Was Einstein a Wife Beater, Womanizer, Plagiarizer, and Eugenicist? (Part I)
SEX AND THE INTELLECTUALS
Aldous Huxley articulated a principle in the preface of his Brave New World that seems to represent the weltanschauung of many intellectuals—both past and present. Huxley wrote:
“As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.”
The sexual calculus, then, is pretty clear: sexual freedom leads to sexual possibilities, and when that takes place, people are going to get hurt. As Marquis de Sade put it,
“The philosopher sates his appetites without inquiring to know what his enjoyments may cost others, and without remorse.”
One needn’t be an intellectual to see that this inexorably provides a form of justification for things like rape, sodomy and pornography.
In other words, Sade and other Enlightenment writers were just postulating intellectual justifications for the sexual revolution, which had its trajectory through the sixties and all the way to Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga and Hollywood. Moreover, the French Revolution, which was essentially Masonic in nature, was the “reign of terror” both politically and sexually.
Sade, the most perverted and decadent writer during the French Revolution, literally and practically took the sexual calculus to its zenith. First, Sade had to deconstruct morality in its transcendent form. Sade tells us,
“Virtue is not some kind of mode whose value is incontestable, it is simply a scheme of conduct, a way of getting along, which varies according to accidents of geography and climate and which, consequently, has no reality…virtue is not in any sense real, nor in any wise intrinsically good and in no sort deserves our reverence.”
Once morality was simplified to geography, the next logical step for Sade was to open the door for sexual liberation. He moves on to dogmatize,
“A pretty girl ought simply to concern herself with fucking, and never with engendering.”
Sade’s sexual philosophy did not come out of thin air. He read virtually everything that Voltaire and La Mettrie and D’Holbach had written. Both D’Holbach and Lamettrie were interested in sexual possibilities, and Sade was like a scientist who put the philosophy of those men into a sexual laboratory.
When he came out of the sexual lab, Sade had mutated into a completely sexual pervert, producing works such as 120 Days of Sodome and Justine: Philosophy in the Bedroom.
As E. Michael Jones puts it, the “combination of Enlightenment thought and masturbation would not only become the dialectic of Sade’s life in prison, where he would read and masturbate and then read and masturbate some more. It would also become the structure of his fiction, and as a result of that it would also become the defining dialectic of sexual liberation.”
Sade, once again, was following the logical premise of the Enlightenment which was quite visceral among the Enlightenment intellectuals in France, where D’Holbach, Diderot, Helvitius, D’Alembert, La Mettrie, among others, postulated that man is simply a machine with no freewill and conscience. Everything was physics and chemistry. Everything was determined. This idea got mutated in the twentieth century into the humanistic psychology of John B. Watson and virtually the entire school of behaviorism.
Foundational to D’Holbach’s philosophical speculation is the primitive idea that matter is not only eternal but the cause of all that exists. We know that this is not the case.
Interestingly enough, in his book Enemies of the Enlightenment (which is not a bad book), intellectual historian Darrin M. McMahon discusses some of the political and ideological currents which led to the French Revolution but fails to even mention Marquis de Sade and the sexual calculus that flowed from his ideological vein.
ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES AND ITS TRAJECTORY
But the celebrated dictum of the Enlightenment in France—that man is a machine and that morality is just a relic of the distant past—has been indirectly reformulated in various ways by many in the academic world.
Jones writes that for Sade, morality “is really nothing more than fluid dynamics. Sade felt this would undoubtedly be proven true by some future breakthrough in materialist physiology.” A brand new materialists and determinists continue to prove that Sade’s sexual experimentation would bring materialistic fruit.
Biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, author of A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, propound,
“We fervently believe that, just as the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck are the results of aeons of past Darwinian selection, so is rape.”
For Thornhill and Palmer, “There is no doubt that rape has evolutionary — and hence genetic — origins.” In other words, what used to be a moral issue is now biological determinism. But what is the biological evidence for this extraordinary claim? Thornhill and Palmer provided none.
Instead, the authors move to the social sciences, pointing out the number or rape that has occurred in places like South Africa. As a counterpoise, science writer Margaret Wertheim takes the issue to Peggy Reeve Sanday, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania. Wertheim wrote:
“As the author of a cross-cultural study on rape in 95 different tribal societies, Sanday stresses that its incidence varies wildly from culture to culture and there are many societies in which rape is rare.
“Far from being the norm, she says, America is one of the most rape-prone of all contemporary cultures. If the biological imperative to rape is as powerful, and as universal, as Thornhill and Palmer insist, why does its frequency vary so much from culture to culture?
“Mary Cameron, an anthropologist at Auburn University, points to another flaw in Thornhill and Palmer’s thesis: “It doesn’t begin to account for male-male rape, or incest,” neither of which confer any evolutionary advantage. If, by the authors’ own admission, almost one-third of rapes are inflicted on children under 11, it is hard to see how reproductive imperatives could possibly be responsible.”
Anne Fausto-Sterling, a research biologist at Brown University, also challenged some of Thornhill and Palmer’s premises and asked that they provide evidence for their bold claims. As she puts it,
“When you make a hypothesis you really need to be able to back that up with data. What you have is this new group of ‘evolutionary psychologists’ who have very different standards of proof.” Other biologists came to the same conclusions.
Wertheim commented, “Yet data is just what is missing from this book [A Natural History of Rape]. As with so many other neo-Darwinian accounts of human behavior now being offered by proponents of the new ‘evolutionary psychology’ movement, Thornhill and Palmer’s analysis of rape relies not on hard evidence, as they would have us believe, but on speculative flights of fancy.”
In response to their critics, Thornhill and Palmer rightly argue that some critics have tried to bring straw-man arguments to the issue. But that should not let Thornhill and Palmer off the hook: they make the extraordinary claims that rape is genetic, and they ought to provide genetic evidence for this hypothesis.
Thornhill and Palmer’s view seems to correspond to what their intellectual antecedent, Charles Darwin, would have probably said. Darwin, without any biological or scientific evidence, declared in The Descent of Man:
“Man is more powerful in body and mind than woman, and in the savage state he keeps her in a far more abject state of bondage than does the male of any other animal.”
As we shall see, things like rape are moral issues which must be controlled by practical reason, and Thornhill and Palmer indirectly prove this point by advocating at the end of their book that teenagers ought to take rape education classes before getting a driver’s license.
Once again, if man is just matter and energy, why would those teenagers have to take rape education classes in order to combat rape itself? According to biological determinism and Newtonian physics, rape education classes cannot be more persuasive and powerful than brute genetics. What would education classes accomplish in the end?
Now let us finish with Huxley and move onto Einstein.
Huxley had enough history on the palm of his hands to know that the logic of sexual possibilities indirectly led to the sexual misbehavior of La Mettrie, Marquis de Sade and other men who played an influential role in ideologically agitating the French Revolution. Huxley wrote in Ends and Means:
“De Sade’s philosophy was the philosophy of meaninglessness carried to its logical conclusion. Life was without significance. Values were illusionary ideals merely the inventions of cunning priests and kings. Sensations and animal pleasures alone possessed reality and were alone worth living for.
“There was no reason why anyone should have the slightest consideration for anyone else. For those who found rape and murder amusing, rape and murder were fully legitimate activities…
“The real reason why the Marquis could see no meaning or value in the world is to be found in those descriptions of fornications, sodomies and tortures which alternate with the philosophizings of Justine and Juliette.”
Huxley ended up saying that de Sade could have been a decent man, but his sexualized ideology blinded his moral reasoning and thereby opening the door for his sexual perversion.
“His was a strictly sexual perversion. It was for flogging actresses, sticking penknives into shop-girls, feeding prostitutes on sugar-plums impregnated with cantharides, that he got into trouble with the police.
“His philosophical disquisitions, which, like the pornographic day-dreams, were mostly written in prisons and asylums, were the theoretical justification or his erotic practices.”
Sade, unlike many modern intellectuals like Steven Weinberg who find themselves in a swamp of moral contradiction, was consistent in following his “strictly sexual perversion.” Huxley continues,
“The voluntary, as opposed to the intellectual, reasons for holding the doctrines of materialism, for example, may be predominantly erotic, as they were in the case of Lamettrie, or predominantly political, as they were in the case of Karl Marx.”
Huxley, of course, was the victim of this statement. He admitted that
“For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom…”
Once again, for Huxley, the sexual calculus was pretty clear. Morality was exclusively abandoned by many intellectuals because morality interferes with the root of the philosophy of meaninglessness: sexual liberation. Huxley declared,
“More serious writers associated political with sexual prejudice and recommended philosophy (in practice, the philosophy of meaninglessness) as a preparation for social reform or revolution….
“As in the days of Lamettrie and his successors the desire to justify a certain sexual looseness played a part in the popularization of meaninglessness at least as important as that played by the desire for liberation from an unjust and inefficient form of social organization.”
Around the same time that Huxley was interpreting the French Revolution in light of Sade’s sexual practicalities, Jewish revolutionary Wilhelm Reich was making sexual liberation more political than anything else.
Reich was a visionary because he knew that once sexual liberation becomes political, all hell will break loose. Reich personally observed this phenomenon in his own office:
“When I talk to a sexually inhibited woman in my office about her sexual needs, I am confronted with her entire moralistic apparatus. It is difficult for me to get through to her and to convince her of anything. If, however, the same woman is exposed to a mass atmosphere, is present, for instance, at a rally at which sexual needs are discussed clearly and openly in medical and social terms, then she doesn’t feel herself to be alone.
“After all the others are also listening to ‘forbidden things.’ Her individual moralistic inhibition is offset by a collective atmosphere of sexual affirmation, a new sex-economic morality, which can paralyze (not eliminate!) her sexual negation because she herself has had similar thoughts when she was alone…
“The Sexual need is given confidence by the mass situation; it assumes a socially accepted status. …Thus, it is not a question of helping, but of making suppression conscious, of dragging the fight between sexuality and mysticism into the light of consciousness, of bringing it to a head under the pressure of a mass ideology and translating it into social action.”
Both Reich and Sigmund Freud attempted to project this kind of sexualized ideology into the German culture, and both found themselves in conflict with Hitler when he came to power in 1933.
Hitler single-handedly shut down the sexual laboratory which Jewish revolutionaries such as Magnus Hirschfield and Ivan Bloch had established. Moreover, Hitler shut down the vast majority of the sex/entertainment industry which Jewish revolutionaries made possible in Germany.
In the early 1920s, Berlin was “the vice-ridden scum” which produced all kinds of sexual activities. “People from all over the industrialized world flocked to Berlin to be part of this experiment, if only for a short while.” Philo-Semitic historian Paul Johnson himself declares,
“The Foxtrot and short skirts, the addiction of pleasure in ‘the imperial sewers of Berlin,’ the ‘dirt pictures’ of sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld or the typical man of the times took on in the minds of the average citizen a repugnance that is difficult to recall in hindsight without some historical effort. In a number of highly celebrated provocations, the stage of the ‘20s dealt with topics like patricide, incest and other crimes and the deepest inclination of the times tended to self-mockery.”