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. I got a copy just as I was starting Culture
Wars, a magazine that ran concurrently with Fidelity and eventually
superseded it. I liked Dresner's book because it fit in perfectly with
the idea of Culture Wars at the time. Both the magazine and the book
were meditations on the moral basis for America, which as anyone who is
familiar with American history knows, is the only basis for America.
Rabbi Dresner's take on the American experiment in ordered liberty was
essentially the same as that of John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, and
John Courtney Murray. We, John Adams wrote concerning the citizens of
the nation he had been instrumental in bringing into being, have no
constitution that functions in the absence of a moral people. According
to Dresner's reading of the American experiment in ordered liberty:
The founding fathers of America, taking the biblical record as their
model, knew that political democracy could only flourish if established
on the dual foundations of faith and family. Our contemporary malaise
is the consequence of abandoning that ideal in favor of a society that
is largely secular, hedonistic and atomistic. Judaism, by advocating a
God-centered family-based society , established by the covenant and
governed by the Torah can play a key role in recalling America to its
origins (Families, p. 77).
As a result of the decadence which has dominated American cultural life
since the 60s, sexually degenerate America needed, in Dresner's view, a
new coalition, a union of Jews and Gentiles with a common commitment to
civilization and a common abhorrence of social and moral chaos.
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. It was about the
ironies which abounded when one compared the strictures of the Torah
and the mores of contemporary American Jews. Is it not ironic, Dresner
asked rhetorically, that the descendants of the those who wrote the
Psalms and offered prayer to the world became, according to all
accountings, the least worshipful?
Like Culture Wars, Can Families Survive in Pagan America? was a
deliberate attempt to step outside the normal ethnic and religious
boundaries; but like Fidelity magazine, which preceded and eventually
morphed into Culture Wars, it could not do this without addressing the
intra-ethnic situation, which is to say, in this instance the state of
American Jews. In addition to being about morals, Families was about
ethnicity and its antinomy, assimilation, and Rabbi Dresner was, by and
large, not happy with the American Jewish experience. The Jews had
prospered in American, but they paid a price for their prosperity. The
chosen people seemed to flatten into normality, according to Dresner's
pessimistic view, becoming what the prophets had warned against: like
the nations. They had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in
assimilating and achieving success. They even succeeded in remaking
American culture in the course of the 20th century in their image, but
in doing that they also discovered that they were in some very real
sense of the word, a sense which Dresner explored in detail, no longer
Jews. Jews, according to Dresner, have tried all things. In the process
they have exhausted modernity; and discovered to their chagrin; the
puzzling truth that
No license has replaced the Law; no symphony, the Psalms, no
chandelier, the Sabbath candles; no opera, Yom Kippur; not country club
, the synagogue; no mansion, the home; no Jaguar, a child; no mistress,
a wife; no banquet, the Passover seder; not towering metropolis,
Jerusalem; no impulse, the joy of doing a mitzvah; no man, God. (p.
Dresner carried the hope that American Jews would seek the recovery of
the sacred to his grave when he died three years ago.
Samuel H. Dresner was born into an assimilationist-minded Jewish family
in Chicago in 1923. He grew up in the Uptown section of Chicago and
attended Senn high school where he lettered in track and gymnastics. In
an obituary he wrote for The National Jewish Post and Opinion, Rabbi
Elliott Gertel, who met Dresner as a boy at the congregation Dresner
pastored in Springfield, Massachusetts in the 60s, described King Kong
Dresner; as he was known in high school at the time, as obsessed with
sports and girls.
Before long those obsessions were replaced by a loftier obsession. At
the age of 15, Dresner became acutely and painfully aware of suffering
in the world around him. He recounted being on North Sheridan Road at
twilight during the late 1930s and suddenly having he sense that he was
being pursued by some greater power. The more the track star ran away
from that power, the more closely he felt he was being pursued. As a
result of his vision, he turned down what would have been a lucrative
career in his uncle's dress manufacturing business and decided to
become a rabbi.
Dresner did not speak Yiddish. He was not a Polish Jew. His wife Ruth
comes from a family of Orthodox German Jews. You would, however, not
get this impression by reading Families, which is many ways one long
invidious comparison between the Jews of America and the Jews of
Eastern Europe, in general, and of Poland in particular. He got his
attitude toward Ostjuden from Abraham Heschel. Dresner met Heschel as a
student in the ‘40s while attending the Jewish Theological Seminary in
New York. Dresner considered Heschel, who grew up in Warsaw, attended
the Yiddish Real Gymnasium in Vilna, one of the great centers of
Yiddishkayt, and the university in Frankfurt, 'the greatest Jew of his
time.' Dresner wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Hasidim and would
go on to become Abraham Heschel's closest disciple. He would go on to
translate much of Heschel's writings on the Hasidim and eventually
collaborated with Edward Kaplan of Brandeis University in writing the
first volume of Heschel's biography.
Dresner, according to Gertel, 'was the outstanding pulpit communicator
of Jewish spirituality' and much of what he communicated caused
consternation among American Jews. In the early ‘60s he was denounced
as a Communist for criticizing overly elaborate Jewish funerals.
According to Gertel, he also
provoked the ire
of the founders of Brandeis University when he warned them that a
college concocted by Jews to advance the banner of 'non-sectarianism'
would not be able to deal with the identity conflicts of Jewish
students or provide guidance to America in the face of challenges to
traditional sexual mores. He was among the first to spot trends
destructive of Judaism in literature, film and radical feminism.
To be honest with you, I still don't know how I met Sam Dresner. Pat
Riley, who studied journalism at Columbia and later edited The National
Catholic Register, knew him better than I did. Dresner, according to
Riley, praised my writing and then upbraided Riley for not subscribing
to Culture Wars. After I wrote the review of Families, it was obvious
that we shared the same view of America as a nation that could only
exist if it were based on moral consensus, even if we shared it from
two very different ethnic perspectives. I remember asking him what he
thought of a piece I did on Jewish/Catholic Kulturkampf, which ended
with an analysis of Alan Dershowitz's The Vanishing American Jew. My
point was that the Jews were putting themselves out of business by
espousing sexual liberation. Dresner agreed with what I had to say, but
added that Jews didn't like to hear others (i.e., the goyim) say it. It
was an honest response, and I valued his honesty. In another
conversation, he complained about me writing about 'Jewish villains'
and so in response I sent him a copy of the then just released book The
Medjugorje Deception with an inscription to the effect that there were
no Jewish villains in it.
In another conversation, Dresner upbraided me for my attitude toward
Leo Pfeffer. He was, according to Dresner's account, a pious Jew living
on Long Island at the time. Maybe he was talking about another Leo
Pfeffer than the one I had in mind. Or maybe Pfeffer had changed and
decided to use his old age as an opportunity to repent for the sins of
his youth and middle age. The Leo Pfeffer who came to Philadelphia in
1976 to give a lecture on the triumph of secular humanism was the
antithesis of Sam Dresner. He was in my opinion a certifiable Jewish
villain. In 1976, which is to say the same year that Pfeffer traveled
to Philadelphia to gloat over 'the triumph of secular humanism' and the
defeat of his Catholic opponents in the culture wars of the ‘60s,
Dresner took a very different approach, attacking the same secularism
that Pfeffer praised in an article which appeared in the Spring-Summer
1976 issue of United Synagogue Review. The thing which Dresner found
'most disturbing,' according to Gertel, was 'secularism,' the thing
whose triumph Pfeffer praised. Pfeffer was an ardent opponent of the
Legion of Decency and the Hollywood production code (as well as the
architect of the legal strategies which drove prayer from the public
schools and which deprived Catholic grade schools of government aid).
Dresner complained about the evaporation of Christian faith and morals
in American. Dresner felt that the fact that America was becoming more
pagan was having an adverse effect on American Jews. Perhaps more than
any other one person, Leo Pfeffer was responsible for that evaporation
of faith and morals from the pubic square in America. Unlike Leo
Pfeffer, who had good things to say about just about every aspect of
cultural and moral subversion, Dresner saw the consequences that Jews
like Pfeffer were creating and wondered 'what would happen throughout
America if Jews would begin to say: I will not produce this film, or
show this movie, or publish this book, or write this magazine article
because it is perverse and destructive of human values. I will not sell
this item because it is shoddy and will not last.'
Dresner felt that Jews were better off, spiritually at least, in the
ghettos of Eastern Europe. Now that they had arrived in just about
every sense of the word in America, he was afraid that they had become
'messengers who forget the message':
For centuries the Jews, shut up in their ghettos, perfected their souls
before God and had something to say to mankind. But no one listened.
Now, Jews have the ears of non-Jews on every level of society. What a
tragedy if now that the gentiles are listening, the Jews have nothing
When Families appeared, this gentile was listening, because he felt
that this Jew had something to say. Not everyone felt that way about
Families. His daughters wondered why he had written such a 'harsh and
graphic and judgmental book? Why not write a nice and uplifting book,
like the ones you used to write?' Their judgment is understandable.
Families is harsh in its judgment of American Jews and their cultural
heroes. Dresner singles out Isaac Bashevis Singer and Woody Allen for
particular condemnation because of their contemptuous attitude toward
things Jewish. In wondering why Singer is so popular among American
Jews and why his portrayal of Polish Jews as sexual degenerates had
evoked no protest, Dresner levels a jeremiad of biblical proportions
against American Jews, a group which he feels,
have made a
caricature out of Judaism, not only by the vulgarism and crass
commercialism that pervades their communal life, but, more to the
point, by too often abdicating the intellectual life of the faith of
Israel to the fads of the time. The true creed of many American Jews,
especially the intellectuals, has become whatever happens at the moment
to be 'in' - Marxism, deconstruction, consciousness-raising,
permissiveness, liberation, cults, sexual experimentation, etc. (pp.
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 a permissive,
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.
Dresner's critique of Hollywood, however, is not as pointed as it needs
to be. To say that 'the Hollywood elite' came to adopt 'a permissive,
value-free attitude in the course of a few decades' from 1945 to 1985
is not only not true, it misses certain salient points. First of all,
the Hollywood elite was then and is now overwhelmingly Jewish.
Secondly, the Jews who ran Hollywood always had this 'permissive,
value-free attitude' when it came to matters venereal. Beginning in the
‘20s, the outcry against Hollywood's subversion of morals was so great
that various forms of legislation - federal, state and local - were
proposed as an antidote. As a way of heading off this legislation,
Hollywood's Jews in 1934 entered into a voluntary agreement with the
Legion of Decency, a Catholic operation. That agreement was known as
the Production Code. The Catholics forced the issue by organizing
boycotts at a time when the film industry was reeling from the effects
of the stock market crash and their heavy indebtedness to the nation's
The most memorable and most effective boycott was organized by Cardinal
Dougherty of Philadelphia, who forbade that city's Catholics from
watching movies in the city's movie houses, which at the time were
largely owned by Warner Brothers. His efforts created a situation in
which Warner Brothers was losing $175,000 a week at the height of the
depression. At a meeting of Hollywood moguls called to discuss it, the
Philadelphia boycott had reduced the normally pugnacious Harry Warner,
to 'standing up at the top of the table, shedding tears the size of
horse turds, and pleading for someone to get him off the hook. And well
he should, for you could fire a cannon down the center aisle of any
theater in Philadelphia, without danger of hitting anyone! And there
was Barney Balaban (of Paramount Theaters), watching him in terror
wondering if he was going to be next in Chicago.'
The man who described Harry Warner's plight at that meeting and the man
who ran the Production Code office for the next 20 years was a Catholic
by the name of Joseph I. Breen, a man who had no illusions about the
attitudes of the Hollywood elite during the early ‘30s:
They are simply
a rotten bunch of vile people with no respect for anything beyond the
making of money. . . . Here [in Hollywood] we have Paganism rampant and
in its most virulent form. Drunkenness and debauchery are commonplace.
Sexual perversion is rampant ,. . . any number of our directors and
stars are perverts. . . . These Jews seem to think of nothing but
moneymaking and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common
indulgence hereabouts and the men and women who engage in this sort of
business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the
nation is to be. They and they alone make the decision. Ninety-five
percent of these folks are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They
are, probably, the scum of the earth (Black, Hollywood Censored, p. 70).
Virtually all the historians of Breen's tenure as head of the
Production Code condemn Breen as an anti-Semite. Virtually all of the
same historians can only bring themselves to use the word 'moral' in
quotation marks, giving some indication that they have internalized the
standards of the victors in this cultural conflict. The fact that Breen
went on to work with 'these folks' for the next 20 years proves - to
Mark Viera, at least - that Breen was not an anti-Semite:
Joe Breen, who had railed against the immorality of the Hollywood Jews,
had learned from them, and they from him. They would not have asked him
to run RKO Pictures if he had been truly anti-Semitic. They would not
have flown him here and there. They would not have invited him into
their homes. And they certainly would not have given him an Academy
Award. He had convictions. He was a fighter, but he didn't hate.
What was true then is a fortiori true today. Jews dominate Hollywood
and always have. The immigrant Jews who created Hollywood's major
studios were followed by another generation of Jews who founded the
nation's major TV 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.
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
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. The Enlightenment, which
was the intellectual matrix out of which the United States grew,
abstracted Jewish morals from their religious context and made them the
basis for a multi-ethnic 'nation.' America's Jewish roots, in other
words, go deep, but they also lead us to Rabbi Dresner's dilemma. On
the one hand, adherence to the Torah's teaching on the family can save
America from moral decline. On the other hand, the moral decline that
Dresner complains about was in no small amount attributable to the
cultural influence of American Jews, something he adverts to time and
time again in his book. 'Jews,' he tells us, 'have played a less than
admirable role in the sexual revolution' (p. 155). 'Many liberal
rabbis,' he continues, 'are in the forefront of the proabortion
movement. In fact, surveys indicate that Jewish women are among the
most likely of all groups to support ‘abortion on demand'' (p. 39).
Dresner goes on to cite 'a recent Gallup poll and a suppressed B'nai
B'rith survey,' which indicates that American Jews are more likely to
be divorced and less likely to be married than the average American;
that '91 percent of Jewish women agree that every woman who wants an
abortion should be able to have one'; that '50 percent of Jewish women
signaled a high degree of affinity for feminism compared to only 16
percent among non-Jewish women,' and that Jews favor homosexual rights
more than the general population. Yet Dresner tells us that the Jewish
religion says that 'homosexuality is a violation of the order of
creation' and that the family is 'divinely ordained' by that same order
of creation. As a result, Dresner tells us that Jews, if they want to
participate in a family coalition, 'need to put their own house in
order' not only because they have abandoned traditional values, like
other Americans, but because they 'are more likely to live in urban
areas in the forefront of social change.'
Dresner never wrote from a deracinated, anti-ethnic perspective. He was
an American worried about moral decline, but he was also a Jew
concerned about the state of American Jews. Part of the pathos of his
book stems from the anguish he feels when viewing the moral decline of
American Jews, something he sees as quintessentially anti-Jewish,
because Jews, according to his view, either stand for the moral law, as
introduced by Moses into human history, or they stand for nothing. The
cultural prominence of Jews like Woody Allen was especially painful for
Dresner because they had become cultural icons by promoting sexual
deviance. They had also promoted many of the standard anti-Semitic
stereotypes. 'For the Gentile,' Dresner writes, 'Allen's depiction of
religious Jews as pious frauds, and worse, can only confirm ancient
Christian canards of the Jew as hypocrite, devil, despoiler of
morality, and corrupter of culture' (p. 238). Why, Dresner wonders
giving voice to that anguish, should American Jews rush to accept Woody
Allen's categorization of them as 'despoilers of morality'? It's a
question which Dresner addresses but cannot answer. 'Why Jews want to
demean themselves is a question that Hollywood ‘theologians' have yet
to address.' But the fact remains. The rootless Jews who dominate
Hollywood and, as a result, American culture as a whole, have defined
themselves as, in Dresner's words, 'despoilers of morality and
corrupters of culture.'
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,
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).
The unanswered question in the midst of all this breathless journalism
is the meaning of the word Jew. Which is another way of saying, who
speaks for the American Jew? Rabbi Dresner or Woody Allen? If numbers
determine the truth, then the answer is clearly Woody Allen. But that
raises other issues. If, as Dresner notes, 'American Jews accept the
categorization of themselves as advocates of Woody Allen,' then Judaism
is another word for 'sexual permissiveness and even perversity,' a
doctrine which Dresner finds clearly unacceptable. Dresner takes his
rule of thumb from Susan Handleman: 'The lifestyles of Jews should not
determine the Jewish style of life.' The former, according to Dresner,
'should not be determined by the latter, even if the latter should
become a majority in the Jewish community.' If American Jews were to
become 'advocates of Woody Allen,' that would mean 'not only a betrayal
of Jewish values but a betrayal of the Jewish people, for no one more
than [Woody] Allen has enabled so many to view the Jew, especially the
religious Jew, in so corrupt a manner' (p. 223).
It should be obvious by now that Dresner does not like Woody Allen, the
classic example of how America has become more Jewish while at the same
time 'American Jews are becoming less Jewish.' Because of his
popularity and because the mainline Jewish organizations-which, Dresner
notes, spend millions to ferret out anti-Semitism-leave his attacks on
Jewish tradition unmentioned, Woody Allen has become a paradigm for the
majority of American Jews. But in order to understand what that means,
we first have to understand what Woody Allen symbolizes to the majority
of American Jews.
Dresner's book is helpful in this regard. Woody Allen, according to
Dresner, has had a 'persistent fascination' with incest. He has also
been in psychoanalysis for over 30 years, which means that this
fascination with incest, whether expressed in his writing ('It's a
whole new ball game,' she said, pressing close to me. 'Marrying Mom has
made you my father.') or his seduction of his and Mia Farrow's adopted
daughter Soon Yi Previn is best explained by an analysis of Freud.
Freud, too, was obsessed with incest. In his book Moses and Monotheism,
Freud makes clear that, as in the case of the Pharaohs of Egypt, incest
confers god-like status on its perpetrators. In the same book, Freud
also claims that Moses was an Egyptian, in an attempt to
de-legitimatize the man who gave the law to Israel. David Bakan has
written a book commenting on these passages in which he claims that
Freud was a follower of the Jewish false Messiah Shabbetai Zevi and
that his attack on Moses was really an attempt to abolish the law in
the same way that Zevi did, which is to say through ritual impurity.
Jews who promote sexual revolution are following in this tradition:
'They,' Dresner tells us, 'conjure up painful memories of the infamous
seventeenth century false messiah Sabbatai Tzvi or his successor, Jacob
Frank. Their coming was to mark a new age when the rule of Torah was to
be superseded-'What was forbidden is now permitted'-and transgressions
would become a mitzvot' (p. 160).
'For those who seek the forbidden in Jewish guise,' Dresner continues,
'Sabbatianism points the way.' This is so because it gets to the very
heart of Judaism, a religion according to Dresner, which was forged in
opposition to the fertility cults of Canaan and the rest of the ancient
middle east. 'In biblical times,' Dresner continues, 'Judaism waged a
battle against sexual excess not unlike the struggle now in
progress-and in those earlier times, Mosaic law was victorious.
Unbridled sexuality lay at the heart of ancient pagan religion' (p. 66,
my emphasis). In Dresner's view, Jewish history is one long battle
against sexual deviance. 'The early biblical narratives can be read as
a continuous attack on the widespread sexual deviance that challenged
and often seduced the Israelites, whose fallings away Scripture
scrupulously records' (p. 82). What crime was so great that it provoked
God to destroy mankind, except for Noah and his family, with a flood?
'According to the most ancient understanding of the biblical story
found in rabbinic sources, it was the violation of the natural order of
sexual life' (p. 83). 'God,' Dresner says at another point, 'is
long-suffering of all manner of crime, save sexual immorality' (p. 85).
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'
That battle has continued to the present day. In fact, the impression
that one gets by reading Dresner's book is that over the course of the
twentieth century in America the Jews have suffered one of the greatest
defeats in their history. Dresner blames this defeat on assimilation,
but the irony is that the Jews were corrupting America's morals at the
same time that their were undergoing moral corruption themselves by
assimilating so successfully in America. Assimilation means the
adoption of pagan sexual mores of the sort that nearly destroyed the
Israelites at the time of the Book of Kings. But America in the late
19th and early 20th centuries was no Canaan. It was known for its moral
rectitude if not its 'Puritanism,' as anyone who has read the novels of
Henry James could attest. The Jews who came to America did not come as
Joshua came to Canaan. The Jews who arrived from the Polish shtetl
arrived to find a ruling class more interested in Darwin than Christ.
They adopted the worst aspects of modernity and became both corrupted
and, because of their influence in the media, corrupter simultaneously.
Just what was Jay Gatsby supposed to learn from Tom Buchanan, other
than what clothes he was supposed to wear? The fact that the white race
was being corrupted, according to Goddard's (i.e. Lothrop Stoddard's)
book? The success Jews have achieved in media, publishing, academe,
etc. over the course of the 20th century, only magnified the corrupting
influence which modernity inflicted on them and which they would in
turn inflict on their host culture as well, as the letter to the
California Lawyer which Dresner found so disturbing indicated.
Dresner's antipathy toward both Woody Allen and Isaac Bashevis Singer
stems from the fact that he is both an American and a Jew and from the
fact that Woody Allen and Singer can be seen as corrupting influences
from both perspectives. Dresner's anger is based on the fact that he
sees American Jews succumbing to the perennial temptation of sexual
idolatry by following their influence.
The connection between Singer and Shabbetai Zevi is nothing if not
explicit. Dresner notes his early 'fascination with Sabbatianism.' 'I
read whatever I could,' Singer writes, 'about the era of Sabbatai Zevi,
in whose footsteps Jacob Frank had followed . . . In these works I
found everything I had been pondering, hysteria, sex, fanaticism,
superstition' (p. 184).
Dresner mentions Shabbetai Zevi and his successor Jacob Frank in
connection with the sexual corruption of contemporary Jews. Not only
have America's Jews been corrupted by Sabbatianism, the Sabbatian
infection has become the majority position: the lifestyle of Jews has
trumped the Jewish style of life based on the Torah as the Jewish norm.
To cloak perversion with piety has a frightening ring, conjuring up
memories of the Asherah in the temple and the antics of Jacob Frank,
precisely because it blurs the distinctions between the Jewish style of
life and the lifestyle of Jews, between what Judaism prescribes and
what some Jews regrettably choose to do. It tends to validate the
position that whatever Jews say or do can be identified as Judaism. It
cripples the ability of Judaism to address the doings and sayings of
Jews. How can a religion that is based four-square on marriage and the
home countenance the revival of the sexual lifestyle of ancient (and
modern) idolatry (p. 155).
A New and
Dresner is in many ways more upset about Singer's popularity than he is
about Woody Allen's. 'Are Singer's writings ‘true''? he wonders. 'The
corruption, the adultery, the demonic, the philandering, the decay, the
perversion that pervade Singer's picture of Polish Jewry-is it all
true? And if it is not 'true,' then why has someone not said so?' (p.
177). The silence of American Jews over Singer and Allen indicates
ambivalence, which is to say, 'their secret desire to repudiate the
moral direction of three thousand years of Jewish history in favor of
the worship of sensuality and fear of the demonic, . . . finding
meaning in their animal nature instead of in the power of man to
transcend himself.' American Jews have embraced Singer's writings,
'because they express what Jews secretly desire.' And what is that?
Sexual liberation in Jewish garb, which is to say, Sabbatianism, which
is, according to Dresner, 'the one movement in Jewish history that not
only broke the moral yoke of Sinai but provided a theological
justification for it: ‘in the transgression of the mitzvah.''
The fact that Singer has declared his Sabbatian sympathies publicly
coupled with the fact that he has become so popular with American Jews
indicates that the curtain may be going up 'on a new and frightening
drama in Jewish life.' That means that the modern Jew (especially in
America) is now the devotee of 'an alternate faith.' Jewish silence on
Singer 'may be a sign of a sickness so severe we do not perceive its
symptoms.' Dresner, as well as Heschel and a number of other Yiddish
writers familiar with the situation in Poland before World War II,
considered Singers' writings one long calumny of eastern European Jews.
If this is so, why are American Jews so interested in promoting the
calumny? Because if eastern European Jewry is what Singer says it was,
then, according to Dresner, American Jews 'need feel no guilt; they can
go about their way, not much different from other Americans,
philandering, corrupting, and making of their faith a sham in the
comforting belief that it was, after all, always like that. That's what
the Jews of Eastern Europe were-philanderers, adulterers and
corrupters: why should American Jews be better?'
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. According to
Dresner, Judaism is about nothing 'if not the centrality of virtue.'
'How,' he wonders, 'can a Jew maintain any other position?' And as if
he has already learned the answer by reading his own book, he replies
with some understatement, 'Nevertheless, some do.' Judaism, according
to Dresner, 'stands as inexorably against the new paganism as it did
against the old. And so should the Jew,' but at the same time that the
American Jew was reaching cultural prominence, he was also converting
to Sabbatianism, 'an alternate faith.' As a result, 'Jewish rebellion
has broken out on several levels,' one being 'the prominent role of
Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation.'
Dresner again adverts to 'significant elements of America's cultural
elite,' which 'by its example, desensitizes this nation morally.' By
stating the case this way, he moves into another area, namely, the
problem which this group of Jews has created for America and the fact
that their Jewishness has in effect, prohibited others from addressing
the problem. Again he deals with the issue indirectly. 'How could so
many American Jewish leaders,' he wonders, 'have been taken in by
Allen?' Dresner has the cart before the horse here. Those Jewish
leaders have used Allen as a way of redefining the American Jew in
their image. They have used Allen to define the Jew as a sexually
deviant cultural bolshevist. As a result, anyone who objects to sexual
deviance or Hollywood's promotion of it gets defined as an anti-Semite.
The equation is very simple. Since Hollywood is run by Jews, being
anti-Hollywood means being an anti-Semite. Dresner cites Richard
Goldstein, writing in the liberal Village Voice as an example of this
sort of thinking. According to Goldstein, 'the Republican attack on
Hollywood and the 'media elite,'' is a code for anti-Semitism, because
'these are words that since the ‘50s connote Jewishness to people. The
Republicans can't attack Jews directly, so they use codes. The notion
of Woody as a kind of Jewish icon lends itself to the ideas of Jews
subverting the Christian family, an idea which is very old and very
Yes, it is a very dark idea. But who's promoting it? The Woody Allen
Jews, as if to provoke the very anti-Semitism which will vindicate them
in their own eyes and at the same time justify the descent into sexual
degeneracy which their consciences must find troubling from time to
time. The Woody Allen Jew is, in other words, engaged in Kulturkampf
not only with the 'Christian' culture which he wants to destroy but
with the Sam Dresner Jews who would define the Torah as normative.
Since Woody Allen is a cultural icon for most Jews, most Jews have
defined themselves as sexual degenerates. Dresner quotes a columnist in
the Village Voice, who writes:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think Woody Allen
is the genius spokesman of our collective angst and those how think
he's a filthy Jewish liberal . . . elitist Communist madman. Another
name for those two groups are Democrats and Republicans.
That a Jew can write this way is some indication to Dresner that 'the
underground has taken over.' The world, he says, at another point, has
been turned upside-down. Judaism has been redefined by the country's
'cultural elite,' which is to say it has been redefined by American
Jews. Hollywood has triumphed in promulgating its values, and one major
part of that triumph has been the redefinition of the Jew from someone
who believed in the centrality of virtue into someone who is a promoter
of sexual deviance. Jews, in other words, are responsible for America's
moral decline not just because they dominate the media but also because
of how they have redefined themselves, something which emerged in a
recent discussion of Jewish participation in the pornography 'industry'
on the Internet.
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 the
lukeford.com website, all of which have been removed by the cite's new
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.
Is there a connection between being a Jew and being involved in
pornography? That question is more difficult to answer. One Jewish male
porn star responded to the question, 'Why are most of the men that do
porno Jewish?' with a simple answer, 'Jewish mothers!' Jewish men, in
other words, are involved in porn because they 'are taught to respect
women and help them. They also are nonthreatening 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....' Again, it's hard to tell
whether this answer is motivated by a desire for self-exculpation or a
desire to promote anti-Semitic stereotypes.
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
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
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.
During the latter half of the 19th century and the first part of the
20th century fomenting class warfare has been their most successful
technique in Europe. In Russia, for example, they would have had
difficulty in corrupting the enormously wealthy aristocracy with
bribes, but their technique of fomenting class warfare succeeded in
destroying Russian society and letting the Jews seize control through
their Marxist movement. In the United States, on the other hand, where
the political leaders are essentially hucksters and lawyers and the
working class is relatively well off compared to Russia, the Jews have
had much more success with corruption than with their attempts to
foment class warfare. . . . and in the last half of the 20th century
their principal weapon for this purpose, more important than corruption
or class warfare, has been their control of the mass media of news and
Jewish involvement in pornography, in other words, goes deeper both
commercially and philosophically than Abe Foxman is willing to admit.
Once the majority of American Jews defined themselves as sexually
deviant, pornography, along with homosexual rights, feminism, and New
Age goddess worship, would become a natural expression of their
worldview, and since they controlled Hollywood, they were in the
position to make their worldview normative for the culture at large.
The traditional animus against majority culture combined with a decline
in moral scruple would naturally lead 'the advocates of Woody Allen' to
become involved in pornography as a form of cultural warfare.
The most significant thinker in this regard is Wilhelm Reich, a Jew
from Galicia who was a student of both Sigmund Freud (quite literally)
and Karl Marx and a man who tried to create an intellectual marriage
between their two quintessentially revolutionary ideologies. Reich
wrote the book on sexual revolution and many Jewish porn stars have
read it. Richard Pacheco is one.
before I got my first part in an adult film,' Pacheco explained, 'I
went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my
ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich's Sexual Revolution under my arm and
yelling about work, love and sex, which were Reich's three principles.
These things have got to be in balance or your life is going to
fucked.' Pacheco didn't get the job, but he didn't stop auditioning
either. Nor did he stop using his Jewishness as the rationalization for
his participation in pornography. 'Five years later,' Pacheco
continued, 'I auditioned for another X-rated film. That very day, I
also interviewed at Hebrew Union Seminary to do rabbinical study. I
made the choice that the kind of rabbi I would be, if I became one, was
one that could have been performing in sex films as part of his
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
'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
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
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:
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.
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:
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.'
In addition to being outraged, the Palestinians were bewildered. 'Why
in the world,' one correspondent to Omanforum.com wondered, 'should one
do such a thing?' If we turn to the dominant culture for an answer, we
can only become more confused because according to dominant culture's
explanation, pornography means freedom.
So making use of the hermeneutic provided by the dominant culture in
films like Boogie Nights and The People vs. Larry Flynt, Israeli troops
began broadcasting pornography over captured Palestinian TV stations
because they wanted to spread freedom among the Palestinian people.
Somehow that doesn't sound right. The simple fact of the matter is that
this incident simply cannot be explained according to the principles
available in contemporary American culture. In order to understand the
disparity between the official explanation of pornography and what
might be termed its military use, we have to go back to the ancients.
The story of Samson and Delilah might be a good place to start. Israel
was invincible militarily then too - at least that part hasn't changed
- so the Philistines decided that they had to get at the Israelite
leader by other than military means. Unable to defeat him in battle,
they decided to seduce him sexually. Once Samson succumbed to Delilah's
wiles, he lost his power, and Israel lost its leader. They could find
him then not on the field of battle, but rather to use Milton's phrase
'eyeless in Gaza, grinding at the mill with slaves.'
The story of the Palestinian TV stations broadcasting pornography has a
curiously Biblical ring to it. Having learned their lesson, the
Israelis decided to turn the tables on their opponents, because they
knew that a blind opponent is no opponent at all, and because they knew
- as the ancient Greeks knew - that lust makes a man blind. St. Thomas
Aquinas, giving voice to that same tradition over a millennium later
said that lust 'darkens the mind.' Suddenly, Israel's use of
pornography in their battle against the Palestinians isn't so
inexplicable anymore because a blind opponent is a weak opponent. A
blind opponent is no opponent at all.
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 them instead 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. Jews often
lead the way in the application of new technology. That meant using
high resolution photography, the VCR and the Internet as delivery
systems for pornography just as it meant dynamite, forgery and
smuggling in bringing down the Czar in Russia. English professor Jay
Gertzman, whose father and uncle were arrested on obscenity charges in
Philadelphia in the '50s, writes about the disproportionate influence
of Jews in the sex book trade in his 2000 book Bookleggers and
Smuthounds: The Trade In Erotica 1920-1940: 'The ethnic flavor of
prewar erotica distribution is still with us, although, except for
extreme right-wing hate groups, critics of sexual explicitness do not
overtly exploit the fact' (p. 289). Take note, Abe Foxman.
'While few Jews are radical, many radicals (and pornographers) are
Jews. Writes non-Jew Ernest van den Haag in his book The Jewish
Mystique, 'Out of one hundred Jews, five may be radicals, but out of
ten radicals, five are likely to be Jewish.'' Like Sam Dresner, Luke
Ford feels that
Virtually all movements to change the world come from the Jews -
Christianity, secular humanism, Marxism, Socialism and Communism,
feminism, and the labor movement. That's part of the reason that Jews
are hated. The world doesn't want to be changed.
Rooted in nothing, radical Jews frequently seek to make others equally
rootless by tearing down their religious, national, communal and
traditional allegiances. Such Jews carry on the traditional Jewish
hatred of false gods but without offering anything to replace the
scorned allegiances. . . . Rather, the most important result of the
domination of non-Jewish Jews in these fields is their war on
traditional values. Porn is just one expression of this rebellion
against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to Torah
that marks a Jew living Judaism.
Pornography, as a result, becomes a Jewish fantasy. Even when Catholics
are involved, they are generally involved on Jewish terms. According to
one industry insider, 'the leading male performers through the 1980s
came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman
Catholic day schools.' The standard porn scenario became as a result a
Polish Jewish fantasy, the horny Jew schtupping the Catholic shiksa.
Nina Hartley, the already mentioned Jewish porn star tends to agree, 'I
have not yet met a Jewish guy who wasn't a horny rabbit,' she says
explaining Jewish male involvement in pornography in her 1989 interview
in the Jewish magazine Schmate. 'Plus, they get to have sex with all
these beautiful blonde women... Where else are you going to get a
succession of shiksas [non- Jewish women] to bed you down?'
What Miss Hartley leaves out of her description is the cultural
dimension. Pornography becomes a way of defiling Christian women,
which, as Eldridge Cleaver pointed out in another context, is another
way of defiling Christianity and all that it stands for. 'Rape,'
according to Cleaver, 'was an insurrectionary act.' By defiling the
white woman, Cleaver 'was defying and trampling upon the white man's
law, upon his system of values,' something Cleaver found 'most
satisfying' (Soul on Ice, p. 14).
The same thing could be said of 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.'
Goldstein's response is worth pondering. Being Jewish provides
Goldstein with a rationalization for being in an unsavory business. The
fact that Abe Foxman refuses to disagree with Goldstein over what it
means to be a Jew only strengthens Goldstein's position, just as it
weakens the position of people like Sam Dresner, who feel that being a
Jew involves adherence to the Torah and, therefore, the moral law.
Goldstein can hide behind centuries old Jewish antipathy to
Christianity as the justification for what he is doing. Jews like
Goldstein have become so habituated to defining themselves as the
antithesis of things Christian that they start to define themselves in
opposition to things which both Judaism and Christianity hold in common
as well, namely, the moral law in general and sexual prohibitions in
Luke Ford interviewed Goldstein during the University of California
Northridge's first annual pornography conference. The conversation
began with Bruce David of Larry Flynt Publications urging Ford to
explain his theory on why so many Jews are involved in pornography,
which prompted Goldstein to opine that Jews were in pornography because
'Christ sucks.' After that opening gambit, the conversation got
progressively more theological, at least in the Goldstein mode. In
response to Ford's question, 'Do you believe in God?' Goldstein
answered, 'I believe in me. I'm God. Fuck God. God is your need to
believe in some super being. I am the super being. I am your God, admit
it. We're random. We're the flea on the ass of the dog.'
The interview continued in that vein:
Luke: 'What does being Jewish mean to you?'
Al: 'It doesn't mean shit. It means that I'm called a kike. Rose is
more of a Jew than I am. She speaks Hebrew.'
Goldstein here is referring to his companion, who, unlike Goldstein was
raised a religious Jew. At this point, Ford turns to Rose and asks her
the same question he just asked Goldstein.
'What does being Jewish mean to you?'
Rose: 'I feel like I am part of a worldwide spiritual community.'
Al: 'Jews and blacks are together. Us kikes and coons ... Like a
chocolate mouse [sic].'
Luke: 'What attracts you to Al?'
Rose hesitates, giving Goldstein his opening.
Al: 'It's my big Jewish dick. My circumcision.'
Rose ended the conversation by changing the subject.
'Who do you write for?' she asked Ford.
It's a long stretch to get from the Torah to pornography, and the only
way to understand how some people can see some compatibility between
being Jewish and a porn star is to understand the historical genesis of
their group, which is to say, the historical genesis of the secular,
revolutionary Jew. Ever since the Enlightenment, but certainly since
Marx, a certain group of Jews have defined being Jewish as being
revolutionary. The terms of the revolution have changed over the years,
but the revolutionary identity of this group of people has remained
constant. Being Jewish, to this group, means being a revolutionary.
Revolution is the fulfillment of the biblical promise of deliverance
from bondage for people who have given up on waiting for the Messiah.
Like David Horowitz, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, and many other
commentators, Rabbi Dresner noticed that the Enlightenment had a
powerful effect on Europe's Jews, who were incapable of abandoning the
paradigms they learned from the Bible. Instead they secularized them
when the Revolutionary Spirit in the form of Napoleon came and knocked
down the walls of the ghetto. World Jewry, 80 percent of whom lived in
Poland in 1791 when the French Revolution emancipated the Jews, split
in two when the Enlightenment came to the shtetl. The result of that
intellectual fission can be likened to the splitting of the atom, with
the release of an equivalent amount of energy and destruction.
As a result of the Enlightenment, the Jewish community was split into
Halachic and Maskilic Jews. The Halachic or ethnic or religious Jews
may have been aggressively anti-Christian, but they defined themselves
in terms of religious observance and traditions, and they lived in
ethnic communities, and their animus was confined within those bounds.
Once the Maskilic or secular Enlightenment Jews had given up the Torah
as normative, their animus toward Christianity did not cease. They were
now able to act on that animus unencumbered by moral considerations.
They were also especially vulnerable to Messianic, revolutionary
ideologies like communism and sexual liberation. Liberated from the
Law, the Revolutionary Jew now had no scruples about things like mass
murder or using pornography as an instrument of pan-cultural moral
subversion. Everything was permitted as long as it brought about the
universal community in which nationhood and ethnicity wither away to be
replaced by universal brotherhood and some form of heaven on earth.
Because it has abandoned its religious roots, this group tends in
practice to define itself in a purely negative terms, i.e. as not
Christian, as Alan Dershowitz does in his book The Vanishing American
Jew. According to this view, Sigmund Freud, an atheist who thought that
Moses was an Egyptian, is a Jew; whereas Edith Stein, born of a Jewish
mother, intent on worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was
not because she became a Christian.
Since the fall of communism, pornography, by way of the theories of
sexual revolution articulated by Wilhelm Reich, is the remaining form
of revolutionary hope for the latter group of Jews. When Luke Ford
received a letter from a German Turkish girl who wanted to come to
Hollywood to become a porn star, he shared it with his website readers,
one of whom advised him 'not to put her in gangbang scenes as soon as
she steps off the plane at LAX.' This does not mean that he advises her
to stay home and not become involved in pornography, only that Ford
should introduce her to the porn scene gradually. He feels this way for
basically religious reasons because he sees putting her in porn films
as an example of 'tikkun olam' (healing the world).
Whether the term is intended as ironic or not, the fact that it cropped
up in the conversation at all is what motivated Ford to look into the
connection between Jews and pornography in the first place. If Ford
were more knowledgable about Jewish history in general and the story of
Shabbetai Zevi in particular, he might have understood that the
connection between pornography and 'tikkun olam' is not as far-fetched
as it seems on first reading. In a paper presented at a conference
sponsored by The Institute on East Central Europe and The Center for
Israel and Jewish Studies at Columbia University in 1983, Jacob
Allerhand claims that 'according to Sabbatian teachings,' Sabbatai
Zevi's drunken orgies, 'represented erotic mysteries that were supposed
to make a way through the ‘gate of lechery' into the hall of eternity.'
In other words, those Jews who were influenced by the Kabbalah - Jews
like Nathan of Gaza and his protege Shabbetai Zevi - could posit 'a
connection between the Original Sin, with the origin of shame, and the
tikkun (repair of the blemish) as the elimination of shame under the
new messianic order.'
Pornography, in other words, is the latest form of revolutionary hope
for anti-Zionist, non-neoconservative Jews. The neoconservatives, more
like Trotsky than Wilhelm Reich, have invested their hope in the
American empire. A large chunk of recent history has been shaped, in
Rabbi Dresner's words, by 'mesmerized Jews' who made modernity their
project with a vengeance:
Caged within ghetto bars for centuries, the Jews emerged into the
freedom of Western society, where they drank in its culture, tasted its
pleasure and enjoyed its power. They demanded citizenship and were so
eager to be accepted by the majority that they often offered
themselves, sacrificed their history, faith and way of life, their
'identity,' in order that the stigma of their difference might be
obliterated. (p. 234).
Dresner, like Nathan Glazer, sees the Enlightenment, as encountered by
Jews emigrating to America, as precipitating a conflict between faith
and reason which has yet to be resolved:
modern man's society, where the idols of politics, culture, and impulse
are worshipped, Jews have played a major role. That is so, in part,
because in the world's largest Jewish community of Eastern Europe, the
Middle Ages did not gradually give way, as in the West, to the
influences of the Enlightenment's gifts of science and reason. For most
of East European Jewry, the Middle Ages extended down to the nineteenth
century and even beyond. Many of the grandparents of present-day
American Jews emerged overnight, it seemed from benighted,
poverty-stricken villages, little touched by the secular worlds of
culture, into the bright lights of modernity with its abundance of new
knowledge and undreamt-of opportunity. It should come as no surprise
then, that Jews, mesmerized as they must have been by what they saw and
read and heard, should have been among the chief advocates of modernity
. . . (p. 324).
Stephen Steinlight, in a study he did on immigration he did for the
American Jewish Committee, indicates that Jewish political power,
following hard on the heels of disastrous Jewish demographics, is on
the wane. Perhaps this explains the desperation behind Goldhagen's
attack on Pius XII. What's needed at this point is not more libel, not
more anti-Christian animus, but more accountability. If, as Steinlight
says, 'Television is the Jewish industry par excellence,' then can we
hold the Jews accountable for its current parlous state? For its
prurience? For its constant warmongering?
The corrosive effects of Sabbetai Zevi's ecstatic sexual messianism are
with us today in the porn industry and in Wilhelm Reich's philosophy of
control through sexual demoralization. They are still being promoted by
Jews as a form of political control and as a way of weakening the power
of the non-Jewish majority, as their takeover of Palestinian TV
stations and subsequent porn broadcasts during their latest incursion
into the West Bank showed.
If television is 'the Jewish industry par excellence,' are the Jews who
control television responsible for its content and the effect of that
content on the moral and social order? It's long since past time when
someone asked those questions. It's now time that someone answered
E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. is the Editor of Culture Wars magazine, as well
as author of several books available from Fidelity Press.