosophical distinctions which the West inherited from Plato and which has dominated Western thought.” In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche repudiated “the true world” and called it “fable.”
According to this principle, the moral world, the metaphysical world, the world of order as espoused by Plato and Kant are just figments of the imagination and has no basis in reality. These “traditional binary oppositions,” as deconstructionists call them, or “logocentrism,” as Derrida later renamed them, cripple the West from reaching its full potential.
Moreover, modern man needs to free himself from those logo-centric shackles and separate himself from logo-centric philosophers such Hegel, who situate logos as the sustainer of rational discourse and the bridge through which human beings can communicate and understand each other in a cogently rational fashion. Hegel believes that there is indeed a logos in history. Logos—which is synonymous with reason, speech, word, logic, etc.—is metaphysically significant precisely because dialogues between two human beings and even between nations heavily rely on it.
But deconstructionists deconstruct logos by basically saying that there is only absolute truth in the universe, and that absolute truth states that there is no absolute truth. As Richard Rorty himself puts it,
“Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of human beings—cannot.”
If truth is not out there and if only descriptions of the world can be true or false, then it boils down to matters of interpretation. In other words, truth is relative. Rorty himself espouses some form of relativism. He says that “there is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one or another area of enquiry.”
Rorty certainly drowned himself in his own philosophy here. If there is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from a given society, and, according to Rorty, our society, then one cannot judge crimes committed by other societies at all. If the Holocaust establishment is right about the six-million figure, then Rorty is philosophically (or perversely) arguing that the establishment cannot say that Hitler was wrong because that was his society! Whether he likes it or not, Rorty is intellectually a neo-Nazi and an advocate of the Third Reich. Philosophically, he is also a defender of Stalin, Mao, Oh Chi Minh, Kim Jung-il, etc.
Obviously this ideology fits perfectly well with the draconian speech code that the Dreadful Few have forced upon the intellectual landscape, but no serious person, not even Rorty, whose parents were Trotskyites, really believes it. It looks good on paper and it has been published at prestigious institutions such as Cambridge, but Rorty could not defend it rationally.
The issue becomes very interesting because Rorty explicitly said that his overarching goal as a professor was to indoctrinate students and drag them to his worldview, or, shall we say, his “truth.” Speaking of conservative parents who sent their precious sons and daughters to get a decent education at places like Stanford, Princeton, University of Virginia (where the late professor used to teach), Rorty—who admitted that he “grew up knowing that all decent people were, if not Trotskyites, at least socialists”—said:
“You have to be educated in order to be…a participant in our conversation…So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.
“I don’t see anything herrschaftsfrei [domination free] about my handling of my fundamentalist students. Rather, I think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents…
“I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause.”
Rorty even calls this a “conspiracy.” In other words, we need a group of individuals such as Rorty and Derrida to tell us what to think. Aristotle begins his Metaphysics by saying that “By nature, all men long to know.” But Rorty and others are indirectly telling us that this body of knowledge is contingent upon what a certain group of people want us to know.
Whether Rorty likes it or not, his pragmatism or postmodernism is as revolutionary and subversive as Freemasonry, which attracted a large number of the intellectual class such as Voltaire during the French Revolution.
Rorty was well versed in the contradictory nature of philosophical systems such as John Dewey’s pragmatism. In fact, his teachers Mortimer Adler and Robert Maynard Hutchins repeatedly pointed out to him that pragmatism is philosophically self-refuting and therefore worthless. “To say that truth is what works is to reduce the quest for truth to the quest for power.”
That simple refutation, of course, was anathema to Rorty’s philosophical underpinnings, largely because he was not prepared to give up Sidney Hook, John Dewey, and the New York Intellectuals. The New York Intellectuals were a group of Jewish writers and revolutionaries of Trotskyite extraction who later established the Neoconservative movement in America.
Rorty’s parents were Hook’s friends. So he had some sort of filial piety here. Instead of thinking these issues through, Rorty, like Darwin and his devoted followers, chose to live in contradiction. As he later put it, he dropped Hegel and Plato and returned to pragmatism. He recounted,
“I found myself being led back to Dewey. Dewey now seemed to me a philosopher who had learned all that Hegel had to teach about how to eschew certainty and eternity, while immunizing himself against pantheism by taking Darwin seriously. This rediscovery of Dewey coincided with my first encounter with Derrida (which I owe to Jonathan Arac, my colleague at Princeton).
“Derrida led me back to Heidegger, and I was struck by the resemblances between Dewey’s, Wittgenstein’s and Heidegger’s criticisms of Cartesianism. Suddenly things began to come together.”
Why did Rorty cling to pragmatism, despite of its philosophical deadness?
Well, logocentrism leads to the moral law and order and political harmony; the moral law and order, as Kant proposes, inevitably and logically leads to a moral lawgiver. If there is a moral lawgiver, then by necessity some things are absolutes and that truth exists. A deconstructionist or pragmatist or postmodernist does not want to face that fact, so he hides behind excuses as to why he cannot accept the moral law and a moral lawgiver.
As Aldous Huxley later put it, many of those people adopt this system of thought for ideological reasons, namely, sexual and political liberation. “We objected to morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom,” said Huxley. Michel Foucault would have agreed. But objecting to the moral law and order always comes with a huge price. Those who do so always end up corrupting themselves, as in the case of Foucault. As St. Peter puts it,
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19)
In short, postmodernists like Rorty tell us that words have no meaning, but they want to make sure that their words have meaning to their unsuspecting students and readers, who sometimes are not sophisticated enough to recognize the internal contradiction which is inherent in the postmodernist movement. Those students plunk down thousands upon thousands of dollars and sometimes go literally bankrupt to get indoctrinated.
Indoctrination largely came in academe in the writing of Jacques Derrida, who obviously thought that he was qualified to free modern man from what he called “traditional binary oppositions” in 1966. After he delivered a lecture at Johns Hopkins on deconstructionism, one can say that postmodernism became fully established in some circles. All of this was made possible through the so-called “democracy” as espoused by Enlightenment writers.
“The traditional view claimed speech was subordinated to the moral law, the good in question. The Whig Enlightenment claimed, in the case of speech, that the moral law was subject to individual freedom. This rallying cry allowed Jewish revolutionaries to take over the university. Once in power, they changed the rules.
“The ‘Good’ at Duke University, where Fish taught at the time he was being proclaimed as an Apostle of Political Correctness in organs like Newsweek, got redefined as the will of those in power. In the absence of a ‘text’ such as Nature, Being, Logos, the Constitution, etc., there could be no good but the will of the powerful fortified by appetite.”
Once the Dreadful Few took over academe, then they get to fire people they do not like. If you think this is far-fetched, then call Professor Denis Rancourt, a stellar physicist with an impeccable reputation in major scientific journals, and he will tell you exactly what happened to him at the University of Ottawa once he challenged Zionism.
Once Rancourt began to attack that golden calf and its political tentacles, all hell broke loose. Stanley Fish, one of the most intellectually perverse individuals in academe in America, began to implicitly advocate that Rancourt be excommunicated. Rancourt was fired, even though he was a tenured professor and taught at the university for at least twenty-five years.
The situation is quite terrible, and Rancourt recently told me that the case is still going on. The trial, which he describes as “an abomination,” was a recent coup by the Dreadful Few to literally kill the career of a well-loved professor and a reasonable man. He told me:
“The shameful trial judgement was appealed by me to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The hearing was on June 26, 2015. The appeal hearing and judgement were a sham…On Monday September 28th I will serve my Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On Monday I will make the entire (350-page) Application public.
“The Supreme Court can reject my request for leave to appeal, without giving any reasons.
If my Application is rejected, then I will make a legal complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee for Canada’s violations in my case of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I have a strong case to prove several violations of the Covenant perpetrated by Canadian courts.”
In public and in books, Fish pretentiously says that he believes in free speech. But E. Michael Jones found out that this was not the case when he was a student of Fish back in the late 1970s. In his recent book Versions of Academic Freedom, Fish writes,
“If you are trying to find out what is true, you must begin by not prejudicing your inquiry. Therefore no point of view should be either anointed or dismissed out of hand in advance. Any and all these are to be put to the test of rational deliberation, laboratory procedures, the marshalling and assessing evidence, etc.
“It follows that the academic researcher must be free to pursue the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to a conclusion many abhor, a conclusion like the Holocaust never happened.”
Great assertion. But there is just one problem: Fish personally does not practice it at all. Fish proved that Jones was right all along when he admits that academe is no longer a democracy but “a structure of authority”:
“While academic freedom also insists that ideas should be given a hearing, it erects a barriers that must be negotiated before a particular idea is welcomed into the conversation as a legitimate participant; it must pass muster before a body of credentialed experts; and if it does not, it will be sent away without apology and without any philosophical or moral anxieties. The academy is not a democracy; it is a structure of authority, and it is in the business of excluding what it has judged to be unworthy.”
Dealing with Holocaust denial, Fish moves on to write: “True is what is true, not what the guild says is true, the denier will insist. But in the academic world—as opposed to the world of democracy—what is true is what the guild says is true…”
What we are seeing here is the subversion of the traditional definition of truth in academe by people like Fish. Plato wrote that “having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way things are.” But Fish is basically saying that having a grasp of the truth is having a belief that matches the way “the guild” says is true.
If “the guild” turns out to propagate lies, as in the case of the Israel/Palestine conflict, then those lies ought to be the truth. People will just have to deal with it. So, academe, as Jones has argued, has essentially become Talmudic.
As already suggested, deconstructivism is Satanic because it ridicules truth and the moral order. It was inevitable, then, that Derrida ended up attacking the family. Derrida meant it when he wrote explicitly:
“It is true that my interest in literature, diaries, journals in general, also signified a typical, stereotypical revolt against the family. My passion for Nietzsche, Rousseau, and also Gide, whom I read a lot at that time, meant among other things: ‘Families, I hate you.’ I thought of literature as the end of the family, and of the society it represented.”
If we take Derrida seriously, postmodernism, with tentacles like deconstructionism, is an attack on the family and the moral order. So, when postmodernism reached Japan in the 1990s, it ended up killing the family, the social order, and quickly affected much of the intellectual climate in a detrimental and pernicious way. One of the individuals who got bugged by that ideology was Chizuko Ueno, who was raised a Christian and who is now a professor at the University of Tokyo.
The “disobedient” woman, as she now calls herself, is postulating that marriage is “a sexually oppressive” institution. “Sexism is everywhere you go, just like gravity,” she said. “It’s part of nature.”
Ueno still hasn’t realized that once morality is out of the equation, then individuals are just instruments or subjects to the rich and powerful and to the people who control the culture. She still has not come to the fact that postmodernism was largely responsible for the sexual virus which got spread in Japan among the youth.
The same ideology has progressively led Japan to become, in the words of a Japanese observer, “a porn superpower.” Japan is indirectly spreading that virus to China. But this is not a surprise at all. Jewish historian Edward J. Bristow tells us on the first page of his book Prostitution and Prejudice that
“Between 1880 and 1939, the Jews played a conspicuous role in ‘white slavery,’ as the commercial prostitution of that era was dramatically called. Not only was this Jewish participation conspicuous, it was historically unprecedented, geographically widespread, and fraught with collective political danger.”
By the time we reached the 1980s, “it can be estimated that from 500,000 to a million women have been brought into Japan as sex slaves. Living under miserable conditions, many foreign women committed suicide or were murdered in Japan.”
So, the logic is pretty clear: so-called “democracy” and “freedom” opened the door for pornography America, which is under the able hands of what David Irving would have called “the traditional enemy of the truth.” Pornography traveled from America to Japan under new names called postmodernism and feminism, but the end result is always the same. In fact, when the pornographic movie Ai no corrida (“In the Realm of the Senses”) was released in Japan in 1976, the LA Times called it “the most thoughtful work of art on and of eroticism yet done.” This film
“was banned from Japan due to its nudity and erotic content. This film by Nagisa Oshima was produced in France in 1976 and quickly became a sensation at film festivals in New York and Cannes. When first shown in Japan, however, in October of 1976 the film was seized by authorities.
“Based on a true story well known in Japan, its content –involving the vivid depiction of asphixiophilia– was nevertheless considered too obscene for public viewing in Japan. The producer and script writer were taken to court and charged with obscenity but found not guilty (Okudaira, 1979; Oshima, 1979; Uchida, 1979). A cut expurgated version was subsequently released. Frontal nudity was permitted to appear on film for the first time at the 1986 Tokyo film festival.”
Around 1975, American pornographic magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse were completely banned in Japan, but all that changed in the 1980s.
“In the early 1980s, European and American pornographic video tapes were the most prevalent form of contraband seized by Japanese custom agents from travelers returning from aboard. These materials were routinely confiscated…
“Again in 1989, a report by the Japanese “Publishing Science Research Institute” presented statistics for the legal production of Japanese publications. Playboy and Penthouse were among the best selling adult men’s magazines.”
The first American college sex textbook that appeared in Japan was entitled, Sexual Decisions, and was “was republished in a Japanese edition in 1985. Depictions of sexual positions and other images were allowed only after the book was edited to reduce the number of illustrations with pubic hair or exposed genitalia.”
By 1991, the sexual revolution in Japan was already in full bloom among the youth.
“In February 1991 the Liberal Democratic Party asked its members to introduce legislation to regulate sexually explicit manga (Anonymous, 1991a). The motion failed but again served notice that the increase in pornography was of widening social concern. In that year a survey (‘Survey on Comics among Youth’) by the ‘Japanese Association for Sex Education’ (JASE, 1991) found that among Middle School students 21.6 percent of males and 7.6 percent of females regularly read so called ‘porno-comics.’
“In 1993 a survey by the Youth Authority of Somucho (Government Management and Coordination Agency) found that approximately 50 percent of the male and 20 percent of the female Middle and Upper High School students were found to regularly read “porno-comics.”
In 2013 U.S. Department of State’s human-rights said that Japan is an “international hub for the production and trafficking of child pornography.” But who made that possible? China? South Korea? The Philippines? The U.S. Department could not tell us.
Here we are going back to the ideological war, which is more powerful than guns and bullets. If you want to destroy a nation, then destroy the moral fabric of that nation. Research after research has shown conclusively that pornographic materials are “detrimental to public morals.” Those “forces,” we are told, have the potential to “denigrate and devalue human persons.”
But since the Dreadful Few are at war with metaphysical logos, which includes the sexual order, pornography, they tell us, are not detrimental to public morals. In the 1970s, Jewish revolutionary Berl Kutchinsky preposterously argued that there would be a reduction of sex crime rates once restrictions on pornography have been uplifted.
Kutchinsky was obviously on the same line with people like Wilhelm Reich, who coined the term the “sexual revolution.” Japan proved Kutchinsky was completely wrong. In 2012, the British newspaper the Independent reported:
“Child porn-related crimes have grown fivefold in Japan through the last decade, according to the country’s National Police Agency. At least 600 children a year fall victim to paedophile directors and photographers…
“The UK-based Internet Watch Foundation traced nearly 16,250 websites depicting child abuse back to Japan in 2006, enough to put it third on a global watch list. In 2009, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection placed Japan fourth among the top five countries hosting websites with child abuse images, according to ECPAT International, an NGO that fights to end the commercial exploitation of children.”
Jake Adelstein, a journalist and board member with the Polaris Project Japan, said that “The US is very frustrated with Japan. The FBI and Homeland Security Investigations give Japan’s police hundreds of tips on child pornography makers and distributors every year and none of them are acted upon.”
I couldn’t help but laugh a bit here. What kind of tips have the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations given to combat internet pornography and the people who are promoting it? What kind of tips have they given to families to fight Hollywood companies and producers who are vomiting disgusting and diabolical movies such as Knock Knock, Girl House, The Human Centipede, The ABCs of Death, Cosmopolis, to name just a few?
How about abusing children in Hollywood and letting directors and producers get away with it? Did Woody Allen or Bryan Singer or Roman Polanski ever get arrested? How about pedophilia in Hollywood?
 Vera Mackie, Feminism in Modern Japan: Citizenship, Embodiment and Sexuality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 89.
 Ibid., 91.
 Ibid., 92.
 See for example Rochelle Goldberg Ruthchild, Equality and Revolution: Women’s Rights in the Russian Empire, 1905-1917 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010).
 Hedrick Smith, The Russians (New York: Ballantine Books, 1977), 166.
 Quoted in Marjorie Ingall, “Why Are There So Many Jewish Feminists?,” Forward, November 18, 2005.
 E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 153.
 Frédérique Delacoste and Priscilla Alexander, ed., Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry (San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1987).
 Rebecca Whisnant and Christine Stark, Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography (North Melbourne: Spinifex Press, 2004), 67.
 Ibid., 74.
 Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama, “Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1): 1-22, 1999.
 Whisnant and Stark, Not for Sale., 74-75.
 E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August, 2015.
 Alan L. Mittleman, “Judaism and Postmodernity,” First Things, February 1993.
 See for example Steven E. Aschhem, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany: 1890-1900 (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992), 77.
 E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1001.
 Richard Rorty, “Deconstruction,” Raman Selden, ed., The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism: From Formalism to Poststruturalism, Vol. VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 168.
 Ibid., 168-169.
 Ibid., 169.
 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 5.
 Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 23.
 My personal questions are simply these: How did Rorty’s perversion end up being published by Cambridge University? Couldn’t the editors see that Rorty was indirectly promoting a philosophy which would end up destroying the ideology of the Holocaust establishment? Or has intellectualism gone so low that people cannot detect internal contradictions and intellectual perversions?
 Richard Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), 5-6
 Richard Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” Robert B. Brandon, ed., Rorty and His Critics (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 21-22.
 Aristotle, Metaphysics (New York: Penguin, 1998), 4.
 For a short history on these issues, see for example William Doyle, The Oxford History of the French Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Roger Chartier, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004); Reinhart Koselleck, Critique and Crises: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998). Jones has an entire chapter on this in The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
 Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, 8.
 For a brief article on this, see Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.
 Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, 12.
 Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization (London: Chatoo & Windus, 1946), 273.
 A very dear friend of mine went to UCLA (studied math and philosophy) and ended up carrying a 100,000-dollar loan on his back!
 Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2008), 1001.
 Stanley Fish, Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 142.
 See for example E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012), chapter 4; http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9902/yaffe.html.
 Fish, Versions of Academic Freedom, 148.
 Plato, The Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 116.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1003-1004.
 Jacques Derrida, Acts of Literature (New York: Routledge, 1992), 39.
 Eric Prideaux, “Speaking up for her sex,” Japan Times, March 5, 2006.
 Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery, 1870-1939 (New York: Schoken, 1985), 1.
 Whisnant and Stark, Not for Sale, 76.
 For studies on this, see for example Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012).
 Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama, “Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1): 1-22, 1999.
 Quoted in Melissa Hellmann, “Japan Finally Bans Child Pornography,” Time, June 18, 2014.
 Diamond and Uchiyama, “Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1): 1-22, 1999.
 David McNeil, “Japan’s child porn addiction,” The Independent, October 12, 2012.