Dr Lasha Darkmoon – Occidental Observer Jan 15, 2013
An edited abridgement of E. Michael Jones’ 2003 essay, Rabbi Dresner’s Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos, presented with pictures and captions by Lasha Darkmoon
“Sexual morality is contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life…. If only Americans knew, we are bringing them the plague!” — Sigmund Freud
I never liked the title of Rabbi Dresner’s book: Can Families Survive in Pagan America? This was published in 1995 by Huntington House out of Lafayettte, Louisiana.
The Jews had prospered in America, we learn from the book, but they had 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: just like the other 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 no longer Jews.
Jews, according to Dresner, have tried all things. In the process they have exhausted modernity. And they have discovered, to their chagrin, the puzzling truth that
no license has replaced the Law; no symphony, the Psalms; no country club, the synagogue; no mansion, the home; no mistress, a wife; no towering metropolis, Jerusalem; no impulse, the joy of doing a mitzvah; no man, God. (p. 329)
1. Introducing Rabbi Dresner
Samuel H. Dresner was born into an assimilationist-minded Jewish family in Chicago in 1923. 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. 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 in many ways one long invidious comparison between the Jews of America and the Jews of Eastern Europe.
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 to say.
2. Rabbi Dresner’s assault on American Jewry
Rabbi Dresner was among the first to spot trends destructive of Judaism in literature, film and radical feminism.
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 my then just released book The Medjugorje Deception, with an inscription to the effect that there were no Jewish villains in it.
“What a tragedy,” Dresner points out, “if now that the gentiles are listening, the Jews have nothing to say.” When Families appeared, this gentile was listening, because he felt that this Jew had something to say.
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 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, and sexual experimentation. (pp. 190-1).
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 have a “debased view of the human body and spirit.”
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.
3. Hollywood’s decadence and subversion of morals
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 had always had this “permissive, value-free attitude” when it came to matters venereal.
Beginning in the 1920s, 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 banks.
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.
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 1930s:
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 (Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored, p. 70).
What was true then is a fortiori true today. Jews dominate Hollywood and always have.
4. Jews dominate Hollywood, but you mustn’t mention it
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 a 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 US 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 precisely what Gabler had already 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.”
— The Spectator, October 1994
TRYING TO LOOK JEWISH
(LD: Dr Jones’ comments on the complete Jewish takeover of Hollywood were written in 2003 when it was still considered outrageous to suggest Jewish hegemony in Hollywood. It was okay for Jews to boast about the fact, but not for gentiles to deplore it. Since then, there have been much more emphatic claims of dominance. “I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government,” Jewish columnist Joel Stein bragged in the Los Angeles Times in December 2008. “I just care that we get to keep running them.” Mr Stein’s reckless candor in admitting that the Jews not only ran Hollywood, but America itself, was to cost him his job at the LA Times.)
5. Jews v. Catholics
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. The cultural prominence of Jews like Woody Allen was especially painful for Dresner—because they had become cultural icons by promoting sexual deviance.
“Don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with someone I love.” — Woody Allen, who was later accused by Mia Farrow of sexually molesting their adopted 7-year-old daughter Dylan.
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.
6. Jews are “despoilers of morality and corrupters of culture”
“Jews,” Rabbi Dresner tells us, “have played a less than admirable role in the sexual revolution” (p. 155). He continues: “Many liberal rabbis are in the forefront of the pro-abortion 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.
The rootless Jews who dominate Hollywood and, as a result, American culture as a whole, have defined themselves, in Dresner’s words, as “despoilers of morality and corrupters of culture.”
Dresner is concerned that others have noticed the same thing.
He cites a letter to a 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 says 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.
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.
7. Jewish history is “one long battle against sexual deviance”
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.”
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 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.
David Bakan has written a book in which he claims that Freud was a follower of the Jewish false Messiah Sabbatai 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 conjure up painful memories,” Dresner tells us, “of the infamous seventeenth century false messiah Sabbatai Zevi 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.” (p.160)
“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).
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 is long-suffering of all manner of crime, save sexual immorality. (p. 85)
The Jewish battle against sexual excess continues to the present day.
Richard Pacheco, retired Jewish porn star and self-confessed sexual degenerate. Asked if he still watched adult movies now that he was a Senior Citizen, the former rabbinical student replied: “Not much. Occasionally I’ll toss one on for masturbation if my wife ain’t around.” (See here). We shall meet up with Mr Pacheco again in Part 2 of this essay.
End of Part 1.