Far less than meets the eye

My photo
Ecumenism is the Universal Solvent of Tradition .

Weinstein. Meet the new perv boss same as the old perv boss

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/decades-of-sexual-harassment-accusations-against-harvey-weinstein/ar-AAsXGcS
This is, of course, nothing new. Hollywood has 
always been run by decadent, debased, and deracinated Jews ; members of The Tribe who live 
like pigs and use women for sex release.

And these Messias-Deniers have, sadly,
triumphed over The  USCCB who lost their 
nerve to fight them and now just want to be their friends.

Here is an excerpt from The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its impact on World History.
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 America. 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 
to say. 

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. 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 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 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. 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.

https://archive.org/stream/TheJewishRevolutionarySpiritAndItsImpactOnWorldHistoryselections_857/jonesRevJujuSelectionsEtc._djvu.txt


"Because Christ sucks" is why Jews are involved in pornography.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xecTAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95&dq=The+only+reason+that+Jews+are+in+pornography+is+that+we+think+that+Christ+sucks&source=bl&ots=jb3Wh4PrJV&sig=b2IlcCtfA0REpRUfC1E4ug3C1lM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-wcKTtdzWAhVH5GMKHQ9-APoQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=The%20only%20reason%20that%20Jews%20are%20in%20pornography%20is%20that%20we%20think%20that%20Christ%20sucks&f=false