All my shows are archived at my Patreon page – please subscribe and keep this show going!
Did Harvey Weinstein hate non-Jews? Did he degrade non-Jewish women as a “revenge fantasy,” as Tablet Magazine alleges?
“It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women—Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc.—was a Gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy of having risen above his outer-borough, bridge-and-tunnel Semitic origins.” –Tablet
E. Michael Jones says America has experienced a century of “Culture Wars” between Jews and Christians. The main bone of contention: old fashioned family values. The American Christian community has fought to defend them, Jones says, while powerful elements of the Jewish community have struggled to annihilate them. According to Jones, Hollywood, where women can’t work without submitting to “casting couch” rape, is the front line in this war on Christianity. But you won’t read about this aspect of the Weinstein case in the mainstream media!
Today’s guest, Peter Myers, agrees with Mike Jones. Myers just mass emailed what he calls “probably the best dossier you will find on Jewish Hollywood. I aim to provide solid, verifiable information, sufficient to stand up to the bullies, just as Hervey Weinstein’s victims stood up to him – in the end.” That dossier is reproduced below.
Please note that Peter Myers celebrates the brave Jews like Rabbi Dresner who have exposed the depraved element among their co-religionists, and fought to defend traditional values.
Harvey Weinstein at Algemeiner dinner: ‘I Am an Israeli in My Heart and Mind’
-by Peter Myers, MailStar.net
This is probably the best dossier you will find on Jewish Hollywood. I aim to provide solid, verifiable information, sufficient to stand up to the bullies, just as Hervey Weinstein’s victims stood up to him – in the end.
Here are the key links:
You may use or forward any of my material, provided that you acknowledge my role as investigator.
(1) Harvey Weinstein at Algemeiner dinner: ‘I Am an Israeli in My Heart and Mind’
(2) Youtube video of Weinstein’s remarks
(3) The Fall of Harvey Weinstein is a major event in the Culture War
(4) Jews Run Hollywood: So What? – Moment Magazine, August 1996, front cover
(5) Is Hollywood Run by Jews? You bet! – by Joel Stein, LA Times, December 19, 2008
(6) Why Hot, WASPy Chicks Love Jews, by Joel Stein (LA Times)
(7) Harvey Weinstein’s Catholic-Bashing Films
(8) France to strip Weinstein of the Legion of Honor award
(9) Chelsea Clinton evades Reporters asking whether Clinton Foundation will return Harvey Weinstein’s Donations
(10) Rose McGowan: Hollywood Blacklisted me because I got raped, because I said something
(11) Marilyn Munroe and the Jewish men who ran Hollywood – sexually fixated on the Shiksa
(12) Rabbi Dresner blames ‘the Hollywood crowd’ for Destruction of the Traditional Family – E. Michael Jones
(13) Playboy’s Jewish Editors: “The whole staff, practically, was Jewish”
(14) Rabbi Daniel Lapin blamed Jews for America’s “rapidly deteriorating culture“
(15) Norman Podhoretz blames Allen Ginsberg for promoting Sodomy
(16) Luke Ford (Jewish himself) explains Why do Jews dominate Porn?
(17) Jews invented Hollywood; they have replaced WASPs as the New Establishment
– Luke Ford
(18) Kings of the Deal: William Cash investigates Hollywood’s new Jewish Establishment – The Spectator
(19) The Spectator publishes letters critical of William Cash, and his Reply
(20) Editor Dominic Lawson (Jewish) says Advertisers threatened to withdraw their business
(1) Harvey Weinstein at Algemeiner dinner: ‘I Am an Israeli in My Heart and Mind’
Algemeiner bills itself as “the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America”.
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 1:06 PM
Oscar-Winning Producer Harvey Weinstein at Algemeiner Gala: ‘I Am Israeli in My Heart and Mind’
avatar by Algemeiner Staff
Oscar-winning film producer Harvey Weinstein expressed his deep love and appreciation for the Jewish state on Monday, saying, “I am an Israeli in my heart and mind.”
Speaking on the red carpet at The Algemeiner‘s fourth annual gala in New York City, Weinstein emphasized, “I love that country, I love what it stands for, I am proud to be Jewish.”
The Hollywood mogul recounted his appearance at The Algemeiner’s gala in 2013, when he presented Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel with the “Warrior for Truth” award. Wiesel served as chairman of The Algemeiner’s Tribute Committee until his passing in 2016.
“This is one of the most influential presses we have, not only in [the] Jewish world, but all [the] world,” Weinstein observed.
He also spoke of his upcoming movie “Mila 18,” an adaptation of Leon Uris’ acclaimed novel on the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
“When people see ‘Mila 18,’ they can subtitle it ‘Jews with guns,’ because this is not about going into the night quietly,” Weinstein said. “This is the birth of the modern Israelis, these were the guys in the ghetto who said we are not going to walk into the concentration camps and get herded like cattle. They said, we’re going to kill some Germans instead.”
(2) Youtube video of Weinstein’s remarks
{Best save this to your computer, before it’s taken down. Save the link too – Peter M}
Q: Lastly, does Israel advocacy play any part in your life? Are you supporting it at all?
Weinstein: I’m an Israeli in my heart and mind. I love that country. I love what it stands for. I’m proud to be Jewish.
(3) The Fall of Harvey Weinstein is a major event in the Culture War – Peter Myers, October 16, 2017
The fall of Harvey Weinstein is a sequel to the fall of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Both were powerful Jews at the top, who used lawyers to suppress evidence of their rapes and other sex crimes against women. Weinstein used “non-Disclosure clauses” in contracts to intimidate victims from speaking out.
For highlighting Harvey Weinstein’s Jewishness, some people will call me ‘anti-semitic’. But he trumpeted that Jewishness and his identification with Israel, despite having committed such crimes for decades. And Jewish media feted him, despite the rumors that circulated.
I have provided evidence (below) from Jewish sources, that Hollywood is run by Jews, and that they have been destroying traditional values and Christian America.
Weinstein made many anti-Catholic films. He dished it out in the name of Judaism; so the stigna will stick to Judaism too. It’s up to Jews to reform their culture, as Rabbi Sam Dresner and Rabbi Daniel Lapin long urged.
Moment Magazine, which billed itself as “The Jewish Magazine for the ’90s”, ran a front cover saying Jews Run Hollywood: So What?
The LA Times of December 19, 2008 ran an article Is Hollywood Run by Jews? You bet! – by Joel Stein.
Photos of both originals are at https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Jews_Boast_of_Owning_Hollywood_-_But_Slam_Gentiles_Who_Say_the_Same_Thing
The LA Times one is still online – but WITH a CHANGED HEADLINE.
Weinstein’s fall will be a turning point in the Culture War, because the New Left (Feminist, Gay Rights, Trans) claims the Moral High Ground in matters of sex and gender; and this is no longer tenable. The Catholic Church has long been a target, while Hollywood has been busy corrupting the youth. Now Hollywood is itself being exposed by the very Feminist movement it championed. The women are determined that this issue will not be buried; the media can no longer maintain silence about it; and Weinstein may only be the first of many to be outed.
Jews are not the only ones who can claim Victimhood.
France has taken steps to strip Weinstein of the Legion of Honor award; but the Simon Wisenthal Center has still not revoked the award it issued to Weinstein.
(4) Jews Run Hollywood: So What? – Moment Magazine, August 1996, front cover
see the original front cover at http://kevinbarrett.heresycentral.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Hollywood-So-What.jpg
Front Cover, Moment Magazine
The Jewish Magazine for the ’90s
August 1996/ AV 5756
“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.”
Jews Run Hollywood – So What?
May 25, 2016
“Jews Run Hollywood – So What?”
– is a brazen “shove it down your throat article”
Marlon Brando complained on the Larry King Live show on april 5th 1996 that, “Hollywood is run by Jews – it is owned by Jews!” He added that the Jews have slandered every other racial group, “but are ever so careful to insure that there is never any negative image of the Kike.”
For this Marlon Brando was labelled “anti-Semitic” and forced to apologize to the Jews running the Simon Wiesenthal Holocaust Tourist Center in Los Angeles.
Now organized Jewry has become so brazen and powerful that they are no longer making any secret of this fact!
Jews Run Hollywood – So What? The American Moment Magazine is subtitled, “The Jewish Magazine for the ’90s”. Its edition of Aug. 1996 carries the startling headline “Jews Run Hollywood – So What?” The author is the Jew Michael Medved who states:
“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.”
The article then describes how the Jew Michael Eisner, the Head of Walt Disney studios only hires “highly paid Jewish moguls” as producers such as Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Joe Roth (former head of 20th Century Fox). Medved emphazises the point that, “The famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harboured anti-Semitic attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions.”
Medved continues: “Men and women of Jewish background enjoy a vastly disproportionate – if not dominate – influence in Hollywood.” He adds that even studios which were bought out by the Japanese Sony Corp. and by the Australian Jew Rupert Murdoch, still had to hire, “a Yiddish team of long-time industry leaders in all the most powerful positions. When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal’s legendary – and all-Jewish – management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg and Tom Pollack.”
Medved further writes that most of today’s movie moguls graduated from Ivy League colleges, “where Jews are vastly over-represented – just as they are in Hollywood.” […]
Medved says that such anti-Christian films as “The Last Temptation of Christ” by Lew Wasserman, “gives tactic approval to what most Americans consider as a damaging influence of the entertainment industry.”
Medved ends with this statement, which should be a warning to all non-Jews:
“The combined weight of so many Jews in one of America’s most lucrative and important industries gives the Jews of Hollywood a great deal of political power. They are a major source of money for Democratic candidates. The industry’s informal patriarch, MCA chairman Lew Wasserman, wields tremendous personal clout in state and national politics. So do Barbara Streisand, Norman Lear and others.”
(5) Is Hollywood Run by Jews? You bet! – by Joel Stein, LA Times, December 19, 2008
Is Hollywood Run by Jews? You bet!
By Joel Stein
LA Times, December 19, 2008
{still online, but WITH A CHANGED HEADLINE) at http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19}
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.
How deeply Jewish is Hollywood? When the studio chiefs took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah.
The person they were yelling at in that ad was SAG President Alan Rosenberg (take a guess). The scathing rebuttal to the ad was written by entertainment super-agent Ari Emanuel (Jew with Israeli parents) on the Huffington Post, which is owned by Arianna Huffington (not Jewish and has never worked in Hollywood.)
The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day.
So I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”
I called ADL Chairman Abe Foxman, who was in Santiago, Chile, where, he told me to my dismay, he was not hunting Nazis. He dismissed my whole proposition, saying that the number of people who think Jews run Hollywood is still too high. The ADL poll, he pointed out, showed that 59% of Americans think Hollywood execs “do not share the religious and moral values of most Americans,” and 43% think the entertainment industry is waging an organized campaign to “weaken the influence of religious values in this country.”
That’s a sinister canard, Foxman said. “It means they think Jews meet at Canter’s Deli on Friday mornings to decide what’s best for the Jews.” Foxman’s argument made me rethink: I have to eat at Canter’s more often.
“That’s a very dangerous phrase, ‘Jews control Hollywood.’ What is true is that there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” he said. Instead of “control,” Foxman would prefer people say that many executives in the industry “happen to be Jewish,” as in “all eight major film studios are run by men who happen to be Jewish.”
But Foxman said he is proud of the accomplishments of American Jews. “I think Jews are disproportionately represented in the creative industry. They’re disproportionate as lawyers and probably medicine here as well,” he said. He argues that this does not mean that Jews make pro-Jewish movies any more than they do pro-Jewish surgery. Though other countries, I’ve noticed, aren’t so big on circumcision.
I appreciate Foxman’s concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.
(6) Why Hot, WASPy Chicks Love Jews, by Joel Stein (LA Times)
Why Hot, WASPy Chicks Love Jews
by Joel Stein
no longer at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-stein9jan09,1,4621281.column
January 9, 2005
This is embarrassing to admit, but we thought you didn’t like us. So while we Jews were controlling the media, we tried to avoid putting actual Jewish characters in front of you. Seinfield, sure. But we made George Costanza Italian. We gave Craig Kilborn a talk show.
But now that you’ve spent about $200 million to laugh at Ben Stiller’s mega-Jewish parents dealing with his WASPy soon-to-be-in-laws in “Meet the Fockers,” we feel comfortable showing you our big Jewish selves. Philosemetism, which is so new we had to invent a word for it, has led to a whole new genre: Jewsploitation.
In addition to “Fockers,” there’s the movie “The Hebrew Hammer,” Heeb magazine, Jewcy clothing, Adam Sandler’s “Hanukkah Song” and his animated film “Eight Crazy Nights,” and an upcoming collection of bar mitzvah stories called “Bar Mitzvah Disco.”
The fact that young Jews in Hollywood feel comfortable creating Jewy characters isn’t surprising. That’s what happens when you forget to stop scaring us. You let us into your country clubs, gave us your women and encouraged our most annoyingly self-righteous member to run for president. So now that we’ve assimilated to the point where we’re completely the same as white people, we’re trying to re-create a community by shoving our culture down your throats. The bizarre part is that the same masses who saw “The Passion of the Christ” are into it. […]
And I love Jewsploitation. It’s what we were doing already anyway. When you belong to a people who can completely pass as white, you have the luxury of exploiting your difference when it’s to your advantage and hiding it when it’s not. It’s why we crafted this clever but adorably harmless image. We’ve infantilized ourselves. Because hot WASPy chicks love babies.
(7) Harvey Weinstein’s Catholic-Bashing Films
OCT. 14, 2017
A Litany of Harvey Weinstein’s Catholic-Bashing Films
Angelo Stagnaro
[…] while the polecat Weinstein abused women, he donated money to women’s causes because of his “undying respect” for them. And, throughout his best efforts are luring women to his casting couch, Weinstein was financing films that attacked and denigrated the Catholic Church, including such priceless cinematic gems as:
Priest (1995), a film which centers around a vampire-killing parody of the Church in which priests are depicted as misanthropic atheists.
The Butcher Boy (1998) is about a young boy who is molested by a priest in a reform school and is fascinated by delusional fantasies about a foul-mouthed Virgin Mary played by everyone’s favorite bigot, Sinéad O’Connor. Birds of a feather flock together.
Dogma (1999), a confusing pastiche of Catholic beliefs, pagan myths and atheist Black Legend slapped together about the end of the world in which a descendant of Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph who works in an abortion clinic.
40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) ridicules Catholics who remain celibate for Lent treating sacrifice and abstention as if it was feat of strength rather than a spiritual offering to God.
The Magdalene Sisters (2002) depicted lies about Irish nuns falsely portraying them as abusive toward young wayward women they had “enslaved” in their laundries. In reality, the Irish secular government, dumped these women with the nuns as their families had already disowned them. The nuns gave them food, board and spiritual guidance and showed them love saving these young women from having to prostitute themselves.
Bad Santa (2003) depicted a mall Santa who was a vulgar, drunken, suicidal, chain-smoking, sex-addicted thief. Some have drawn parallels between this mockery of this children’s icon and Weinstein himself.
Sin City (2005) which depicted a Catholic bishop who aides and abets a serial murderer and engages in cannibalism.
Black Christmas (2006) is a tiresome slasher film replete with gratuitous sex and foul language. Both Harvey and his brother Bob were remarkably hands-on with this film.
Philomena (2013) was another set of lies reminiscent of the Black Legend that insisted that “evil” nuns had kidnapped a woman’s child. Actually, Philomena Lee abandoned her out-of-wedlock son when she was a teenager. It was the actions of the nuns, who often run orphanages around the world and throughout the past two millennia, who gave thechild to an American couple who adopted him. Weinstein lobbied the Academy in the hope of getting an Oscar for Philomena. Thankfully, he failed. […]
(8) France to strip Weinstein of the Legion of Honor award
Macron proposed to revoke Weinstein’s Legion of Honor
Paris: France began the process of depriving Harvey Weinstein of the Order of the Legion of Honor, the highest civilian difference in France.
This was reported in the press service of President Emmanuel Macron.
(9) Chelsea Clinton evades Reporters asking whether Clinton Foundation will return Harvey Weinstein’s Donations
by KATHERINE RODRIGUEZ15 Oct 201731
Chelsea Clinton evaded reporters outside of Northeastern University in Boston on Saturday asking whether the Clinton Foundation would return donations from alleged sex offender Harvey Weinstein.
The Daily Mail reports that the Clinton Foundation board member and former first daughter ran from reporters after a Clinton Global Initiative event asking if the Clinton Foundation would return $250,000 worth of donations from Weinstein.
“Chelsea, will the foundation give back the donations from Harvey Weinstein?” the reporter asked Chelsea as she left the CGI lunch event through a side door. “Do you plan to return the $100,000?”
Clinton Foundation press staff blocked a Daily Mail reporter from asking former President Bill Clinton questions at a public event the night before.
Bill and Chelsea appeared at Northeastern University to headline CGI’s annual student conference.
Democratic politicians including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have all pledged to donate Weinstein’s political contributions to charity in light of the rape accusations.
The University of Southern California also said it would return Weinstein’s donations as more women came forward accusing him of sexual assault.
Hillary Clinton said this week that she would return the more than $35,000 Weinstein donated to her 2016 campaign but the Clinton Foundation has been largely silent on the subject of Weinstein’s donations.
Records show that Weinstein gave between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation.
The Clinton Foundation is no stranger to accepting contributions from donors with questionable reputations. The foundation has accepted millions of dollars from countries with records of treating women horribly, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash exposed a lot of the shady deal-making between the Clinton Foundation’s donors, Bill Clinton’s six-figure speeches, and the U.S. State Department’s actions while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
The Clinton Foundation laid off a good chunk of its staffers and closed the Clinton Global Initiative as a result of Schweizer’s book.
(10) Rose McGowan: Hollywood Blacklisted me because I got raped, because I said something
Rose McGowan: ‘Hollywood blacklisted me because I got raped’
Lawyer told Charmed star that she was unlikely to win against Harvey Weinstein
Mark Townsend
Sunday 15 October 2017 10.05 AEDT Last modified on Sunday 15 October 2017 11.51 AEDT
The actor Rose McGowan has said she was “blacklisted” because she “got raped”, and has vowed to chase down the individuals in the film industry who are “aiding and abetting” sex crimes.
On Thursday she publicly accused the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of raping her.
In a remarkable interview recorded in January 2017, obtained by the Observer and published for the first time, McGowan sheds more light on the allegation while explaining that she never reported the rape to the police because a criminal lawyer advised her that she was unlikely to win. “Also, I didn’t want his name next to mine in my obituary; hisname doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as mine when I’m dead,” she said.
McGowan is one of more than 30 women who have come forward since the New York Times revealed sexual harassment and rape allegations against Weinstein going back decades. In a series of tweets last week she alsoaccused Roy Price, the head of Amazon Studios, of ignoring her when she made the allegation earlier.
The accusations have raised questions over who knew about the details, with McGowan, 44, claiming in the interview that she was directly threatened after reporting that she had been raped. “They threatened [me] with being blacklisted. I was blacklisted after I was raped, because I got raped, because I said something … but only like internally, you know,” she said.
(11) Marilyn Munroe and the Jewish men who ran Hollywood – sexually fixated on the Shiksa
JTR {Jewish Tribal Review}
Marilyn Monroe is one of many Gentile actors who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish psychoanalysts, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she allegedly committed suicide. “Like many of his colleagues at the time,” notes a review of Donald Spoto’s biography of Marilyn, “Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients’ other doctors do so. He referred Marilyn to [Jewish] internist Hyman Engelberg, who prescribed many of the medications Greenson ordered for her … Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more miserable she became … Greenson encouraged Marilyn’s deep dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)” (Good Housekeeping, 1993, pp. 212, 214).
The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be observed in Greenson’s case: his sister Elizabeth was married to Milton ‘Mickey’ Rudin, a Jewish entertainment attorney who was one of the town’s major powerbrokers. Rudin was Monroe’s lawyer.
Marilyn’s publicist, Arthur Jacobs, was also Jewish. So were her agents at MCA, Jay Kanter and Mort Viner. Many of the directors of her films were Jews (for example, Billy Wilder of Some Like It Hot and George Cukor of Let’s Make Love). Natasha Lytess, her personal manager and the subject of speculation about Monroe’s rumored lesbianism, was Jewish, from Austria. Their relationship, says Barbara Leaming, was “mutually exploitive” (Leaming, 31). Milton Greene, a Jewish fashion photographer “with whom she’d reportedly had a fling during the late forties,” was another early personal manager. Monroe had resolved to sleep with anyone who could help her attain fame and fortune in Jewish-dominated Hollywood. Close friend Ted Jordan notes that she had “sex with anybody she thought might be able to advance her career” (Jordan, 121). […]
The network of Jewish men that controls Hollywood has always been characterized by an intense sexual fixation on the shiksa — shiksa being a derogatory slur for a Gentile woman, literally signifying “unclean animal” according to its Yiddish etymology. Hence the ubiquitous “casting couch,” a Hollywood institution that provided Jewish powerbrokers access to otherwise unavailable non-Jewish women, whom they despised as non-Jews yet idealized as avatars of alien sexual desirability. The shiksa thus became the ultimate sexual trophy. The Jews who ruled Hollywood, noted Hollywood rabbi Edgar Magnin, “were men who made all that money and realized they were still a bunch of Goddamned Jews. Sleeping with a pretty gentile girl made them feel, if only for a few minutes, ‘I’m half gentile.’ No wonder they made idols out of shiksa goddesses.”
A key agent in accelerating Monroe’s early career was Johnny Hyde (like many Hollywood Jews, born in Russia, and a veteran of vaudeville.) She was also his mistress; he was 53, she was 23. Hyde “not so coincidentally … was Ted Lewis’ personal manager” (Jordan, 85). “In making Marilyn known,” says Fred Guiles, “[Hyde] flexed a lot of muscle. The simple fact is that Johnny Hyde was the chief architect of her fame and her eventual legend” (Guiles, 147).
“By 1953,” Jordan reports, “… [Monroe] could be virulently anti-Semitic (a prejudice that grew as she got older). To my discomfort she would sometimes refer to Joe Schenck, the mogul [and another sexual stepping stone], as ‘that Jew shit’ and to other Hollywood personalities as ‘Jew’ this or that. Occasionally I would have to remind her that I was half Jewish” (Jordan, 188). Monroe’s anti-Semitism did not prevent her from later converting to Judaism, at the behest of her Jewish husband, playwright Arthur Miller, who (despite his vocal anti-racialism) would not wed an uncoverted Gentile.
The Hollywood world and its pressures of being a sex goddess of course destroyed her. Monroe’s physician Hyman Engelberg and her therapist Ralph Greenson were the first to her death scene, reported to be the result of a drug overdose, but they did not call police for four hours. One investigative author, Donald Spoto, in a 1993 work, even burdens Greenson with the responsibility for killing her, directing that a female employee “administer [to Monroe] … a fatal barbiturate-laced enema.” (In this scenario, Greenson’s motivation was that Monroe was trying to free herself from his influence and control, and had fired him [Wolfe, 99]). […]
The preceding text is excerpted and edited from When Victims Rule, online at Jewish Tribal Review: http://holywar.org/jewishtr/
(12) Rabbi Dresner blames ‘the Hollywood crowd’ for Destruction of the Traditional Family – E. Michael Jones
Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos
by E. Michael Jones
E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. is the Editor of Culture Wars magazine, as well as author of several books available from Fidelity Press.
This article was published in the May, 2003 issue of Culture Wars magazine.
I never liked the title of Rabbi Dresner’s book. It was called Can Families Survive in Pagan America? and was published in 1995 by Huntington House out of Lafayettte, Louisiana. …
Families was an American book, but it was different than the plethora of jeremiads about the moral decline of America in the Bill Bennett mode. Dresner’s book was about something else. It had a subtext that escaped its title. Families was really about American Jews, or, better, the effect that America had had on the Jews who came here largely in the aftermath of the Russian pogroms of the 1880s. Families was about how many modern Jews, in their search for passion and pleasure and power, have lost themselves in the kingdom of Caesar. …
If ‘the traditional family is under siege’ in America, it is largely because of the influence of what Dresner calls ‘the Hollywood crowd,‘ a group of people who praise ‘rebellion, self-fulfillment, and promiscuity’ and a ‘debased view of the human body and spirit’ which finds acceptance by ‘none of the great religions of the world – and certainly not Judaism.’ The Hollywood film, according to Dresner, has become a ‘school from which one neither graduates nor needs to leave home to attend.’ That school had a profound effect on American attitudes and behavior in the second half of the 20th century. According to Dresner, any study of the films which got produced from 1945 to 1985 would reveal ‘a radical shift in values,’ one which turned the world upside down. ‘Hollywood came to adopt apermissive, value-free attitude in the course of a few decades,’ and when it went down the drain, it dragged the rest of America with it. ‘The underground has taken over. … the avant-garde has become the man on the street. Bohemia is Broadway. The filthy jokes formerly restricted to burlesque houses and certain nightclubs’ are now available on ‘films and TV for the millions. Las Vegas is no longer a city but a condition’ (pp. 316-7). Hollywood, in short, got corrupted around 1945 and is now responsible for the moral decline of American culture. …
Today about two-thirds of leading TV and movie producers are Jewish. Four of the five companies that dominate American entertainment are run by Jews (Gerald Levin, who once considered a rabbinic career, runs Time Warner, Michael Eisner runs Disney, Mel Karmazin and Sumner Redstone run Viacom-CBS, and the Bronfmans run Universal).
This fact is rarely discussed in the mainstream media because Jews control that as well. When British journalist William Cash wrote about Jewish control of Hollywood in the October 1994 issue of the Spectator, Hollywood and its academic support troops reacted with rage verging on hysteria. In the November 13, 1994 issue of Los Angeles Times, Neal Gabler attacked Cash’s article as ‘an anti-Semitic bleat from a reactionary crackpot’ which could have been dismissed out of hand ‘if it didn’t have a respectable platform in the Spectator and didn’t play to a pre-existing prejudice – that Jews control the U.S. media.’ Neal Gabler, it should be noted, is the author of An Empire of their Own: How Jews Created Hollywood. Gabler, in other words was attacking Cash, for saying what Gabler had said in his own book. According to Cash,
That every major studio head is Jewish today is no different from 60 years ago. ‘Of 85 names engaged in production, 53 are Jews,’ a 1936 survey noted. And the Jewish advantage holds in prestige as well as numbers. In a recent Premiere magazine ‘Special Power Issue’ – ranking the 100 most powerful people in the ‘Industry’ – the top 12 were Jewish. There were no black or British industry executives ranked.
Jewish domination of Hollywood, however, cannot be limited to numbers. The numbers simply give a pale approximation of the extent to which Jews determine the cultural matrix out of which the nation’s films get made. Cash cites an instance of the ‘extreme measures’ non-Jews engage in to succeed in Hollywood:
Bill Stadiem, a former Harvard educated Wall Street lawyer who is now a screenwriter in LA, told me that he recently came across an old WASP friend in an LA restaurant who had been president of the Porcellian at Harvard – the most exclusive undergraduate dining-club. His friend – a would-be producer – was dressed in a black nylon tracksuit and had gold chains on his wrist; dangling around his neck was a chunky Star of David. Stadiem asked: ‘Why the hell are you dressed like that?’ The WASP replied: ‘I’m trying to look Jewish.’
One need only think back to Jay Gatsby’s attempts to pass as a WASP in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, to see how the cultural equation changed over the course of the 20th century. As media and entertainment came to dominate the political and cultural landscape, the Jew eventually succeeded the WASP as the country’s culturally dominant ethnic group, the group which set the styles for the rest of the nation.
But here as elsewhere the term Jew has to be defined. ‘Jews in Hollywood,’ according to one commentator ‘like most Jews in the media, academia and pornography, tend to be radical and alienated Jews, rooted neither in Judaism nor in the majority Christian culture. They tend to be rootless and politically left of center, seeking to create a rootless cosmopolitan society to reflect their own non-Judaic traditionless values.’ They don’t cease being Jews because of that fact, however, nor do they cease to act like Jews, as Cash’s article makes clear. Cash describes then 81-year-old Lew Wasserman as at the top of Hollywood’s ‘feudal power structure.’ When Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg decided to form their own production studio, they first gathered at Wassenberg’s estate to gain his ‘rabbinical blessing,’ after which ‘they spoke in ‘hushed, reverential tones about the industry potentate,’ and how he ‘spun stories about the history of Hollywood and showed them artifacts.’
Wasserman had been Stephen Spielberg’s mentor for over almost 30 years. Jews, according to Cash, govern the New Establishment, but they govern it like rootless and alienated Jews, which is to say, according to no Torah but the one of their own making. That means the application of traditional Jewish prejudice against majority culture with none of the restraint imposed by rabbinical interpretation of moral norms. That means, in short, moral subversion of the sort which Hollywood promulgated during the cultural revolution of the ‘60s, complicated by the fact that anyone who objects or even describes the situation, as the reaction to Cash’s article showed, gets demonized as an anti-Semite.
‘Few in Hollywood (can) recall such an anti-Semitic article in a mainstream publication,’ wrote Bernard Weinraub, the New York Times’ Hollywood correspondent in response to Cash’s article. Hollywood in general concurred, filling the letters columns of local papers with one horrified reaction after another. One letter to the editor, whose list of prominent signatories included Kevin Costner, Sidney Poitier, and Tom Cruise worried that a new Holocaust and Spanish Inquisition could not be far behind.
The Battle over the Sexualization of America
William Cash’s and Joe Breen’s candor about Hollywood fills in what Sam Dresner’s account leaves out. It shows that the battle over the sexualization of American culture was largely if not exclusively a battle between America’s Jews and Catholics. From 1934 to 1965, Hollywood’s Jews were forced to repress their ‘permissive, value-free attitude’ in matters sexual, or at least they were prevented from expressing that attitude in the films that they made. The golden age of Hollywood which Dresner indirectly praises was a collaborative effort; it was Catholics saving Hollywood’s Jews from their own worst instincts. The Catholics eventually lost that battle, with dire consequences for the entire nation. Indeed, Rabbi Dresner’s book is one of those consequences. His book is also an indication that the history of American Culture in the 20th century is in many respects a history of the sexual degeneration of the American Jew. That means the decline of the Rabbi Dresner Jew and the Rise of the Woody Allen Jew in his place as an icon for the entire culture. The Catholics lost the culture wars because they internalized Woody Allen Jewish values on sexuality, just as much as they adopted WASP values on birth control.
That, of course, leads to a dilemma for Rabbi Dresner. If we’re talking about Boston’s Puritans as the first and foremost influence in America, America was founded by a group of Judaizers, who followed a distinctly Old Testament version of Christianity, making America one of the most ‘Jewish’ of all of the ‘Christian’ nations.
Dresner is concerned that others have noticed the same thing. He cites a letter to the California Lawyer which claims that ‘the progressive deterioration of morality can be directly attributable to the growing predominance of Jews in our national life.’ Dresner is, of course, appalled, but his book is saying essentially the same thing. Is Rabbi Dresner, then, an anti-Semite? Given the canons of contemporary discourse, it depends on how we define the term. Israel Shamir, writing in the Israeli newspaper H’aaretz, recently said that anyone who objected to American global cultural imperialism could now safely be termed an anti-Semite. Unless, of course, he is Jewish, in that instance he is referred to as a ‘self-hating Jew,’ a term which can be defined as referring to anyone who disagrees with the party line as articulated by Abe Foxman, the Bronfmans, the ADL, the AJC and all of the other leaders and organizations that have tried to turn Jews into the avant garde of the Cultural Revolution.
How then can Rabbi Dresner claim that Jews can bring about a reform of family life and morals when he’s saying that Jews are responsible for that moral decline in the first place? The answer lies in defining the word ‘Jew,’ and that means distinguishing between the Rabbi Dresner Jew and the Woody Allen Jew. ‘Jews,’ Dresner tells us in a passage I have already cited, ‘have . . . played a less than admirable role in the sexual revolution. That, however does not mean that they speak for Judaism, any more than antifamily Jewish feminists do.’ The issue, in other words, revolves around the question, ‘who speaks for the Jews?’ Rabbi Dresner is a conservative, for whom the Torah is normative. That means that ‘homosexuality is a violation of the order of creation’ (p. 81). That, in turn, means that, on the issue of homosexuality, Rabbi Dresner is at odds with the majority of American Jews. That, in turn, leads to a paradox: America has become more Jewish over the course of the 20th century, but Jews have become less Jewish at the same time, if we define the Jew the way Dresner does, as a follower of the Torah. The Jew has become an American Cultural Hero, but he has become that largely by espousing sexual degeneracy. As a result, America is becoming simultaneously more Jewish, but less representative of what Rabbi Dresner believes. ‘Twenty years ago,’ Dresner writes,
Time magazine ran an article claiming that ‘the United States is becoming more Jewish . … Among American intellectuals the Jew has even become a culture hero.’ It went on to quote poet Robert Lowell, who declared that ‘Jewishness is the center of today’s literature much as the West was in the ‘30s.’ Twenty years later (26 February 1990), Time repeated the same theme, informing us that ‘Jews are news. It is an axiom of journalism. An indispensable one, too, because it is otherwise impossible to explain why the deeds and misdeeds of a dot-on-the-map Israel get an absurdly disproportionate amount of news coverage around the world.’ (p. 275). …
Even if Judaism was forged in opposition to pagan fertility cults (Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: ‘The Israelites knew there was no substance to pagan idolatry. They took it up only to engage more freely in forbidden sexual practices.’ ), Israel’s ‘victory over pagan idolatry was never complete. … The Book of Kings . . . demonstrates how closely Israel came to being swallowed up by the powerful cults’ (p. 140). …
The conclusion which Dresner draws is inescapable. If Woody Allen speaks for the majority of American Jews, then American Jews have been corrupted; they are now no longer followers of Moses but rather followers of Shabbetai Zevi. In the process of succumbing to that corruption, they have played a major role in the corruption of American morals and culture. American cultural life in the last half of the 20th century, in other words, has been dominated by Jewish rebellion against the Torah and the adoption of the sexual practices and worldview of Shabbetai Zevi. The overwhelming majority of American Jews-as evidenced by the surveys Dresner cites-have defined themselves as sexual revolutionaries, and because of the disproportionate role which Jews play in publishing and the media, they have, in effect, established Sabbatian sexual degeneracy as the American cultural norm. …
Luke Ford
Luke Ford was raised as a Seventh Day Adventist in Australia. He came to Los Angeles to study and after coming down with chronic fatigue syndrome, spent his time in convalescence listening to Dennis Prager’s radio program. As a result of listening to Prager, he converted to orthodox Judaism. Since Los Angeles is the center of the pornography industry and since Ford was also interested in pornography, he noticed that Jews dominate the porn industry in Hollywood and decided to discuss the issue on his website, lukeford.com (Since this discussion – and perhaps because of it – lukeford.com has been taken over by the porn industry. Luke Ford’s lucubrations on things Jewish, things pornographic, and things in general are now available only at lukeford.net) Luke Ford noticed that ‘secular Jews play a disproportionate role throughout the sex industry’:
Leading modern Jewish pornographers include Ron Braverman, John Bone, Wesley Emerson, Paul Fishbein, Herbert Feinberg AKA Mickey Fine, Hank Weinstein, Lenny Friedlander, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Fred Hirsch and his children Steve and Marci, Paul ‘Norman’ Apstein, Steve Orenstein, Jack Richmond (Legend CEO), Theodore Rothstein, Reuben and David Sturman, Ron Sullivan, Jerome Tanner, Armand Weston, Sam and Mitch Weston (Spinelli).
Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers of the 1970s and ’80s. Hebrew studs include Buck Adams, Bobby Astyr, (Bobby Charles) R. Bolla (Robert Kerman), Jerry Butler (Paul Siderman), Seymore Butts (Adam Glasser), Roger Caine (Al Levitsky), David Christopher (Bernie Cohen), Steve Drake, Jesse Eastern, Jamie Gillis (Jamie Gurman), Ron Jeremy (Hyatt), Michael Knight, William Margold, Ashley Moore (Steve Tucker), David Morris, George Payne, Ed Powers (Mark Arnold aka Mark Krinski), Harry Reems (Herbert Streicher), Dave Ruby, Herschel Savage (Harvey Cowen), Carter Stevens (Mal Warub), Marc Stevens, Paul Thomas (Phil Tobias), Marc Wallice (Marc Goldberg), Randy West (Andy Abrams) and Jack Wrangler.
Jewish female performers include Avalon, Jenny Baxter (Jenny Wexler), Busty Belle (Tracy Praeger), Chelsea Blake, Tiffany Blake, Bunny Bleu (Kim Warner), J.R. Carrington, Lee Carroll (Leslie Barris), Blair Castle/Brooke Fields (Allison Shandibal), Courtney/Natasha/Eden (Natasha Zimmerman), Daphne (Daphne Franks), Barbara Dare (Stacy Mitnick), April Diamond, Jeanna Fine, Alexis Gold, Terri Hall, Heather Hart, Nina Hartley (Hartman), C.J. Laing (Wendy Miller), Frankie Leigh (Cynthia Hope Geller), Gloria Leonard, Traci Lords (Nora Louise Kuzma), Amber Lynn, Tonisha Mills, Melissa Monet, Susan Nero, Scarlett O. (Catherine Goldberg), Tawny Pearl (Susan Pearlman), Nina Preta, Tracey Prince, Raylene, Janey Robbins (Robin Lieberman), Mila Shegol, Alexandra Silk, Susan Sloan, Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), Karen Summer (Dana Alper), Cindy West, Zara Whites (Amy Kooiman) and Ona Zee (Ona Simms). (This citation, as well as all of the subsequent citations have been taken from the discussion of Jews and pornography at thelukeford.com website, all of which have been removed by the cite’s new owners.)
If, as Ford notes, ‘the Torah [Pentateuch] commands Jews ‘to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,’ and Judaism strongly opposes porn, why do Jews dominate porn?‘ Is the ethnic connection purely fortuitous? Is it like the fact that many policemen in New York are Irish? Is there an ethnic connection between being Irish and law enforcement? Perhaps all of the Irish who got arrested in New York in the nineteenth and early twentieth century for drunken brawling were impressed with how policemen handled themselves. In other words, probably not. Is there some necessary ethnic connection between being Irish and putting out fires? Probably not. …
Outraged Response
When William Cash wrote his already cited article in the British magazine The Spectator discussing Jewish dominance in Hollywood and, therefore, the pornography industry, the discussion prompted an outraged response from Abraham H. Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League. To raise the issue meant that one was guilty of propagating an anti-Semitic canard, even though, in the case of Luke Ford, it was a Jew who raised the issue. ‘Those Jews who enter the pornography industry,’ Foxman opined, ‘have done so as individuals pursuing the American dream, not as representatives of their religious group. Moreover, anti-Semites never seem to take note of the fact that the most prominent pornographers in America are Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt, neither of whom is the least bit Jewish. Finally, though individual Jews may play a role in pornography, Jewishness does not.’
Foxman then fell back on the same justification for obscenity that Irving Thalberg used in his fight with the Legion of Decency. Pornography is controlled by ‘consumers,’ most of whom are Gentiles. Therefore, Gentiles are ultimately responsible for pornography. According to Foxman, even if Jews dominate a particular field, as is the case with both Hollywood and the related pornography industry, that bears no relationship to the fact that they are Jews, no matter how one defines the term. To say otherwise is to be an anti-Semite.
Foxman is being more than a little disingenuous here. In mentioning Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner as the paradigmatic Gentile pornographers, he failed to point out that 1) that Hugh Hefner would object to being called a pornographer and 2) that Larry Flynt is a significant contributor to the ADL. He also failed to mention, as Rabbi Dresner points out in his book, that Hugh Hefner received the ADL’s freedom award in 1980. Taking a less partisan view of the question, Dresner feels that
The religion of impulse likewise found significant Jewish involvement. An unusually high percentage of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews, as well as among its advocates. On a more commercial level, for example, Jews have been strongly represented in the Playboy enterprises. B’nai Brith‘s Anti-Defamation League had no problem, for example, when some years back they presented their American Freedom Award at a fashionable black-tie dinner-dance to Hugh Hefner. … About the honoree, the ADL says, with an apparent straight face, that the empire he founded has had a far-reaching impact, not only on the publishing industry, but on the mores of American society as well.
In other words, the ADL was rewarding Hefner for the role he played in bringing about widespread moral corruption and the spread of sexual deviance in America. The question remains, why would the Jews at the ADL be interested in rewarding this sort of behavior? Why, as Dresner asks in his book, did American Jewry remain silent when the ADL conferred its freedom award. ‘Both the Jewish establishment and nonestablishment observers,’ Dresner laments, ‘took it in stride, raising not a finger of protest. It was Catholic William Buckley of National Review who pointed to the Jewish issue.’
And what exactly is the ‘Jewish issue’ here? The answer depends a lot on how the term Jew gets defined, especially by the Jews themselves. Ford claims that the Jews who dominate pornography are what Rabbi Dresner would call ‘advocates of Woody Allen,’ which is to say, Sabbatian in their orientation. It’s, in other words, not a coincidence that they are Jewish and involved in pornography. Their involvement in pornography flows naturally from the way they define themselves as Jews. Luke Ford, according to one report, ‘insists that pornography constitutes a deliberate attempt by ‘non-Jewish Jews,’ alienated from normative Judaism and Christian mores, to undermine Western civilization.’
According to Luke Ford’s discussion, the animus of the Jewish Cultural Revolutionary is historical and ethnic. Pornography is just one weapon in a panoply of cultural warfare which gets waged half in self-defense, half in residual animus against traditional majority Christian cultures, even when, as is the case of the United States, the original prescription no longer fits the actual situation. According to Ford,
that is their aim because they are Jews, and they are reaching for even more control than they already have. This is the historic modus operandi of the Jews. They are outsiders everywhere except in Israel, and when they first appear in any Gentile society and begin reaching for power they are resisted. The society treats the Jews as outsiders, as aliens, and attempts to keep them from gaining control. The Jewish method of countering this opposition is to work quietly to accumulate as much wealth as possible. At the same time they work to corrupt the society’s leaders with money and to sow dissension among the masses, to set one social class against another, to break up the society’s solidarity and its cohesiveness, so that there will be less resistance to their penetration of the society. …
Jewish Porn Star
Nina Hartley (nee Hartman) also sees a connection between being Jewish and being a porn star. As Rabbi Dresner might have noted, it’s a long way from the Torah to Debbie Duz Dishes, in which she plays ‘a sexually insatiable Jewish housewife who enjoys sex with anyone who rings the doorbell.’ Debbie Duz Dishes is Hartley’s biggest selling, Jewish themed porn video. Hartley tried to articulate the connection between being Jewish and being a porn star in an interview with Jewish pornographer Sheldon Ranz in the Spring 1989 edition of the left-wing Jewish journal Shmate. She begins by making the sort of morphological distinction that Rabbi Dresner made in his book. She begins by explaining that she is ‘Jewish culturally but not religiously.’ That means that being Jewish gets defined in an essentially negative sense. Being Jewish means being anti-Christian. That means that ‘I’m generally less subservient than a typical WASP female. And I’ve discovered certain gender interactions are different between Jewish and non-Jewish couples.’ Hartley was born in 1956 and grew up in Berkeley, ‘which is heavily influenced by [secular] Jewish culture. It’s an intellectual town. A lot of the people who set the political agenda are Jewish.’ Hartley, in other words, can see pornography as the fulfillment of ‘Jewish values’ because those values reflect not the Torah but rather the mores of secular Jews living in Berkeley in the ‘60s, a time of social upheaval. That means that ‘there are things that you learn and ways that you think that you don’t understand are more Jewish than not until you go into mainstream America and realize that other people don’t think this way.’
Jews, in other words, are different than ‘mainstream America,’ something she defines as vaguely Christian. Since Jews like Hartley are not Christians, they define themselves as the opposite of Christianity. Forgetting that Christianity and Judaism both view the Torah and the moral code it expresses as canonical, Hartley then goes on to define the Jew as someone who opposes morals as the Bible defines them. Once again she makes a stab at justifying pornography as something essentially compatible with being Jewish. She can only do this, of course, by taking as normative not the Torah but rather the history of Jews as she has lived that history by coming of age in Berkeley during the ‘60s, which means, of course, accepting the history of Jewish secularization in the wake of the Enlightenment, and that means, of course, taking into account the influence that communism had on her parents’ generation.
‘I’m proud,’ Hartley continues, ‘of my heritage’s intellectual history and its empathy with the persecuted. But I’m no Zionist. Politically, I’m left-wing. I want everyone to have a job, everyone to have food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education. Utopia might be communist but in the meantime we have to have socialism. I want everyone to have a piece.’ …
At some point, the baby boomer Jewish revolutionaries redefined the revolution. Unlike their communist parents, who saw the revolution as revolving around economic issues, the baby boomer Jewish revolutionaries saw the essential issues as sexual. Like Richard Pacheco, they took Wilhelm Reich as their guide, instead of Trotsky or Lenin, the quintessential revolutionary figures for their parents’ generation. As Igor Shafarevich noted, socialism at its most basic has always had a sexual component. It has always meant the communality of wives as well as the communality of property. So the idea of ‘democratic’ sex has been part of the socialist tradition from the beginning. But the idea of sexual liberation has also been refined in the course of history as well, and the Jewish porn stars who see pornography as an expression of their Jewishness are aware of those refinements as well. In fact it was the earlier Jewish infatuation with socialism which made the Jewish justification of pornography possible. Hartley ‘descends ideologically from the Marxist Jewish philosopher Herbert Marcuse who prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Nina descends literally from a line of radical Jews. Her grandfather (a physics professor) and her father (a radio announcer) belonged to the Communist party.’ One of Hartley’s brothers is an Orthodox Jew who is not pleased with her vocation as porn star. As a result, they don’t speak to each other. Rather than leave it at that, Hartley goes out of her way to portray him as the black sheep of the family. Ranz echoes her animus: ‘I don’t understand how a family where the parents have a Communist background can raise a kid who grows up to be an Orthodox Jew. How did that happen?’
It is a classic instance of the transvaluation of values that is part of contemporary Jewish identity. Who gets to excommunicate whom? The Sabbatian Jews will naturally try to excommunicate the Orthodox as deviant. The fact that they outnumber the Orthodox so considerably makes their attempt less laughable than it might otherwise seem. The connection between Jews and pornography is like the connection between Jews and Bolshevism. Both are forms of revolutionary activity, ultimately traceable to Jewish concepts that have been secularized. Jews become involved in pornography for reasons similar to why they become involved in Communism, which is to say, not just because they happened to be Jews but because being Jewish as they and Sabbatai Zevi and Wilhelm Reich defined it found logical expression in producing pornography as a form of cultural warfare through moral subversion. Ultimately, the relationship between Jews and pornography is similar to how Marx described the relationship between the communist party and the proletariat. Just as the Jews were the vanguard of revolutionary activity in Russia, so they are in the vanguard of sexual revolution in the United States. The Jewish concept of the chosen people naturally transformed itself into the concept of the revolutionary vanguard as soon as the Torah evaporated as the core of Jewish identity. Messianic politics replaced waiting for the Messiah.
In The Politics of Bad Faith, David Horowitz described how a religious paradigm, the Exodus, became a political paradigm, in other words, how the eschaton got immanentized and transformed into a Messianic political movement. Dresner sees much the same thing. In becoming, in Dresner’s words, ‘the chief advocates of modernity,’ Jews have dedicated themselves to Communism with a messianic fervor:
They became, for example, disciples of the new politics of communism. Some 30 percent of the early leaders of the revolution were estimated to have been Jewish. Emancipated from their ancient faith by the onslaught of modern thought, which the antiquated Judaism of the time was ill-prepared to refute, they transferred their yet unexpended messianic fervor into the new religion of Marx. (p. 325).
And when the attraction of communism began to pale they dedicated themselves just as fervently to sexual liberation. It would be naive, or as Haberer says, ‘shortsighted’ to claim in light of the overwhelming amount of evidence that Jews just happened to be revolutionaries just as Abe Foxman at a later date would claim that Jews just happened to be involved in pornography. Both communism and pornography are forms of revolutionary activity, and Jews were drawn to both precisely because of the hold that both Messianic Socialism and Sabbatianism acquired over them once this group of Jews abandoned traditional religious practice, something which happened to large numbers of them after they arrived in America. Nathan Glazer describes the process:
Judaism is even more vulnerable to the unsettling influence of modernity than is Christianity. Judaism emphasizes acts, rituals, habits a way of life. … Once one had found-as so many immigrants did-that it was more convenient to work on Saturdays of to shave or to abandon traditional dress, one had no body of doctrine to fall back upon that could explain what remained really important in Judaism-indeed, the question was whether anything was really more important than the rituals established by God’s word. Under these circumstances, an entire way of life disintegrated.
‘Jews who came to America,’ Elliott Abrams writes, ‘were usually… not the most devout people in their communities’ anyway. The decline in faith and morals, however, did not mean that they stopped defining themselves as Jews. Socialism and sexual liberation simply filled up the religious vessels from which the Torah had evaporated. Revolution, in other words, was another way of being a Jew, a secular humanist Jew of the sort Leo Pfeffer praised.
Irving Kristol, in his youth a follower of Trotsky and now a neoconservative, gives expression to the Messianic, universalist vision that both neoconservatism and Trotskyism have in common. The Jewish revolutionaries, according to Kristol:
did not forsake their Jewish heritage to replace it with another form of cultural identity or ethnic belonging. What they sought can best be described as an abstract and futuristic idealism of assimilation qua emancipation in a denationalized and secularized democratic society, ideally of universal scope. Leaving the world of their childhood did not necessarily imply its total abandonment in one act of irreversible forgetfulness. For many this departure under the sacred halo of socialism was the next best solution to their own existential problems – a solution that was enormously attractive since it also held out the utopian promise of the ‘genuine emancipation’ of all Jews in a socialist republic of universal brotherhood devoid of national, religious, and social discrimination or even distinctions.
As Irving Kristol, and other Jews have made clear, Secular Humanism is the continuation of revolutionary thought in a America. Just as socialism was attractive to significant numbers of Jews in Russia during the 19th century, Secular Humanism has a certain attraction among Jews now – indeed, if Kristol is right, among most Jews. Kristol’s description of Secular Humanism highlights the similarities it shares with Jewish revolutionary thought in Russia:
where emancipation unleashed within the Jewish community latent messianic passions that pointed to a new era of fraternal ‘universalism’ of belief for mankind. What is now called ‘prophetic Judaism’ gradually edged out ‘rabbinic Judaism’ – the distinction itself being a derivative of the secular-humanist impulse. By the time the mass of Jews, mostly Central and East European, came to the United States, they were already secular-humanist in their politics, i.e., somewhere Left of Center-if not in other respects (Irving Kristol, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea [New York: The Free Press, 1995], p. 448.
Secular Humanism, no matter how corrosive it is of faith and morals and a health social order is, as Kristol puts it, ‘good for Jews,’ because it … permits individual Jews a civic equality and equality of opportunity dreamed of by previous Jewish generations. It is natural, therefore for American Jews to be, not only accepting of secular-humanist doctrines, but enthusiastic exponents. That explains why American Jews [like Leo Pfeffer] are so vigilant about removing all the signs and symbols of traditional religions from ‘the public square,’ so insistent that religion be merely a ‘private affair,’ so determined that separation of church and state be interpreted to mean the separation of all institutions from any signs of a connection with traditional religions. The spread of secular humanism throughout American life has been ‘good for Jews,’ no question about it. So the more, the better (p. 449).
In her recent memoir, An Old Wife’s Tale, Midge Decter notices the same phenomenon, but with a little more Angst. ‘It is no secret,’ she writes:
that some significant part in the emptying of the [moral-religious] public square had been played by Jewish liberals. It was understandable to me why this was so, because their long history had left many Jews with an atavistic fear of Christian authority – so the more public life could be kept strictly secular the safer they felt. But understand it or not, I believe that the religion-free public condition to which they have made such a vital contribution had left American society, and particularly American culture, vulnerable to pernicious influences.
Influences like pornography? Suddenly Nina Hartley’s description of herself as ‘the blonde Jew’ porn star from ‘a long line of radical Jews,’ who ‘wants everyone to have a piece – a piece of sex, a piece of the means of production, a piece of a warm communist community’ and ‘a piece of the promised Messianic Age – now’ doesn’t seem as far-fetched as it does on first reading. The link between the Torah and pornography – in other words between the Jewish law and its antithesis – is Russian Jewish Bolshevism – with a big assist from Wilhelm Reich – and its American legacy, brought here by the refugees from the pogroms which the revolutionaries set in motion when they killed the Czar. Daniel Goldhagen’s demonization of Pius XII is part of that ongoing struggle between the Jewish revolutionary mind and its main counter-revolutionary opponent, the Catholic Church. Then as now, the same dynamic applies. The revolutionaries by their actions generate animus against all Jews. When someone has the temerity to criticize the excesses of people like Goldhagen, the Jewish organizations like the ADL turn what is an issue of scholarship and truth into a an ethnic/religious issue, thereby creating the very thing they purport to oppose, namely ethnic animus.
Pornography is, in other words, one of the weapons which ‘Jews with an atavistic fear of Christian authority’ have turned to to weaken the dominant culture in a country and, thereby, assure that the Jews, always a minority, will go unmolested by their ‘Christian’ neighbors.
The Israelis have recently shown themselves well-versed in what one could call the military use of pornography. At 4:30 PM on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. One 52-year-old Palestinian mother of three children, according to the report in the The Advertiser, complained about ‘the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.’ The only Palestinian station not taken over by the Israelis ran a written message at the bottom of its screen claiming that ‘Anything currently shown on Al-Watan and other local TV channels has nothing to do with Palestinian programs but is being broadcast by the Israeli occupation forces. We urge parents to take precautions.’ […]
Luke Ford makes a similar point in his discussion of Jewish involvement in pornography. ‘Why does porn attract so many non-Jewish [i.e., Sabbatian] Jews?’ Because ‘even when Jews live in a society that welcomes theminstead of harassing them, many Jews hate the majority culture.’ Pornography is a way of weakening the majority culture by moral subversion. Hence, Jewish involvement in pornography. […]
When Luke Ford asked Al Goldstein, the publisher of Screw, why so many Jews were involved in pornography, Goldstein, unlike Abe Foxman, did not say the connection was fortuitous. He instead got to what one might call the theological heart of the matter. ‘The only reason that Jews are in pornography,’ Goldstein responded, ‘is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.’ […]
(13) Playboy’s Jewish Editors: “The whole staff, practically, was Jewish”
http://www.tabletmag.com/Jewish-arts-and-culture/books/26418/my-son-the-pornographer
{The Tablet is a Jewish magazine}
Books
My Son, the Pornographer
By the 1960s, Playboy and its founder had become household names. But while Hugh Hefner was out making his brand synonymous with the good life, a team of Jewish editors made his magazine one of the liveliest, sexiest, and most progressive reads around.
By Josh Lambert
February 24, 2010
In his tennis whites on the courts of a retirement community in Sarasota, Florida, Nat Lehrman doesn’t fit the image of an aging sexual revolutionary: he’s no jowly Hugh Hefner in a red silk robe, nor Al Goldstein, homeless and pathetic. But then Lehrman, the editor responsible for transforming Playboy in the 1960s from just another spicy Esquire knockoff into a path-breaking national forum for the discussion of sexuality, has always been less a sex fiend than an old-school Brooklyn journalist.
If a magazine’s history can be divided into eras, the 1960s should be remembered as Playboy’s Jewish decade. Those were the years in which a cadre of young Jewish editors, including Lehrman, reinvigorated the publication, embracing and fomenting the sexual revolution. Yet Playboy has often been thought of as an essentially WASP phenomenon, because Hefner, the magazine’s founder, served back then, and always, as Playboy’s public face—and also because, thanks to neurotic icons like Alexander Portnoy and Alvy Singer, it has been difficult to imagine nice Jewish boys convincing a different perky co-ed to strip her clothes off every month. […]
(14) Rabbi Daniel Lapin blamed Jews for America’s “rapidly deteriorating culture“
Jewish Tribal Review
Excerpts from: When Victims Rule. A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America
Pornography, drugs, Hollywood, and Jewish influence upon the values of mass culture
[…] Hollywood movies and television at-large have been increasingly attacked in recent years for propagating a range of decadent values. […]
Not even focusing on the Hollywood world, in 1999, Rabbi Daniel Lapin wrote an extraordinarily unusual, and stunning, appraisal of the collective negative effects of the modern Jewish community upon the values of America:
“My firm conviction is that we must engage in an honest exploration of the problems and shortcomings of the Jewish community and Jewish communal leadership. Instead of focusing on imagined enemies, we should ask whether dogmatic commitment to a secular-liberal vision is encouraging dislike for the Jewish community. Without such honest self-appraisal, Jews will become more and more disliked — not by crazed individuals but by decent Americans distressed over their rapidly deteriorating culture and the role of Jews in that agenda. It cannot escape the notice of ordinary Americans coping with the challenge of raising responsible children in a hostile world that many Jewish names and groups lead the fight for policies these Americans see as causing the country’s decline.” [America’s Real War, 1999, p. 42] […]
(15) Norman Podhoretz blames Allen Ginsberg for promoting Sodomy
My War with Allen Ginsberg
Commentary Magazine 1997 (reprinted in Ex-Friends)
As the 60’s wore on, I came more and more to see all this [hippie era] as a new kind of plague … I ended with a lament for the victims it had claimed among the ‘especially vulnerable’ young … [There were] shades of antinomian propaganda Ginsberg had done as much as anyone else in America to spread … Ginsberg was also fulsomely praised as a pioneer of the gay-rights movement, which indeed he was. Yet so far as I have been able to determine, no one thought to draw a connection between the emergence of AIDS and the rampant homosexual promiscuity promoted by Ginsberg (with buggery as an especially ‘joyful’ feature that is described in loving detail in poem after pornographic — yes, pornographic — poem. And I could find only one mention (in the Weekly Standard) of Ginsberg’s active sponsorship of the abominable North American Man Boy Alliance (NAMBLA), an organization devoted to the legalization of homosexual pedophilia. (‘I don’t know exactly how to define what’s underage,’ he once explained, quickly adding that he himself had ‘never made it with anyone under fifteen.’)
(16) Luke Ford (Jewish himself) explains Why do Jews dominate Porn?
Luke Ford had a webpage called Jews in Porn. It was athttp://www.lukeford.com/subjects/content/jews_in_porn.html .
eg Hollywood’s Homosexual Mafia http://www.lukeford.net/essays/contents/homo_mafia.htm
Hollywood Jews http://www.lukeford.net/essays/contents/Hollywood_Jews.htm
Rabbinic Sex Abuse http://www.lukeford.net/essays/contents/clergysexabuse.htm
Some of Luke Ford’s essays are also at http://www.lukeisback.com/essays/essays/ and http://www.lukeisback.com/essays
But his webpage on Jews in Porn is nowhere to be found
… except at the Internet Archive:http://web.archive.org/web/20001216054700/http://www.lukeford.com/subjects/content/jews_in_porn.html
I suggest that you save a copy. ==
Jews
Secular Jews dominate the production and distribution of porn. Just like they’ve had a disproportionate role in the “white slave trade,” and other forms of sex commerce.
In his 1992 book “Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country,” Mordacai Richler writes about Jew hatred in Quebec: The late Abbe Lionel Groulx, patron saint of the sovereignty advocates, is revealed as an admirer of Mussolini who wrote in 1954 that Jews have “a natural passion for money” and could “be found behind all businesses, all shady enterprises, all the pornography operations. . . .”
Leading modern Jewish pornographers include Ron Braverman, John Bone, Wesley Emerson, Paul Fishbein, Herbert Feinberg AKA Mickey Fine, Hank Weinstein, Lenny Friedlander, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Fred Hirsch and his children Steve and Marci, Paul “Norman” Apstein, Steve Orenstein, Jack Richmond (Legend CEO), Theodore Rothstein, Reuben and David Sturman, Ron Sullivan, Jerome Tanner, Armand Weston, Sam and Mitch Weston (Spinelli).
Jews accounted for most of the leading male performers of the 1970s and ’80s. Hebrew studs include Buck Adams, Bobby Astyr, (Bobby Charles) R. Bolla (Robert Kerman), Jerry Butler (Paul Siderman), Seymore Butts (Adam Glasser), Roger Caine (Al Levitsky), David Christopher (Bernie Cohen), Steve Drake, Jesse Eastern, Jamie Gillis (Jamie Gurman), Ron Jeremy (Hyatt), Michael Knight, William Margold, Ashley Moore (Steve Tucker), David Morris, George Payne, Ed Powers (Mark Arnold aka Mark Krinski), Harry Reems (Herbert Streicher), Dave Ruby, Herschel Savage (Harvey Cowen), Carter Stevens (Mal Warub), Marc Stevens, Paul Thomas (Phil Tobias), Marc Wallice (Marc Goldberg), Randy West (Andy Abrams) and Jack Wrangler.
A Jewish male performer writes Luke: “Why are most of the men that do porno Jewish? JEWISH MOTHERS!
“Jewish men are taught to respect women and help them (very codependent)… They also are nonthreathening to most women. Let’s face it, Ron Jeremy is not exactly Mike Tyson… You’ll usually find that the real mean bastards (physically violent) in the industry are NOT Jewish (that includes, producers, directors, boyfriends, agents, etc). Jewish guys are more manipulative….”
Jewish female performers include Avalon, Jenny Baxter (Jenny Wexler), Busty Belle (Tracy Praeger), Chelsea Blake, Tiffany Blake, Bunny Bleu (Kim Warner), J.R. Carrington, Lee Carroll (Leslie Barris), Blair Castle/Brooke Fields (Allison Shandibal), Courtney/Natasha/Eden (Natasha Zimmerman), Daphne (Daphne Franks), Barbara Dare (Stacy Mitnick), April Diamond, Jeanna Fine, Alexis Gold, Terri Hall, Heather Hart, Nina Hartley (Hartman), C.J. Laing (Wendy Miller), Frankie Leigh (Cynthia Hope Geller), Gloria Leonard, Traci Lords (Nora Louise Kuzma), Amber Lynn, Tonisha Mills, Melissa Monet, Susan Nero, Scarlett O. (Catherine Goldberg), Tawny Pearl (Susan Pearlman), Nina Preta, Tracey Prince, Raylene, Janey Robbins (Robin Lieberman), Mila Shegol, Alexandra Silk, Susan Sloan, Annie Sprinkle (Ellen Steinberg), Karen Summer (Dana Alper), Cindy West, Zara Whites (Amy Kooiman) and Ona Zee (Ona Simms).
If the Torah [Pentateuch] commands Jews “to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” and Judaism strongly opposes porn, why do Jews dominate porn?
The main answer is simple. Jews in porn, like most Jews in academia, media and entertainment, are Jewish in name only. They do little in Jewish life, rarely belong to a synagogue and ignore the Torah. Neither rooted in their own tradition or in that of the majority Christian tradition, they live in a community of rebels.
Why does porn attract so many non-Jewish Jews?
· Used to hatred from society, Jews will do its dirty work – such as money lending in the Middle Ages or porn today – to make money. Persecuted for millennia in the various societies they’ve lived in, many Jews developed an allegiance to their own survival as their highest value and care little about the survival of the persecuting society. Even when Jews live in a society that welcomes them instead of harassing them, many Jews hate the majority culture.
· Because Jews frequently despise the majority culture, and despite being traditional in most of their values and rituals, Jews seem open to new ways of doing business. Not rooted in the status quo that frequently hates them, Jews often lead the way in the application of new technology – such as printing presses, radio, TV, cable television, VCRs and computers. And the most popular application of new technology for millennia has been porn.
· Because of Judaism’s emphasis on education and verbal dexterity, Jews dominate academia, entertainment and media generally.
· Belonging to the “Chosen Ones” brings self-confidence, and it takes a strong sense of self to thrive in an industry like porn that is disdained by the public. Male performers particularly need confidence to achieve on camera erections. […]
(17) Jews invented Hollywood; they have replaced WASPs as the New Establishment
– Luke Ford
by Peter Myers, October 17, 2017
Luke Ford is a convert to Judaism, who ran porn gossip websites: http://lukeford.net/blog/?page_id=10 andhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Ford
The following webpage by Luke Ford is undated, but was created on or before October 2, 2002:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002194141/http://www.lukeford.net/essays/contents/Hollywood_Jews.htm
Hollywood Jews
by Luke Ford
Jews invented Hollywood.
While Thomas Edison invented the motion picture camera, immigrant Jewish entrepreneurs (like Sam Goldwyn, Jack and Harry Warner, Louis B. Mayer) created Hollywood. Jews created the three major American television networks, William Paley’s CBS, David Sarnoff’s NBC and Leonard Goldenson’s ABC.
Today about two-thirds of leading TV and movie producers are Jewish. Jewish domination of entertainment is little discussed in the mainstream media, which is also dominated by Jews, out of fears of arousing hatred of Jews.
In December 2002, the National Lampoon came out with the spoof “The Hollywood Retorter”, with Jews in Hollywood as the main joke. Nikki Finke writes: “Lampoon editor in chief Scott Rubin, who is quick to point out he himself is Jewish, says the subject of Hollywood Jews was chosen because it’s such a taboo in this town. Even the L.A. Times, in a news brief, shied away from mentioning the “Jewish” articles. “Well, who are we kidding? There’re a lot of Jews in Hollywood. But no one wants to admit that. This was just having fun with the fact that a disproportionate amount of Jews are in the entertainment business.”” (LA Weekly, 12/12/02)
Jews in Hollywood, like most Jews in the media, academia and pornography, tend to be secular Jews, rooted neither in Judaism nor in the majority Christian culture.
In his 1998 book Work in Progress, Disney CEO Michael Eisner writes about Joe Roth (head of movie production at Disney Corp): “Joe was raised in Roslyn Heights on Long Island. His father made a modest living running a plastics manufacturing business, but his passion was social activism. In 1958, when New York State began requiring children to recite the Regent’s Prayer at school each day, Joe’s father viewed it as a violation of the separation of church and state and recruited an ACLU lawyer to file a lawsuit. Joe, then ten, and his thirteen-year-old brother became two of the plaintiffs in the case. In 1962, the Supreme Court finally ruled that enforced prayer in schools was unconstitutional. Joe and his brother became pariahs at school. The family’s house was picketed by the American Nazi Party and a cross made of kerosene-soaked rags was set on fire in their driveway. By his own description, the experience fueled his self-image as an outsider.” (pg. 304)
British journalist William Cash wrote about Hollywood’s Jewish cabal in an October 1994 issue of the Britishjournal Spectator. The article drew hysterical reactions denouncing Cash and the Spectator for anti-Semitism. William Cash writes:
Los Angeles. WHEN Mr. Mike Ovitz, or His Most Powerfulness (as he is also known here), shows up at a press conference in LA and sits in the audience, you know something big is going on: in this case the founding of a new multi-billion-dollar Hollywood studio by Steven Spielberg, record mogul billionaire David Geffen and their best friend, the recently dumped chief of Disney Studios, Jeffrey Katzenberg. […]
But in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or ‘talent combo’, in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants they are Jewish.
The significance of this fact cannot be simply met by the inevitable shrieks of ‘anti-Semitism’. A rare glimpse of the feudal power structure of Hollywood at work was given by the Wall Street Journal‘s front-page report of the new studio launch. Before any contracts could be signed, a private ‘blessing’ was required from 81-year-old Lew Wasserman, the long-time chairman of MCA (which owns Universal) and the last surviving Jewish Founder-builder of a studio. To quote the Journal, he is treated in Hollywood ‘like a tribal chieftain’.
Spielberg, Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg’s 30-year personal mentor, MCA president Sidney Sheinberg, gathered at the house of the ‘Godfather of the Show’ (as Time called Wasserman). After getting his rabbinical blessing, they spoke in ‘hushed, reverential tones about the industry potentate’, about how he ‘spun stories about the history of Hollywood and showed them artifacts’. Geffen and Katzenberg, who have no formal connections with MCA or Wassemman, were reported as being ‘nervous’ before the meeting. ‘The whole thing could have gone sour,’ said Katzenberg.
Turn now to pages 202-3 of last month’s Vanity Fair and a curious ‘group portrait’ will grin back at you. Sixteen middle-aged men are decked out in a mixture of nylon jogging anoraks, fluffy white socks, digital watches and faded jeans. You’d probably guess they were a bunch of Californian dentists.
They are, in fact, the magazine reliably informs us, the New Establishment, ‘the leaders of the computer, entertainment and communication industries, whose collective power has eclipsed that of Wall Street and Washington’. In his ‘Editor’s Letter’, Graydon Carter confidently boasts that his 30 page ‘Special Report’ redefines ‘the power center of America… as (it) has moved from its role as military-industrial giant to a new supremacy as the world’s entertainment-information superpower‘.
There again, bottom left, is Hollywood super-agent Mike Ovitz, chairman of the Creative Artists Agency (presumably he won’t sign non-creative artists); in the middle is his buddy David Geffen (interests listed as ‘Aids, Israel and other causes’); behind them is another close pal, Barry Diller, another Aids activist and chairman of the home-shopping network QVC. In a Warner Bros. Fitness Center’ T-shirt is Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner Inc.; in a denim shirt is Jeffrey Katzenberg. Banker Herbert A. Allen their host for this ‘Sun Valley Conference of Corporate Leaders’ has on his running shoes. Steven Spielberg, snapped by Annie Leibovitz a few pages on, is gazing out to sea, his white sneakers and socks by his side.
Throughout their report, the magazine is repeatedly troubled by the question: ‘Is there anything that binds this group of men?’ According to Walter Isaacson, Time Inc.’s media editor, the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony was linked through shared educational (i.e. ‘class’) bonds and beliefs: ‘What binds these guys is a sense of interlocking ventures and relationships. The Old Establishment was a club. The New Establishment is a network.’
Up to a point. Again, there is something very obvious (apart from white socks) that does bind together most of the leading members of the so-called ‘New Establishment’ or the Titans of Tripe, as Auberon Waugh recently called them. Only no magazine in America (especially a Conde Nast publication owned by Si Newhouse) would point it out: they are predominantly Jewish.
Whilst part of the blame for the fall of the eastern Establishment is placed on its exclusive good old-boy network and elitist Wasp mentality which excluded outsiders, a delicate question remains. Has the usurping of the white-shoe Establishment by the white-sock meritocracy anything to do with a similarly invidious and protective culture? Now that Jews govern the New Establishment (their official mouthpiece is the New York Times), does any sort of reverse form of class or racial discrimination operate against outsiders trying to get access to the entertainment highway – Wasps, blacks, Brits (there is only one Brit, of any level of executive significance in all the major studios, and he is Jewish) and others not so favored?
It should first be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald’s model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east. Although fiercely competitive, the Hollywood Jews worked closely together to build a close-knit empire that shamelessly imitated the social hierarchy of the very East Coast society that they felt alienated and patronized them.
‘If the Jews were proscribed from entering the real corridors of gentility and status in America, the movies offered an ingenious option,’ wrote Gabler. ‘Within the studios and on the screen, the Jews could simply create a new country, one where they would not only be admitted, but would govern as well.’
And govern they always have. That every major studio head is Jewish today is no different from 60 years ago. ‘Of 85 names engaged in production,’ a 1936 survey noted, ’53 are Jews. And the Jewish advantage holds in prestige as well as numbers.’ In a recent Premiere magazine ‘Special Power Issue’ ranking the 100 most powerful people in the ‘Industry’ the top 12 were Jewish. There were no black or British industry executives ranked.
George Steiner once famously said that to be Jewish is to be a member of a club from which you cannot resign. In Hollywood, the most obvious examples of the Jewish Club are in the side-shows, the lawyers, talent agencies and management and production offices.
Birgit Cunningham, is a glamorous Benenden-educated, 28-year-old, blue-eyed blonde. Her father, who owns one of Hitler’s pianos, is German. She told me that when she worked as a personal assistant to Vic Sutton, the Jewish head of the fast-track LA commercials talent agency, Sutton, Barth & Vennari, her boss would often, if signing a deal, bluntly ask if they were Jewish.
‘I was surprised,’ she said. ‘I mean, in England, you’d never hear someone ask “Are you Anglican?” On the other hand, he liked to boast that he had this hot young Nazi working for him. When I told him my family flew in the Luftwaffe he was ecstatic.’
As small-time professional incest it is probably no worse than, say, public schoolboys in the City (an analogy used by one senior Jewish executive to rebut the charge of Jewish favoritism in Hollywood). The ‘network’ manifests itself in the Jewish country clubs such as the Hillcrest, the one Groucho Marx refused to join or tennis clubs (application forms always say ‘state religion’). Hollywood Jews are not notably religious. Although the town closes down on Jewish holidays, business happily continues at pool-side barbecues, the deli at the Brentwood Country Mart, endless bar mitzvahs and $500-a-plate Jewish causes or political fund-raisers.
Feeling a bit left out of the loop, some non-Jews have been going to extreme measures to get on. Bill Stadiem, a former Harvard-educated Wall Street lawyer who is now a screenwriter in LA, told me that he recently came across an old Wasp friend in an LA restaurant who had been president of the Porcellian at Harvard the most exclusive undergraduate dining club. His friend, a would-be producer, was dressed in a black nylon track suit and had gold chains on his wrist; dangling around his neck was a chunky Star of David. Stadiem asked, ‘Why the hell are you dressed like that? ‘ The Wasp replied, ‘I’m trying to look Jewish.’
Just as in the Eighties people were known to fake being homosexual or bisexual as a way of getting on in the entertainment business (it is estimated that around 35 per cent of the film community are gay), it has long been a standing joke in L.A that the way to get on is to convert to Judaism. Simon Kelton, an Eton-and Oxford-educated screenwriter friend with whom I used to share a house, and who was short listed last year for the Samuel Goldwyn film-writing award, always stresses his Jewish ‘ancestry’ whenever he gets a chance in LA; something few had ever heard about before.
The extent to which this adds up to any sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of the 21st-Century Entertainment Superhighway is difficult to assess. Jews, always compulsive story-tellers and talented negotiators, are extremely compatible with the executive side of the movie business. They are good at it.
The crucial fact that Vanity Fair seems to have blindly swerved past in its ‘challenge of redefining the power center of America’ is that the whole point of the ‘Establishment’, as Henry Fairlie noted when coining the phrase in The Spectator back in 1955, is that its power is exercised socially. That the socially maladroit and culturally nihilistwhite-sock meritocracy is now anointed the Power Elite by a ‘smart’ glossy magazine only serves to confirm how the divide between social and professional lives in the United States has become blurred to the point of irrelevance. The important thing about New Establishment power in America is that it is exercised corporately.
What is wholly new about today’s generation of moguls is that they have made a radical social departure from their Jewish forebears. The likes of Mayer, Cohen, Selznick and Thalberg headed west at a time when the entertainment business was regarded as disreputable, and they went to extreme lengths in their quest for social respectability. Louis Mayer comically attempted to live like a 19th-century aristocrat, forcing his daughter to have riding lessons every day. He himself joined the Griffith Park Riding Academy and even very nearly converted to Catholicism.
The movie Jews joined the Hollywood Polo and Riding Club in droves; they paid their expensive dues at the West Hills Hunt Club with its own pack of Irish foxhounds, whose (mostly Jewish) members still gallop every Saturday in season around the hills around Los Angeles in sunglasses and full British hunting gear.
The idea of ‘New Establishment’ players like David Geffen (who refuses to wear a suit), Mike Ovitz or Steven Spielberg dressing up in a tail-coat to go fox-hunting is ludicrous.
Now that they are the Power Elite, they view the creaky East Coast Wasp institutions and such reserves as the LA Country Club (which still proudly excludes Jews and showbiz types’) as anachronistic jokes. Whilst Louis Mayer would have been trying everything to get a photograph of himself shaking hands with Prince Charles during his three-day visit (or escape) to LA, today’s breed of super-mogul couldn’t care less.
The rise of the white-sock mediocracy, of course, is only another example of how driven Jews have always dealt with exclusion. Barred from one form of Establishment, they have ended up helping to create their own. […]
(18) Kings of the Deal: William Cash investigates Hollywood’s new Jewish Establishment – The Spectator
Kings of the Deal
William Cash investigates the increasing influence and success of Hollywood’s new Jewish Establishment
The Spectator
October 1994
Los Angeles.
View p.1:
View p.2:
WHEN Mr. Mike Ovitz, or His Most Powerfulness (as he is also known here), shows up at a press conference in LA and sits in the audience, you know something big is going on: in this case the founding of a new multi-billion-dollar Hollywood studio by Steven Spielberg, record mogul billionaire David Geffen and their best friend, the recently dumped chief of Disney Studios, Jeffrey Katzenberg.
Although the Hollywood survival rate for studio start-up schemes has been poor, Francis Coppola’s American Zoetrope Studios is the most notable recent casualty, this ambitious venture has been widely hailed as having more chance of success than any similar enterprise for 50 years. Since Katzenberg is to run the company, this may seem odd: as head of Disney he was personally responsible for a disturbing proportion of some of the dullest and crassest films (Aspen Extreme, Love Trouble) of the last five years. He once told a journalist (on the record), ‘Our movies are shit. ‘ But in one respect at least this particular combination of talents, or ‘talent combo’, in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants they are Jewish.
The significance of this fact cannot be simply met by the inevitable shrieks of ‘anti-Semitism’. A rare glimpse of the feudal power structure of Hollywood at work was given by the Wall Street Journal’s front-page report of the new studio launch. Before any contracts could be signed, a private ‘blessing’ was required from 81-year-old Lew Wasserman, the long-time chairman of MCA (which owns Universal) and the last surviving Jewish Founder-builder of a studio. To quote the Journal, he is treated in Hollywood ‘like a tribal chieftain’.
Spielberg, Geffen, Katzenberg and Spielberg’s 30-year personal mentor, MCA president Sidney Sheinberg, gathered at the house of the ‘Godfather of the Show’ (as Time called Wasserman). After getting his rabbinical blessing, they spoke in ‘hushed, reverential tones about the industry potentate’, about how he ‘spun stories about the history of Hollywood and showed them artifacts’. Geffen and Katzenberg, who have no formal connections with MCA or Wassemman, were reported as being ‘nervous’ before the meeting. ‘The whole thing could have gone sour,’ said Katzenberg.
Turn now to pages 202-3 of last month’s Vanity Fair and a curious ‘group portrait’ will grin back at you. Sixteen middle-aged men are decked out in a mixture of nylon jogging anoraks, fluffy white socks, digital watches and faded jeans. You’d probably guess they were a bunch of Californian dentists.
They are, in fact, the magazine reliably informs us, the New Establishment, ‘the leaders of the computer, entertainment and communication industries, whose collective power has eclipsed that of Wall Street and Washington’. In his ‘Editor’s Letter’, Graydon Carter confidently boasts that his 30 page ‘Special Report’ redefines ‘the power center of America… as (it) has moved from its role as military-industrial giant to a new supremacy as the world’s entertainment-information superpower’.
There again, bottom left, is Hollywood super-agent Mike Ovitz, chairman of the Creative Artists Agency (presumably he won’t sign non-creative artists); in the middle is his buddy David Geffen (interests listed as ‘Aids, Israel and other causes’); behind them is another close pal, Barry Diller, another Aids activist and chairman of the home-shopping network QVC. In a Warner Bros. Fitness Center’ T-shirt is Gerald Levin, chairman of Time Warner Inc.; in a denim shirt is Jeffrey Katzenberg. Banker Herbert A. Allen their host for this ‘Sun Valley Conference of Corporate Leaders’ has on his running shoes. Steven Spielberg, snapped by Annie Leibovitz a few pages on, is gazing out to sea, his white sneakers and socks by his side.
Throughout their report, the magazine is repeatedly troubled by the question: ‘Is there anything that binds this group of men?’ According to Walter Isaacson, Time Inc.’s media editor, the old White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hegemony was linked through shared educational (i.e. ‘class’) bonds and beliefs: ‘What binds these guys is a sense of interlocking ventures and relationships. The Old Establishment was a club. The New Establishment is a network.’
Up to a point. Again, there is something very obvious (apart from white socks) that does bind together most of the leading members of the so-called ‘New Establishment’ or the Titans of Tripe, as Auberon Waugh recently called them. Only no magazine in America (especially a Conde Nast publication owned by Si Newhouse) would point it out: they are predominantly Jewish.
Whilst part of the blame for the fall of the eastern Establishment is placed on its exclusive good old-boy network and elitist Wasp mentality which excluded outsiders, a delicate question remains. Has the usurping of the white-shoe Establishment by the white-sock meritocracy anything to do with a similarly invidious and protective culture? Now that Jews govern the New Establishment (their official mouthpiece is the New York Times), does any sort of reverse form of class or racial discrimination operate against outsiders trying to get access to the entertainment highway – Wasps, blacks, Brits (there is only one Brit, of any level of executive significance in all the major studios, and he is Jewish) and others not so favored?
It should first be said that there is nothing remotely surprising about all this. As Neal Gabler clearly demonstrated in his acclaimed book, An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood, the early Jewish movie pioneers such as Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg (Fitzgerald’s model for The Last Tycoon) who founded the studios of today came to Hollywood because they felt barred from power in the east. Although fiercely competitive, the Hollywood Jews worked closely together to build a close-knit empire that shamelessly imitated the social hierarchy of the very East Coast society that they felt alienated and patronized them.
‘If the Jews were proscribed from entering the real corridors of gentility and status in America, the movies offered an ingenious option,’ wrote Gabler. ‘Within the studios and on the screen, the Jews could simply create a new country, one where they would not only be admitted, but would govern as well.’
And govern they always have. That every major studio head is Jewish today is no different from 60 years ago. ‘Of 85 names engaged in production,’ a 1936 survey noted, ’53 are Jews. And the Jewish advantage holds in prestige as well as numbers.’ In a recent Premiere magazine ‘Special Power Issue’ ranking the 100 most powerful people in the ‘Industry’ the top 12 were Jewish. There were no black or British industry executives ranked.
George Steiner once famously said that to be Jewish is to be a member of a club from which you cannot resign. In Hollywood, the most obvious examples of the Jewish Club are in the side-shows, the lawyers, talent agencies and management and production offices.
Birgit Cunningham, is a glamorous Benenden-educated, 28-year-old, blue-eyed blonde. Her father, who owns one of Hitler’s pianos, is German. She told me that when she worked as a personal assistant to Vic Sutton, the Jewish head of the fast-track LA commercials talent agency, Sutton, Barth & Vennari, her boss would often, if signing a deal, bluntly ask if they were Jewish.
‘I was surprised,’ she said. ‘I mean, in England, you’d never hear someone ask “Are you Anglican?” On the other hand, he liked to boast that he had this hot young Nazi working for him. When I told him my family flew in the Luftwaffe he was ecstatic.’
As small-time professional incest it is probably no worse than, say, public schoolboys in the City (an analogy used by one senior Jewish executive to rebut the charge of Jewish favoritism in Hollywood). The ‘network’ manifests itself in the Jewish country clubs such as the Hillcrest, the one Groucho Marx refused to join or tennis clubs (application forms always say ‘state religion’). Hollywood Jews are not notably religious. Although the town closes down on Jewish holidays, business happily continues at pool-side barbecues, the deli at the Brentwood Country Mart, endless bar mitzvahs and $500-a-plate Jewish causes or political fund-raisers.
Feeling a bit left out of the loop, some non-Jews have been going to extreme measures to get on. Bill Stadiem, a former Harvard-educated Wall Street lawyer who is now a screenwriter in LA, told me that he recently came across an old Wasp friend in an LA restaurant who had been president of the Porcellian at Harvard the most exclusive undergraduate dining club. His friend, a would-be producer, was dressed in a black nylon track suit and had gold chains on his wrist; dangling around his neck was a chunky Star of David. Stadiem asked, ‘Why the hell are you dressed like that? ‘ The Wasp replied, ‘I’m trying to look Jewish.’
Just as in the Eighties people were known to fake being homosexual or bisexual as a way of getting on in the entertainment business (it is estimated that around 35 per cent of the film community are gay), it has long been a standing joke in L.A that the way to get on is to convert to Judaism. Simon Kelton, an Eton-and Oxford-educated screenwriter friend with whom I used to share a house, and who was short listed last year for the Samuel Goldwyn film-writing award, always stresses his Jewish ‘ancestry’ whenever he gets a chance in LA; something few had ever heard about before.
The extent to which this adds up to any sort of Jewish cabal behind the building of the 21st-Century Entertainment Superhighway is difficult to assess. Jews, always compulsive story-tellers and talented negotiators, are extremely compatible with the executive side of the movie business. They are good at it.
The crucial fact that Vanity Fair seems to have blindly swerved past in its ‘challenge of redefining the power center of America’ is that the whole point of the ‘Establishment’, as Henry Fairlie noted when coining the phrase in The Spectator back in 1955, is that its power is exercised socially. That the socially maladroit and culturally nihilist white-sock meritocracy is now anointed the Power Elite by a ‘smart’ glossy magazine only serves to confirm how the divide between social and professional lives in the United States has become blurred to the point of irrelevance.
The important thing about New Establishment power in America is that it is exercised corporately. What is wholly new about today’s generation of moguls is that they have made a radical social departure from their Jewish forebears. The likes of Mayer, Cohen, Selznick and Thalberg headed west at a time when the entertainment business was regarded as disreputable, and they went to extreme lengths in their quest for social respectability. Louis Mayer comically attempted to live like a 19th-century aristocrat, forcing his daughter to have riding lessons every day. He himself joined the Griffith Park Riding Academy and even very nearly converted to Catholicism. The movie Jews joined the Hollywood Polo and Riding Club in droves; they paid their expensive dues at the West Hills Hunt Club with its own pack of Irish foxhounds, whose (mostly Jewish) members still gallop every Saturday in season around the hills around Los Angeles in sunglasses and full British hunting gear. The idea of ‘New Establishment’ players like David Geffen (who refuses to wear a suit), Mike Ovitz or Steven Spielberg dressing up in a tail-coat to go fox-hunting is ludicrous.
Now that they are the Power Elite, they view the creaky East Coast Wasp institutions and such reserves as the LA Country Club (which still proudly excludes Jews and showbiz types’) as anachronistic jokes. Whilst Louis Mayer would have been trying everything to get a photograph of himself shaking hands with Prince Charles during his three-day visit (or escape) to LA, today’s breed of super-mogul couldn’t care less.
The rise of the white-sock mediocracy, of course, is only another example of how driven Jews have always dealt with exclusion. Barred from one form of Establishment, they have ended up helping to create their own.
William Cash writes for the Daily Telegraph from Los Angeles
(19) The Spectator publishes letters critical of William Cash, and his Reply
LETTERS
THE SPECTATOR 5 November 1994
SIR:The total dominance of the American film industry by the Jewish Establishment, past and present, is admirably related by William Cash (Kings of the Deal, 29 October)…Cash illustrates the attempts by the pre-war studio bosses to copy the mores of the old East Coast Establishment, and he notes that this is no longer so.
In fact, one can detect a distinct hostility. The same industry which produced the elegant high society comedies, featuring a Cary Grant or a David Niven, will now systematically portray well-to-do gentiles as caricatures…This is not done as ignorance. It is just reverse discrimination. Claus von Bulow, 109 Onslow Square, London SW7 19 November 1994
SIR: William Cash worries about inevitable shrieks of anti-Semitism as a consequence of his anti-Semitism. Not to worry. People as powerful as us have no need to shriek. We will bide our time and silently see justice done. Maybe before Passover. You run a filthy magazine. Leon Wieseltier Literary Editor, The New Republic, Washington, DC
SIR: William Cash‘s article about Jewish influence in Hollywood has caused a great deal of offense and outrage. His suggestion that the founders of a new studio venture are more likely to succeed if they are Jews is bizarre… The reference to a ‘rabbinical blessing’ from an individual who is a Jew but has no pretensions to rabbinical status is crudely offensive…
Mr. Cash refers to a possible ‘Jewish cabal’ and asks pointedly whether this cabal seeks to exclude or discriminate against non-Jews. This language perpetrates the discredited old myth about a Jewish conspiracy and a Jewish monopoly of power which is allegedly used to disadvantage and exclude non-Jews. There is no credible evidence to support the evidence of a ‘Jewish cabal’ operating to exclude non-Jews. The deeply offensive reference to a ‘Jewish cabal’ is compounded by sneering references to ‘a socially maladroit and culturally nihilistic white sock meritocracy’ or a ‘white sock mediocracy’.
Overall this is a deeply unpleasant and distasteful article…It should not have found a place in a serious journal.
Neville Nagler Chief Executive, The Board of Deputies of British Jews London
SIR: The reaction to my article pointing out that Hollywood’s feudal power structure is predominantly Jewish (‘Kings of the Deal‘, 29 October) has been wholly misconstrued. If I have injured any feelings, I apologize but certainly no anti-Semitism was intended or felt. The purpose of the article was to contrast and challenge Vanity Fair’s criteria of the New Establishment with the original definition of the Establishment by The Spectator in 1955. Since Vanity Fair made so much play about the Protestant religion of the old Wasp Establishment, it seemed legitimate to observe that the majority of the ‘New Boys’ Network’ shared a common Jewish background.
Unfortunately, Americans don’t understand what is meant by the term Establishment. According to The Spectator in 1955, it was by definition exclusionary, and exercised its power socially. My ‘point’ was that ‘the leaders of the computer, entertainment and communication industries’ were not a real Establishment as their power was exercised corporately. Far from constituting any sort of ‘cabal’, I stated that Jewish influence in Hollywood was to quote Barry Isaacson’s own words when I called him up ‘no worse than public schoolboys in the City’.
The attacks on me in the American media have been led by Neal Gabler, author of An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. What is so galling is that all the historical data I present in my article about how Jews have always worked together in the movie business, along with the very words that have been objected to, came straight from his book, including the red-flag phrase ‘Jewish cabal’, which he employs almost with relish on page 263.
On the first page of his book he states how the industry was ‘supervised’ by Jews, goes on to detail the workings of the ‘Jewish network’, specifies how the studios ‘preferred to deal with other Jews’ (p.272) and admits precisely the firebrand question raised by my article namely, does Hollywood exclude outsiders?
Gabler asserts that the Hollywood Jews practiced ‘reverse discrimination Those goyim!” Harry Warner would yell in derision, or “He’s a nice fellow for a goy” a Jew might say but only in their inner sanctums, when they were safe among fellow Jews, and only verbally’ (p.280). Gabler’s book was described as an ‘enthralling book of social history’ by the New York Times.
The subtext of this is that a double standard seems to exist. While it is acceptable for a Jewish writer, like Gabler, to use words like ‘network’ or ‘reverse discrimination’, when a Brit (the English are invariably cast as villains in Hollywood today) uses similar phrases he is barbecued. Again, whilst it is fine for the Wall Street Journal to refer to MCA chairman Lew Wasserman as Hollywood’s ‘tribal chieftain’, a Brit cannot. Again, it is acceptable for Time magazine to call Wasserman Godfather of the Show’ but not for The Spectator. Instead of sucking up to Hollywood Michael Williams Jones (Letters, 12 j November) should learn to read. I stated that almost all the major studio and talent agency heads’ were Jewish, not their owners. That Hollywood is a Jewish-run town, despite only 4% per cent of the country being Jewish, is, indeed, always joked about. […]
William Cash Woodrow Wilson Drive, Hollywood, California 90046
(20) Editor Dominic Lawson (Jewish) says Advertisers threatened to withdraw their business
If Conrad Black was a bully, I never saw it
By Dominic Lawson
12:01AM GMT 25 Jan 2004
[…] When I was at The Spectator I published an article in November 1994 by William Cash, then The Daily Telegraph’s Los Angeles stringer, called “Kings of the Deal”. The sub-headline read “William Cash investigates the increasing influence and success of Hollywood’s new Jewish Establishment”. The idea that Jewish film producers and agents dominated Hollywood was as old as Hollywood itself but, even so, The Daily Telegraph had thought the article too risky to publish. “Don’t worry,” I told William, “I’m Jewish. I can get away with it.”
How wrong I was. Once Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand and Kevin Costner had written letters to Conraddenouncing me as the new Torquemada the row caught the imagination of the entire North American media, and then ricocheted into Israel, where Conrad Black was immensely vulnerable through his ownership of the Jerusalem Post.
Advertisers threatened to withdraw their business across the length and breadth of Conrad’s empire. But again he never gave me any sense of the pressure he was under; still less did he rebuke me. […]
--
Peter Myers
381 Goodwood Rd
Childers Qld 4660
Australia
website: http://mailstar.net/index.html
Skype video: petermyersaus . By prior arrangement only, after
discussions by email.
To unsubscribe, reply with "Unsubscribe" in the Subject line. Allow one day.
Wide in it's scope, I like Kevin's rebelliousness and his daring to say what is forbidden. I didn't forward it because I'm not sure of all the details or if there is slander. The USA and Europe are mostly not allowed to criticize Jews, in a press that is often owned or run by Jews. What we are seeing in the world is an new ascendancy of an Israeli empire. This includes undue Jewish influence in the US Congress. It is interesting that WASPs and Brits are often portrayed as villains in Jewish Hollywood movies, and Paul Craig Roberts says that in the lexicon of Identity politics, white males are always wrong based on their birth. I would add as a footnote concerning the tragic assassination of Marilyn Monroe, that I don't believe it was her psychiatrist, I believe it was FBI thugs working with Catholic Robert Kennedy, and Kennedy may have been in the room, he was in the house twice that day including the evening. Informative and daring, right wing article. –Bill Gibbons
Might one "win" in the Weinstein takedown in part be connected to his involvement with DeNiro on a documentary about vaccines?
http://www.healthfreedoms.org/robert-de-niro-and-harvey-weinstein-are-working-on-a-documentary-on-vaccine-dangers/
This whole topic has been insulated from the "mainstream" culture as a kind of "third rail". Uncomfortable to discuss, precisely because it is so relevant and explains so much of our recent history. These wealthy and powerful Hollywood / LA / NYC media moguls give carte blanche to Israeli Mossad and US Zionist operators to get away with any crime or psyop they want.
Downtime Bar NYC, you might remember it as Mockingbird in LES, allowed this man to stay at this event put on by Actors Hour. Actors Hour and the woman who runs it Alexandra Laliberte apparently invited Harvey Weinstein.