So, I just read an... article... about five porn stars that 'came out' to their families and how it went. I use the term article guardedly. Its a puff piece, really, a section of vignettes with pretty pictures. If you were curious it was in the New York Post, and included Jessica Drake and a couple of girls I've never heard of such as Stoya and something-something Fiore. I won't bother trying to link it.
The only reason to mention it, to discuss it, is to talk about The Cathedral, and Spin. It seems weird, of course, to consider a puff piece about porn stars to be relevant when discussing the Cathedral, but there you have it.
See: While Porn is a sort of dirty secret, an unintended byproduct of directed efforts to shape our society, to tear down the old world and build the new, utopian dream, the fact is that anyone connected to the Cathedral can't actually do anything about it. They have to treat porn, and especially porn stars, as legitimate and publicly acceptable members of society. Not while actually approving of porn or those who watch it... its a sort of catch-22.
I should say, instead: The Porn Industry. After all, since the dawn of time man has drawn titties on the walls and women have exchanged sex for money. Even in the old world one could find dirty pictures to look at. The Industry, however... well, Hugh Hefner has never been shy about admitting he set out to change the world to a far more libertine one, that peddling smut was merely an enjoyable means to an end.
Publicly accessible porn is part of destroying the morality and codes of the Old World, it is part and parcel of The Cathedral. Not that they necessarily like it. The modern progressives are some of the worst prudes you can imagine. For all their jazz about not judging people, you try putting a dirty picture up in a modern... lets say mechanic's garage. They'll screech and shout oppression until they are blue in the face to get you fired.
But they still need the Porn Industry, the alinsky rule about using the rules against the rulers applies, which is why Larry Flint framed his legal defense as a First Amendment Right, and why the ACLU still views itself as a First Amendment protection organization above all others, despite being entirely a communist organ from its founding.
Of course mission drift works both ways, and the ACLU has found itself siding against the Cathedral any number of times in recent memory. Modern generations of lawyers aren't carefully brainwashed into only supporting First Amendment cases that attack the Ancien Regime... they believe in the mission as blindly as they should.
But lets get back to the puff piece. It was spun so hard that it is nearly impossible to pick any useful information out of it, but... well... nearly.
Of note we universally hear how mothers, or in Stoya's case Grandmothers, were entirely supportive of the women's career choices. Fiore's case is particularly interesting in that all the Cathedral sentiments you can imagine were cited. She'd gone to college, this was her path, her choice... nothing wrong with it, but be careful.
Jessica Drake provides the only exception, and barely in that her mother mailed pictures of her work to her father, more on that in a moment.
In only three of the five cases are fathers mentioned at all, and they are never as effulgent as the mothers. Often they are merely quiet figures, or baffled. In one case the father says something to the affect of 'I still love you', without ever actually criticizing.
This is deliberate. This is Cathedral propaganda. There is no shame in doing porn, mother's opinions are the important ones, and fathers are cowed into submitting, into not creating feel-bads.
Which leaves us with Jessica Drake. Clearly the message is that there is nothing wrong with doing porn, that it is empowering and so forth. Clearly it is that everything is all right, that a proper father will accept it, won't be upset... that he knows his place.
So why the story? Clearly, from Jessica Drake's anecdote, the intent was to hurt the father, sending explicit pictures of his daughter. We might infer that Jessica was also a target, as she apparently was superseded from telling Daddy herself, in her own way, though this implies she actually intended to do so on her own.
Its an imperfection, and I don't think its a coincidence that it occurs in the largest star in the piece, the headliner of the article. Everyone makes mistakes, and the stories can't be made up from whole cloth... not yet. Ms Drake's story is not deemed, one assumes, directly harmful to the message and she is too important, to visible to be shunned. We can even read a sort of Cathedral Positive message in it, the sort of second hand incest, the empowered woman who is not judged for the incredibly vile action she perpetrated.
The most damning evidence is this: Not one story involves the actress being condemned, judged or otherwise put upon for her choice. Is it random coincidence that they picked five actresses who just happened to have very tolerant and understanding families? Or did they white wash away any evidence to the contrary. I think that's obvious.
And once you realize they white washed the hell out of the story... and why they didn't just stick one of those not terribly uncommon california girl actresses who actually involve their families in their careers, I have no idea? Too creepy, maybe? ... then the obvious question to ask is why? What is the message here?
The Message, clearly, is that there are no repercussions to doing porn, that its perfectly acceptable behavior... that being judgmental, even in this, is simply not something right-thinking people do. It is, in short, a feel good story about being a whore.
From that we can speculate WHY this message is important, why it is necessary, which is what I just did. We can look for ways they spread the message, which I also did.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I don't believe in the smoke filled (patchouli instead of cigar?) room and the secret network of string pullers making hard choice. But I do believe in patterns, in loose coalitions of like minded people. I do believe, for example, that Gramsci's long march took place, is taking place around us. It doesn't need an evil mastermind and loyal minions... that is the worst part about it, in fact. Its just ordinary people who believe in an ideology strongly enough that they are willing to pervert the organs of public life around them into one more of their liking. They are taught it is perfectly acceptable to lie openly about their motives and reasons as they do. And people are generally bad liars, so they get caught all the time saying exactly what they are doing, and no one cares.
No one cares, because the most important of our public organs, the senses by which we observe the larger society, was the first one corrupted... the media. It is no coincidence, no mistake, that shortly after the Frankfurt School came to the US, fleeing the Nazi's, that the settled into the Columbia School of Journalism, and no surprise that shortly after the idea of journalism degrees became de rigeur in news rooms around the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment