There I was wandering around my own hard drive and I found some porn! It was the only thing I'd ever bothered saving. It was from a VCD I bought in Hong Kong years ago. I bought it because its cover caught my eye. The Chinese characters on the front said, '500 people!' and beneath that was a photo of hundreds of naked couples, each with their own futon, with the futons laid out in rows in some gigantic sound stage. Sure enough it was a Chinese knock-off of a Japanese thing. I expect it cost ten HK dollars which is about a buck fifty.
Buck fifty or no, it's one of the most extraordinary things ever. It's not an orgy or a free-for-all. All of the people are directed. They all do the same thing. They start with kissing. After ten minutes, with the cameras wandering through the ranks, the director gives the nod and everyone goes to the next foreplay position. And so on and so on. Ten minutes of each thing, with everyone in rows, all facing the same way, all simultaneously progressing through the various positions, man on top, woman on top, etc etc, until everyone 'goes' (nb. the Japanese do not so much 'come' as 'go'. Ha! this and a thousand other curiosities). And then it's all over bar the mopping up with the thoughtfully provided tissues. At no time is there any artifice, pretence, or bullshit. The whole thing is shockingly honest.
Okay, so this is porn but it's also something else. For mine, this is up there with Christo and Spencer Tunick. As art it's the equal of any of these, albeit without the famous backdrops. Viewed objectively, it's like some mad anthropological tableau, a real cultural trip. These people are so polite and considerate of each other! And within these ordered acts of nude uniformity is the wildest array of differences imaginable. I still don't know what to make of it. One could write it off as mere porn, sure. But this is so unlike anything you've ever seen before, and such a mindfuck, that it's beyond that. It's something else.
But! Forget about it! I don't really want to discuss this particular video. I merely insert the preceding as a preface to the following. (Or if you want to view it as me cravenly explaining why I have porn on my hard-drive, you may do so, ha ha.) And otherwise, I have no idea if this vid was a big deal in Japan. Perhaps it was run of the mill? Certainly its not-infrequent incidences of female orgasm and ejaculation are. In Japan, that is. In 'Western' porn (which is to say, Jewish porn) there's no such thing. What's perfectly unremarkable in Japan is completely and utterly absent in the West. And it's this line of thought that has fired my brain.
Okay so I've written about this before. Ever monotonous, me. But here I want to go one step further, make some new connections, and otherwise clarify things.
But let's leap to Scott Ritter first. Remember him? Way back when, in the weapons inspection phase after Bush the Elder's Gulf War, he was 'it'. He was the good-looking ex-marine who was stomping all over Iraq searching for WMD's. He was certainly all over the media. I saw him dozens of times and you probably did too. He was savvy, sharp, and pithy. He was so good that whenever the media needed an expert on WMD's in Iraq, Ritter was the first, and probably the only, name in their rolodex.
Cue to a couple of years later and we're in the run-up to the idiot son's Gulf War with a media discussion of same exact subject - WMD's in Iraq. On and on, an endless discussion of how Saddam was going to kill us all. Everyone who was anyone, and could string two words together, got on the TV to tell us about Iraqi WMD's. Everyone, except Scott Ritter. And nobody noticed. The only reason I noticed was on account of his name copping a single fleeting mention in a single fleeting newspaper article. It hinted that Ritter was somehow in disagreement with what the US government was telling us.
A minor explosion in the head of yours truly. Scott Ritter! Whatever happened to him? Why wasn't he on the telly? And he disagreed about the WMD's? Huh?! No one disagreed on this! What's going on? Fired with curiosity, I hit the net and discovered that Ritter was saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq at all. Not a sausage. And the media...?
The media, which apparently loves controversy, was utterly uninterested in a fellow who was, a) arguably the expert on the topic under discussion, b) media savvy and camera friendly, with an excellent track record, and c) had a controversial view on the biggest topic going.
I'll keep saying this because it's a big deal - Ritter's complete and utter absence in the media was IMPOSSIBLE.
Well, it was impossible if the media is what they say they are. Allegedly they love controversy. Allegedly they like to get the scoop that no one else gets. Allegedly they love to dig up the truth and win that Pulitzer. Scott Ritter was someone's ticket to all of these things and yet not one single media entity would touch him. Nuts.
The only possible explanation for Ritter's absence is one that pivots on the media as a bloc-media wherein no one may stray from a centrally dictated line. That's the only conclusion possible.
Okay, yawn, everyone gets it. It's all old hat. Well it certainly is on this blog, ha ha. But whatever. I just want to hammer home the principle that if one can figure out what's absent in any given media discussion, far more will be learnt than by attempting to analyse what's present. Or perhaps that should be 'presented'. What's presented is bullshit designed to mislead and confuse. Whatever isn't there has been disappeared because it will lead us to the truth. Or peace. Or health. Or freedom. Or insert-thing-worth-having-here.
And everything is like this. Certainly everything in the media. For some reason we differentiate the media from Hollywood, from publishing, from games, from the porn industry. This is foolish. They're all the same thing. They all deal with perceptions. And they're all run by same people. Jewish people, natch. To be honest, if the Jewish people had one single talent, it's their ability to posit an imagined reality. No one here will be surprised when I say that, between reality and the Jewish media's posited reality, the latter trumps the former. Just ask the Iraqis! Otherwise you can call this ability lying if you like - no skin off my nose.
And this genius for creating a self-serving reality isn't confined to us understanding that Jewish people are victim/heroes and Arabs are villains. Nor to Christians being slowly turned into precisely the kind of people that Christ emphatically rejected. Nor to the world being convinced that usury and money-as-debt are as natural and inevitable as the sunrise.
Nothing is left out. Everything is viewed through this Jewish lens. Even sex. Sex is a funny thing. How do we learn about sex? Okay so there's the antiseptic mechanics of it that we're all taught at school. And then... And then... It seems that's there's two ways to learn about sex. One is by doing it. I'm going to call this 'education by Chinese whispers'. It's whispered from person to person. The other means of learning about sex is via the Jewish perception machine. Which is to say, porn. And no mistake, porn definitely serves this purpose. How many kids have watched full-tilt porn before they even have their first sexual experience? Most of them?
Fact is, they don't even really need to watch porn at all. Regular sitcom television is now so pornographic it's mind-boggling. To be honest I rarely watch this sort of stuff. But all one has to do is flick around the channels and this is sufficient to get the idea. Has anyone seen Two And A Half Men? Good god. Is it just me, or is this show entirely devoted to the sex life of two men who have a boy living with them? And last night in surfing through the channels I happen upon David Lucas's glabrous bonce (from the comedy show Little Britain USA) filling half the screen as he mugs wantonly over David Walliams' realistically sculpted prosthetic penis (which fills the other half). Do we seriously think kids don't surf through the channels like this? Of course they do.
Okay, sure, it's the parent's fault. Guilty of insufficient vigilance! But vigilance is easier said than done. Not so long ago, finding depictions of sex anywhere was not easy. Now it's everywhere. It's so omnipresent that we barely think anything of it. It's normalised now. So much so, that was you to sit in someone's loungeroom and point out the perversity of what they're watching, they'd take you for some variety of nutbar wowser.
Anyway the trend is unmistakable. Four decades ago TV depictions of married couples required that they not be in the same bed together. And now, not only are they in bed, but it will be made perfectly clear that they are involved in some graphically unmistakable sex act. In fact, it's perfectly possible that it will comprise the entire pivot around which the episode revolves. Seinfeld anyone? Not forgetting of course that the biggest video of whatever-year-that-was was Paris Hilton sucking cock. How many boys and girls saw that? Most of 'em I expect.
Side note 1 - I spent some time in Milan in Italy and met a lot of wealthy young American kids studying fashion etc. It was fun for a while but eventually I got tired of hearing the word 'awesome', and moreover, of the really intense pornographic nature of most of their conversations. I'm not talking smutty double entendres here. I'm always up for that. This was different. "No man, she actually preferred sucking cock to having sex. She said that! And she bet me (right there in the middle of the party!) that she could make me come without touching me except with her mouth. So I said, 'Man, we're getting this on video...''. All with endless interjections of 'awesome' from the mixed company audience. I was at a loss in these conversations. I'd never come across people who talked like this. And nor was there any shortage of them. Shake my head.
And me, I haven't the slightest doubt that these kids are this way because of their immersion in the Jewish media. Not only are our conversations ever more given to sex, but this sex is ever more extreme in its perversity. But this is just more background to my main point, that being about absences.
The absence in amongst this sea of porn is female orgasm. And had I not lived in Japan, watched Japanese porn, and witnessed the ubiquity of female orgasm, I'd have assumed that it was some variety of chimera - 'a thing that is hoped or wished for, but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve'. As far as Jewish porn is concerned that's female orgasm for you.
Or let's put it this way - women do have orgasms in Jewish porn. Which is to say they scream more loudly when the man comes. But having seen When Harry Met Sally, we all know that it's bullshit. And it is bullshit! Besides, female orgasm results from certain, ahem, physical actions. Me, I have never seen these actions depicted in Jewish porn. Certainly not for long enough for an orgasm to result. So whilst we might vaguely understand that female orgasm is possible, we will never be shown how to bring it about in any useful fashion. (I suspect that if any couple in a Jewish porn movie did manage it, the whole sequence would be left on the cutting room floor.)
Keep in mind that no cultural reference is too obtuse for the porn industry to hang its hat on. 'Splendour in the Grass' was turned into 'Splendour in the Ass'. 'Edward Scissorhands' became 'Edward Penis-hands'. On and on, ad nauseam. Any idiotic thing will do. Except female orgasm.
Straight up and unambiguously now - This absence is IMPOSSIBLE. Which is to say, it's a deliberate act. There is no way known that the porn industry forgot, or is otherwise unaware of, actual female orgasm. It's as simple as that.
Side note 2 - Who remembers the G-spot? I recall a fifteen-minutes-of-fame book written about it in the eighties. And then what? And then nothing. It sank without trace. Not a single ripple interrupted our ever growing exposure to our ever more perverse discussions of fellatio, necrophilia, bestiality etc. In fact I expect that there are people reading this who are scratching their heads, not quite sure what I'm talking about. Well just to make things clearer (ha!), here's the definition of G-spot from my Macintosh's Oxford American Dictionary - 'a sensitive area of the anterior wall of the vagina believed by some to be highly erogenous and capable of ejaculation.' What? "believed by some"? Ha ha ha ha - who wrote this shit? Go to Japan you fuckwit! Check the porn! No need for 'belief' mate, it's all right there spritzing the goddamn camera.
Okay. So what does it all mean? Why is Jewish porn (hell, the whole media) completely devoid of non-fake female orgasm? Why is that? Remember - like Scott Ritter's absence in the run up to Iraq, this cannot be an accident. Impossibilities like this can only be deliberate.
It's hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that the existence of female orgasm, along with the means of achieving it, are some mad variety of occult knowledge. The masses (the non-Japanese masses, that is) are to be kept ignorant of it. To what end? Why is this so?
I wonder if there isn't some porn-specific variation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion out there that explains why the goyim may not know about female orgasm. "Deprived of this knowledge, the goyim will all run melancholy mad and turn to us for solace" or somesuch.
And whether I have a precise answer for this or no (okay, so it's 'no'), it's not like everything above is rendered worthless. The fact that I don't know the 'why' doesn't change the cold hard certainty of 'who', 'what', and 'when'. These alone are enough to tell us what we're in amongst. The dichotomy of reality and its depiction by the world-is-thus Jewish media is cast in stark relief regardless.
Consider the enormity of this. There is no aspect of our existence that the Jewish definers of reality aren't prepared to distort. Nothing. What's in your head belongs to them. From whom we kill, to how we fuck - all of it - it's all theirs.
And sure enough, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. Yeah well fuck that. I'm calling it.